Dick Cheney: Irrelevant, But He And Fox News Don’t Yet Know It

 

It isn’t unusual for Right-wing zealots and war-mongers like Dick Cheney to rise to any occasion (self perceived opportunity) for a bit of Obama Derangement Bashing. Yet, Cheney’s insanity of late is a bit unusual. His use of SNAP benefits for political rhetoric is shameful. Fox News and Cheney joined this week to take political shots at the Obama Administration while ignoring the benefit of SNAP benefits for segments of the population that include military families.

 

Cheney has again come-out of obscurity to lead the insanity after Secretary of Defense Hagel mentioned Obama Administration intent to trim the nation’s defense budget. MSNBC’s Ari Melber filling-in for Melissa Harris-Perry broadcast a segment befitting Cheney’s penchant for speaking out after sensing the ‘red meat’ opportunity.  

We offer a few visual perspectives of Dick Cheney as fallacy. The following represent a few points for clear delineation.

Dick Cheney….

…. was as active as anyone in the fabrication of WMD to facilitate the charge into Iraq. 

….is a former CEO of Halliburton (and an inevitable high-level benefactor of the billions you and I spent to perpetrate that war). 

…. was without doubt an conspirator in the first time eve outing of a US CIA agent as retribution against her husband (who would not support lies about Uranium foe WMD form Niger: Joe Wilson). 

…. never spoke out once about GOP cuts to the SNAP program while lower rank military families in the thousands derive life-sustaining benefit from Food Stamps.

Media Matters illustrates the insanity of Dick Cheney and the network that allows him to call-in for spewing anti-Obama drivel while using food stamps as a prop.

 

February 12th, 2013 excerpt

The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 12 top-spending countries combined. PolitiFact examined data by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), both “considered to be leading authorities on worldwide military spending numbers,” and determined that, “In 2011 — the most recent year available — the United States led the world in military spending at $711 billion … The next top 12 spending nations accounted for a combined total of $670.9 billion.” IISS data discovered that the U.S spends $252.6 billion more on defense than the next top nine nations.

SIPRI also foundthat U.S. military spending accounted for 41 percent of the world’s total military spending in 2011. The U.S.’s expenditure is about five times more than the second-highest spender, China, which accounted for 8.2 percent of the world total. Russia’s military spending is in third place with 4.1 percent. 

The United States’ defense spending compared to the rest of the world looks something like this, from George Washington University’s School of Media Public Affairs:

Now for a quick visuals that place defense spending in perspective.

Defense Spending as a percent of US Discretionary Spending (2013)

A closer look at how our tax dollars are used to fund the military industrial complex.

 

WHERE YOUR INCOME TAX MONEY REALLY GOES 5 1% T O WA R HUMAN

WHERE YOUR INCOME TAX MONEY REALLY GOES 5 1 T O WA R HUMAN”

“WHERE YOUR INCOME TAX MONEY REALLY GOES 5 1 T O WA R HUMAN”;

How about a little something from the Daily Kos

Click here for interactive chart.

Cheney and the spoils of war

Ari Melber  http://on.msnbc.com/1eM79b5

Dick Cheney’s national approval rating only slightly higher than the ratings of the US Congress. Yet for sake of propaganda Fox News provides the Cheney a platform. 

"If Your Paycheck Could Talk!"

A stark reality! And, actual military needs that do not match the 2014 military budgets.

How often have you heard this? “….we cannot afford it.!”  

It is as common to GOP mantra as their over use of the dog dog whistle “voter fraud” (when there is no voter fraud). Once I asked a dentist if he believed we should have universal care, he muttered “yes,” and much more clearly asked, “But, how are we going to pay for it.”

Let’s post a bit of perspective right-up-front. Perspective from 2011.

Do we as a nation really have to spend as indicated above?

Yes of course, we are pointing our fingers at defense spending. After all, liberals work to develop this page. Well, not all conservatives have history of hawkishness which contributes to our military industrial complex and the bar chart posted above.  There are, or we should say have been high-level republicans who have spoken-out.  We exaggerate, there has been one very high-level republican who spoke-out against militarism rooted in revenues for corporate entities and lobbying money to members of congress.  Take a look and listen (2:31 minutes). You will find no other Republicans who has or will speak accordingly. In fact, you will find democrats who also support the data posted above.

National Priorities Project posted animated video on how federal spending is influenced its various components. Components that show military or defense spending as appearing excessive and over-blown rot he level of defense over-kill. 

Attribution via Upworthy: “This little ditty was made by the folks at National Priorities Project. Many more videos can be found on their YouTube channel.

http://youtu.be/f_c_OsHlCL8

Are we via the GOP members of Congress, cutting Supplemental Nutrition and assistance Programs (SNAP). Programs that feed less fortunate Americans, children, in some cases our elderly and active military families? 

Are we not fighting battles related to the Affordable Care Act with barrages of GOP mantra about costs? Costs factored against insuring millions and ridding the nation of draconian insurance policies, is a non-issue. Humanity should rule. Yet, “humanity” does  not rule with the GOP, despite facing data as depicted above.

Aren’t we as a nation living in a Transportation Jurassic Era regarding rapid transit when compared against other nations.

Costs!  A critical factor in everyday life, but take a few minutes and listen to an NPR segment broadcast during morning drive time (today): Linked. You will be astounded how consideration of people and customers took a back set to cost to corporations (which are passed on to us as customers) contributed to the Target’s hack-attack over this recently past holiday season.  Cost!  Again, the example doesn’t relate to federal government spending, but “costs” are driving the US into Jurassic periods that in the long-term hurt average citizens. 

We cannot afford continental rapid transit, we cannot afford to modernize our credit card charging systems, we cannot afford, we cannot afford.  

We approach our review of defense spending as delineated above. How about a look at how Fox News presents the issue to its viewers? 
Mediaite…. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/12/fox-news-chart-helps-paint-distorted-picture-of/192634

Of course, we recognize that our deficits and national spending are in areas of serious concern. We are paying for federal malfeasance reaped upon the nation since the early 1980s.  If you will take a few more minutes and locate any data related to how we got into the fiscal mess we now languish through, you will clearly see it has been very one-sided politically.

People should seriously wake-up and recognize the GOP is dangerous to the nation.

“….we cannot afford it!” ….”Can we afford it.”

We posit, we cannot afford to not afford it!

The Sequester: Federal Government Post George W. Bush

It seems objections to “paying our national debts” via raising the debt ceiling became unacceptable once President Obama took office.  Now, that beckons questions as to why?

Recognizing the Federal Deficit at $16 trillion in 2013 Vs. the following reference to 2011 $14 trillion, we find the follwoing graphic relevant and expedient in locating. 

It is noteworthy to point out Obama’s deficit increases are distributed between fighting off an economic depression, healthcare reform and a ‘surge’ in Afghanistan (foolish decision).

Which US President is “king’ of Debt Ceiling increases through 2011? Remember, the ‘sequester’ was hatched in the fall of 2011. 

As we come closer to yet another artificial deadline in the nation’s battles over the deficit, we thought it might be good to find as basic an explanation of the “mess” as we can locate.

Govloop dot com provides such an opportunity.  Emily Jarvis keyed a piece easily readable in three minutes. The piece is also accompanied by an audio embed.

Sequestration 101 — Do you actually know how it would work?

• Posted by Emily Jarvis on September 26, 2012 at 2:30pm
• View Blog

Be honest. You have heard us all talking/worrying/complaining about the potential for sequestration since August of 2011, but do you actually know how it would work? I, for one, only had a loose understanding of the process. 

Todd Harrison is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He gave Chris Dorobek on the DorobekINSIDER a detailed breakdown of sequestration and its impact government wide.

 

Harrison’s Take

First Off: A History Lesson 

Back in July/August of 2011 when we were approaching the debt ceiling, Congress came together for some last minute negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. That agreement was called the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Act formed the Super Committee tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions. But, the Act also created a binding way to force the cuts in the case the Super Committee failed — that binding resolution was sequestration.

Sequestration was created from an old 1985 law that Congress amended to make sequestration legal. 

Not surprisingly the Super Committee failed. So that leaves us with the January 2nd deadline for all agencies to cut their accounts across the government not just at the Defense Department. 

How Sequestration Actually Works 

Agencies must calculate the amount of cuts required overall. That’s roughly $109 billon that they have to find in savings by fiscal 2013. Half of that (roughly $55 billon) will be taken from DoD.

The cuts have to be applied as a uniform percentage cut across all accounts down at the project level. That amounts to a roughly 10% cut on all projects.

There is one exception, the President has the option to exempt military personnel accounts. President Obama has indicated that he will do that. 

White House Sequestration Plan 

Congress started to get nervous with what the cuts would actually look like, so they passed a new law to force the White House outline in a transparent way what sequestration will look like. 

In a 300 page document the White House went line by line through the budget to show what would by cut and by how much. 

Across the Board Cuts 

Across the board cuts are a cop out. But the real problem, is cuts can have some unintended consequences. Imagine your family budget. You budget so much money every month for rent, food, car and insurance. Imagine if you had to cut each of those areas by 10%. Some things like your grocery bill you can cut fairly easily. But your rent for example you just can’t cut by 10%. That would mean moving and breaking your lease.

This is the same problem for the DoD.

Take the 200 tomahawk cruise missiles the DoD buys each year from the contractor Raytheon. The contractor is set up to build at that production rate. So if the DoD comes to Raytheon and says I’ve got to cut 10%, I can only buy 180 units. The government is going to have to break the current contract and negotiate a new deal. Raytheon is going to need to adjust it’s production so maybe they have to lay off some people or change the price per unit. So really with that 10% cut you are paying more for each missile. So in the end you don’t end up with 180 missiles you end up with fewer for the the 10% cut. 

Some Program Just Can’t Be Cut 

For example the Defense Health Program is the military help system. It is not covered under the military personnel exemption so by law it will have to cut its services by 10%. That means about $3 billon will have to come out of the budget. But they system provides health benefits to 10 million active and retired military personnel. It’s not possible for them to make the cuts. So they will have to go to Congress and submit a re-programming request and hope for Congressional approval. 

Will Sequestration Happen? 

It may depend on the election outcome.

If Congress/White House maintain the status quo: Its reasonable that there would be an incentive for lawmakers to work out a compromise in the lame duck session.

If there is a significant change in control in either branch: there may be incentive for the party that is going to gain power to delay things and not work out a compromise until they take power. But sequestration goes into effect on the 2nd of January, the President gets sworn in on the 4, and Congress not until the 20th, so in that case sequestration could go into effect.

A last minute compromise is also possible where they delay starting sequestration until April. Pass the ball down the field a little bit to take the pressure off.

Either way, we won’t know until the last minute. 

How Should You Prepare? 

Plan for uncertainty. But that’s hard because a 10% cut is a big uncertainty.

Agencies should be looking at funding sources and how they would be affected, they should start to develop contingency plans. This is especially important for civilian employees because they will be the first to be affected. So if sequestration happens, furloughs will also happen to reduce funding in all accounts. Contractors have a little more time to deal with sequestration. The impact will be delayed because they depend on the outlays for funding. Sequestration acts on budget authority (how much money an agency actually has). Contractors probably won’t feel a huge delay for 3 years. But uncertainty makes it almost impossible for contractors to hire new employees or build new factories. 

Cuts No Matter What  

No matter if sequestration happens are not the government needs to understand that cuts are coming. It’s two fold. First we are facing a record federal deficit. Second, we have very low revenues.

The President has proposed reducing the war budget and reducing the DoD’s base budget slightly, and then keeping it stagnant for a few years. 

But if you really want to see major deficit reduction you need to look at Medicare and Social Security. Currently the DoD accounts for 15% of the budget, Medicare 14% and Social Security 22%. But the Social Security and Medicare percentages will continue to grow with the babyboomers expected to retire over the next 10 years. We are facing a big deficit no matter what unless we reform those two elements 

We understand US Politics, and we understand the nature of US politics since the late 1970s and early 1980s.  For the informed, we know GOP mantra about fiscal conservatism is nothing more than the party’s egregious use of a southern strategy as a campaign tool in national elections.  As tragic as anything political in 2012/13, 47% of voters fell for GOP mantra, political acuity (even with horrid candidates), and mind altering propaganda from highly compensation media demagogues.  We do not understand how people who consider themselves conservatives have little to no influence over forcing their obstructionist representatives to “See the light”. The “light” of potential progress in ridding ourselves of the vestiges of the Bush financial record.  How can so many Americans avoid empirical data, and avoid post election observation (post 2010) as factors that influence their votes.

I find so many conservatives expended inordinate energy and cognitive processes following right-wing social biases, bigotry and divisiveness. 

They watch their politicians write and propose legislation after legislation related to abortion while not taking a moment to rial about jobs.  They fully support GOP efforts to cut Human Services programs without one iota of contemplation of future personal need.  And they do so without pressing for reduction defense spending and raising taxes on the nation’s wealthy.

The Federal Deficit is fed by expenditures that costume 57% of the nation’s discretionary spending.

The GOP lives and breathes defense spending. Yet, for some reason post 2009 after supporting Bush for eight years, they obstruct at paying debts they helped to accumulate.

________________________

Additional Sequester basics source: 2012: http://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/about/summit/2012-summit/2012-materials/nsc_sequestration101_2012-02.pdf

Defense Spending: A National Tragedy

…all said, I suppose the US is prepared for the invasion of the Insects.   Why did I not realize the need for such obscene defense suspending!

If you visit from time to time or are linked via email notifications, you know we have long posited about the obscene levels and expenditures on Defense Spending.   Defense spending in the US is an untouchable Goliath that consumes 58 % of 2013 (Budget) Discretionary Spending.  Wile we realize consistent readers know discretionary spending, allow a moment for clarity and differentiation.

Dave Manual Dot Com

Definition of Discretionary Spending What is “discretionary spending”? What is the definition of the term “discretionary spending”? “Discretionary spending” and “mandatory spending” are the two types of spending that make up the sum total US government expenditures on a yearly basis.  “Mandatory spending” is spending that is automatically obligated due to previously-enacted laws. This would include things such as Social Security and the interest on the national debt.  “Discretionary spending”, on the other hand, consists of US government expenditures that are set on a yearly basis. This is money that members of Congress can adjust on a yearly basis.   Examples of discretionary spending in the United States: -defense budget -education -Environmental Protection Agency -Department of Veterans Affairs  When looking to cut costs, lawmakers usually look to trimming discretionary spending.

For those who are not aware or need a nasty reminder.

When you compare our military budget to the rest of the world, it looks like this, which is ridiculous:

Infographic courtesy Face the Facts USA Dot Org


The World spends on defense. Of particular note,  US allies generally spend more on education. One has to wonder why?  If you also wonder why, take a look at the second pit chart above and think for a moment about why the US defense budget is so astronomically out of sync with our historic adversaries. Of course, Israel is not depicted in the graphic.

Click for larger version

Yes, you have seen it all before. I post because of again awakening this  morning to hearing yet another republican speaking about cutting spending with a focus on Human Services programs. The GOP never will consider rational defense budgets.  Even rational Progressives sometime mentions “jobs” when the words defense spending hits the table. 

There is no sane justification nor rationalization for Defense Spending that consumes 57% to 58% (depending on source data) of the nation’s discretionary spending. 

Only one political party serves as guardian of the 58% reality!  Members of that party also consistent vote to cut services to the nation’s needy. They always vote to preserve subsidies for Big Oil. And, they crave to rid the nation of the Affordable Care Act that will one day provide medical coverage for millions who do not yet have said coverage. 

Whenever my mind goes to this topic and in comparison the items just above, I think in terms of those who vote at the 47%level for Romney/Ryan.  Are you really a Grim Ripper and do not realize such until you look really deep and ask a few questions?

 

A Mid Week Visual Journey Into Spending (Defense)

Mitt Romney: ‘I Will Not Cut The Military Budget‘

Some special watched over the nation on November 6th the leading up to the Vote.  Now only would Romney not cut military budget he spoke of new aircraft carriers, more surface ships, 100,000 more troops and he hedged on comment about coming out of Afghanistan.

But, this work is not about the some to be forgotten Mitt Romney, it is about Defense spending without all the verbiage.  Just allow the images to sink-in.

Tell us about ‘hands off defense cuts”



How about a look back to 2009




And we have members of Congress who will rail about entitlement programs vs defense spending! 


OK what is wrong with this picture. These troops are not in the state of Texas!


The ridiculousness of it all!

Take Medicare From My Grandma and Grandpa. Seriously?

The logic please?

We have a graphic like the one above. We have the Bush tax cuts link here.    And, we have GOP that will not consider oil subsidies, will not consider a small business tax cut (jobs bill) and a GOP that will not pass a bill related to full disclosure.

 

Some how things look very upside down!

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children."

Children are cherished beings, military weapons are discard-able things.

I love quotes. 

They are snippets of the mind which are often shortened for poignant and cogent delivery of a message.  One of my favorite quotes comes for the “Father of Modern Day Conservatism”. The Father of Trickle-down economics:

“Facts are stubborn things”. Ronald Reagan. 

If you read The Progressive Influence you have seen the quote before. 


Since, I am on the topic of quotes and in the political realm, try this one on for size.

A thought for people who should care!
“The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer German Protestant theologian & anti-Nazi activist (1906 – 1945)

ThinkProgress

Dead Child’s Family Struggled To Pay Medical Bills After Florida Slashed Health Care Assistance

By Annie-Rose Strasser on May 23, 2012  Joey Cosmillo via The Orlando Sentinel A boy who nearly drowned five years ago passed away this week, after state budget cuts increased the cost of his care. Joey Cosmillo almost died as a one year old after he fell in a pool, but was rescued and survived another five years with extensive medical assistance. Then two years ago, Florida lawmakers slashed health care funding for low-income people in favor of corporate tax cuts, and Cosmillo fell victim to the cuts. According to his grandmother, the family struggled to pay Joey’s mounting medical bills, and the state assistance that used to help them wasn’t an option anymore: See More:

ThinkProgress

GOP Senator: We Need ‘Child Labor’ To Fight Obesity Epidemic

By Marie Diamond on Jan 17, 2012  Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) At a recent town hall in Osage, Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) responded to a question about the Labor Department’s stricter limits on child labor by claiming that they could exacerbate the child obesity epidemic by making kids less “active”: Concern was raised about the proposed Department of Labor’s intent to greatly limit child labor on family farms. “This farm bill will greatly affect our FFA and 4-H programs,” said Grassley. “Kids won’t be able to help on farms not owned by their parents. “It’s interesting that this child labor bill goes against Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity initiative,” said Grassley. “How can kids be active if they are limited by this law?“ Grassley represents a farm state that both relies on child labor and contributes to the national obesity epidemic through its production of corn products like high-fructose corn syrup. Iowa farmers benefit from billions of dollars in corn subsidies that allow them to put a glut of cheap, unhealthy foods on the market. As for his Dickensian defense of child labor, that’s sadly par for the course for Republicans these days. Several GOP-led states have rolled back child labor laws. In December, seventy rural state lawmakers led by Rep. Danny Rehberg (R-MT) denounced the Labor Department’s new protections for the country’s most vulnerable workers. They argued that hard manual labor teaches children important “life lessons.” Under current law,400,000 children working on farms are not protected from exploitation and dangerous labor. The proposed rules would forbid children younger than 16 from working with pesticides, timber operations, handling “power-driven equipment, or contributing to the “cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco.” See More…

ThinkProgress

Single-Parenthood Contributes To Child Abuse

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Mar 1, 2012  The Wisconsin state Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services and Revenue will hold a hearing today on a bill authored by state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R) that would force the sate to say that “nonmarital parenthood” contributes to child abuse and neglect, and distribute official literature saying as much. His legislation would add the bolded portions to Wisconsin state law: Section 1. 48.982 (2) (g) 2. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect. Section 2. 48.982 (2) (g) 4. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 4. Disseminate information about the problems of and methods of preventing child abuse and neglect to the public and to organizations concerned with those problems. In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect. Single parents make up about a third of all Wisconsin parents — all part of a grand leftist conspiracy, according to Grothman. “The Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government,” he explained last July. See More…

The Daily KOS

New Michigan GOP law will let children under 10 carry loaded firearms

By Electablog WED JUL 13, 2011 Just when you thought the Republicans in Michigan had completely lost their minds, this week we find they had just a bit more of their minds to lose. On July 7, both the state House and Senate passed bills that will allow children under the age of 10 to carry loaded weapons to go hunting. I’m not making this up. The proposed Mentored Youth Hunting Program is outlined in Senate Bill 207, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township, and House Bill 4371, both of which await Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature.Under current law, Michigan youth must be at least age 10 to get a hunter’s license, and at least age 12 to hunt with a firearm.Under the new law, children under the age of 10 will be allowed to carry a firearm to hunt.  Why the push to let these extremely young children to carry loaded guns? Because hunting is on the wane in Michigan. See More…

AddictingInfo

Sarah Palin Claims Child Labor Laws Are Causing America To Fail

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.  April 26, 2012 Before the establishment of child labor laws in America, children were exploited by industries. Industries took advantage of them by having them do jobs that were dangerous while paying them very little. A corporation could easily pay a child less to do the job of a higher paid adult. During the Great Depression, Democrats enacted child labor laws so that businesses would have no choice to hire unemployed adults and pay them fair wages. This helped lower the unemployment rate and gave children the opportunity to be kids and go to school to prepare for future employment as adults. But child labor laws are under attack today by conservatives who want to hand big business a cheap labor force, destroy the minimum wage, eliminate labor unions, and weaken public education. Newt Gingrich suggested eliminating child labor laws during his failed run to capture the Republican nomination for the Presidency. Now, his biggest supporter, Sarah Palin, is claiming that child labor laws are making America fail. In a Facebook post titled “If I Wanted America to Fail, I’d Ban Kids From Farm Work,” Palin wrote, “The Obama Administration is working on regulations that would prevent children from working on our own family farms. This is more overreach of the federal government with many negative consequences. And if you think the government’s new regs will stop at family farms, think again.” See More….

ThinkProgress

House GOP Would Kick 280,000 Children Off School Lunch Program To Protect Tax Cut For Millionaires

By Guest Blogger on Apr 25, 2012  Our guest blogger is Melissa Boteach, director of Half In Ten at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home. Ten years’ worth of these nutrition cuts could be prevented for the price of one year of tax cuts on 3,340 multimillion dollar estates that House Republicans are protecting in their budget. On April 18 the House Agriculture Committee passed a bill cutting over $33 billion from SNAPover the next decade. About one-third of these cuts ($11.5 billion) comes from putting restrictions on “categorical eligibility,” a provision that enables states to better coordinate between programs and improves access to assistance for low-income families. By restricting this provision, the bill would kick an average of 1.8 million low-income people a year off of food aid and end automatic enrollment in free school meals for 280,000 children in struggling families. The Republican budget sells this bill as an effort to “reduce lower‐priority spending” to avert military cuts that will otherwise take place in January 2013 due to the debt deal agreed to last summer. But when it comes to reducing the deficit, it’s clear the House would rather ask low-income kids and families struggling against hunger to foot the bill than asking multimillion-dollar estates to pay their fair share. Case in point: As part of the 2010 tax-cut compromise, House Republicans insisted on including a tax cut on multimillion dollar estates, adding an estimated $11.5 billion to the deficit this year alone. That’s the same amount they’re now claiming is necessary to cut from low-income families through these restrictions. See More….

Rep. Van Hollen: GOP sequester bill built on ‘pork-barrel politics’

By Carlo Munoz – 05/14/12 ET A House GOP plan to cut social welfare programs to stave off automatic defense spending reductions is yet another example of the political “games being played with defense and national security” by Republicans, a top House Democrat said Monday.  Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, slammed House Republicans’ plan to shave $243 billion from the national deficit.  Van Hollen called the proposal “congressional, pork-barrel politics” in a conference call with reporters on Monday. “Despite the rhetoric … [that’s] what it comes down to,” he said, accusing GOP lawmakers of blocking legislation that could better protect funding for national security priorities. His comments come days after the GOP-controlled House blocked a Democratic debt-relief plan from coming to the floor for a vote. Led by Van Hollen, the Democratic plan would have implemented cuts to government farm subsidies and ended federal payouts to oil companies. The plan would have eliminated a portion of the $500 billion the White House ordered the Pentagon to cut from its coffers over the next decade. Republicans on the House Rules Committee blocked Van Hollen’s plan from coming to the House floor for a vote last Thursday.  The GOP plan, which was approved by a party-line vote of 233-183, however, calls for sharp cuts to the federal food stamps and national school lunch programs, and limits Medicaid payments to pay for the defense budget cuts.  During debate, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said both parties opposed the so-called “sequester” cuts to discretionary spending, but Republicans were pushing a bill that would extract savings from needed social programs to dodge defense cuts.

The excerpts post above are the result of  a quick and dirty scrounge around for examples of how the GOP legislates against the good of the people vs. cutting defense sending defense and protecting the wealthy.


Bonhoeffer’s quote is one for all time.  


The GOP is ‘what it is’, the real questions is, “why do we, the voters, continue to blindly support a congress that will allow defense spending to consume over 50 % of the nation’s discretionary spending. And they do so while cutting school food programs, reducing food stamps to the poor, and even cutting programs to benefit the disabled.


There is something about that ‘picture’ the seems very much unlike ‘america and appears similar to an era when someone allegedly uttered, “Let them eat cake”.

President Obama needs to stand his ground on Medicare and Social Security

 

Late last week the Washington Post published a ‘cannot stop reading’ chronicle about the 2011 deficit/debt  “grand bargain” failure between President Obama, Speaker Boehner and House Leader Cantor.   The detailed accounting provides a punch-by-punch narrative of how our federal government works when it comes to major initiatives.   The amenable personality of President Obama was ever-present in the negotiations as major negotiation points (items) were bantered back and forth. On the other side of the “isle” Boehner and cantor appeared to have made an effort towards a ‘grand bargain’ deal; they were hindered in their progress via their self-inflicted Tea Party contingent. The high-level negotiations span the better part of a week (or two weeks).  Key to the negotiation items were the Bush taxes cuts, tax increase for the wealthy, Healthcare reform (peripherally) and entitlement programs. For a bit of flavor of the Washington Post article,  read the following series of excerpts.  The excerpts are not contiguous article excerpts.

 ...Excited and upbeat three days earlier, Obama now was stern and lecturing. According to notes taken by GOP aides, he opened by complaining about Boehner’s demand for $200 billion in Medicaid cuts, a persistent point of contention. Then he began to talk about taxes, saying the Gang of Six “makes things more complicated.” The White House would need more tax revenue or smaller health-care cuts. 

….Boehner opened by expressing continued support for a big deal. But he told Obama that Republicans could not sign off on $1.2 trillion in new taxes. “I cannot go there,” he said. Nor could he sell $800 billion in tax increases without cuts to federal health programs, the biggest drivers of future borrowing.

….Boehner said Republicans could accept automatic repeal of the top-end Bush tax cuts as an enforcement trigger only if that were balanced by automatic repeal of a key piece of Obama’s signature health-care law, the individual mandate. Here in the president’s own office, Boehner used the most derisive terminology of conservative critics, calling it “Obamacare.”

….On Thursday morning, aides to Boehner and Cantor gathered again at the White House. During a two-hour meeting, the two sides hashed over minute details of a deal, never actually killing the president’s request for additional tax revenue.

Later that day, Obama called Boehner. The two spoke as if an agreement was still possible. 

“We’re close,” Obama said. “Call me back.” 

That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. 

Would they support him? 

The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled. 

….Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan. 

Boehner, meanwhile, had gone dark. 

The House speaker did not return Obama’s call until 5:30 p.m. the next day, a Friday, when he told the president that he was again breaking off the talks. The two men staged dueling news conferences. Obama said angrily that he had been “left at the altar” again. Boehner said dealing with the White House was “like dealing with a bowl of Jell-o.” 

“There was an agreement with the White House for $800 billion in revenue,” Boehner told reporters. “It was the president who walked away from this agreement.” 

Two day(s) later, July 24, one week after the Sunday morning meeting that sparked such optimism, the president found himself trying to turn back the clock. 

Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. His message: I’ll take your last offer.

“Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”

I am going to now post a series of charts and graphs related to the nation’s defense and military spending.  Alas, you did not see defense spending among the negotiations items listed above. As you review the illustrations, keep in-mind you read nothing above related to cutting defense spending.  If you want to see one piece of data that should guide your thoughts as you view the illustration: 48 % of US Discretionary Spending is consumed by defense spending.


I am certain I need not mention the following, but just in case; think about our aging citizenry, people who are struggling to remain in the middle income strata, people without healthcare and our less than world class infrastructure.


Exhibit I.  58% of Discretionary Spending: Defense

 

Exhibit II. Worldwide Defense Spending. Do we really need to spend at the levels depicted in this illustration? (Seek larger view below image)

Larger Version  (A must review… 48%of world expenditures @ 711 billion USA)

Exhibit III.  Military Spending 1988 – 2010 (consider using the linked interactive chart)

Interactive version  (Intriguing to move interactive inside bar and watch as spending decrees and increases since 1990.


Exhibit IV.  The Business Insider (compares our spending with data reflecting our population as compared to other industrialized nations).

The Business Insider (Charts our path to destruction)

http://www.businessinsider.com/embed?id=4e96f3a76bb3f7c51800001a&width=600&height=530

If you came away from the illustrations and images and do not better understanding the level at which the nation’s military industrial complex consumes our economy, you are truly on the wrong webpage.


It appears the expenditure consuming sector is so ingrained common Democratic concern for defense spending, has become a thing of the past. Can you remember the last time you actually heard a Democrat speak about defense spending? I do not recall any such comment over the past two years.


Why start the piece out with a picture of the Pentagon’s latest hundred million dollar per copy jet fighter (in development)? President Obama has inadvertently fallen into “48% of Discretionary” Spending GOP paradigm via not including defense spending as an ongoing item for deficit/debt negotiations. The non-inclusion is a major win for ‘military spending hawks,” as they have the president and his team focused on whittling away at entitlement programs. Of course, Medicare is a major current and exponentially even more serious drain on future spending. However,  it seems to pale in comparison to the illustrations above (and the data from which the images were developed). How much funding could we gain from serious cuts in defense spending, with trimmed expenditures ear-marked for funding of entitlement programs? Why is Bernie Sanders (D) Vermont that only member of congress who has spoken openly about removing the $106,800 CAP on payment of social Security Payroll Taxes? Why can’t those who are fortunate enough to earn at higher levels pay payroll taxes further into the year? If you earn less than $106,800 per year, you pay the tax from January 1 through December 31 of same year.


Are we getting our monies worth via our representatives in Washington D.C.? On matters of deficit/debt, I am speaking from the president down through the lowest level of congressional aide. It appears we are paying members of our Federal Government ‘hefty’ levels of compensation, AND FREE MEDICAL CARE, in some cases free college tuition for their children, and we are getting next to nothing in exchange.


It really boils down to the simple fact that we have wealthy people (In Washington DC) bantering around with our middle class futures. 


President Obama should reach much deeper for negations items. Defense spending is fertile ground.

“Obamacons” turn back to Republicans?????

Exactly what is a Obamacon”?  Reuters has published an article that on its surface seems to serve as some sort of prelude to President Obama’s Electoral doom.  Obamacons?

Reuters…..

Known as “Obamacons,” moderate Republicans helped make the Democrat’s case in 2008 that he was a new breed of “post-partisan” politician who would work with both parties. Obama’s youth and the narrative of electing the first black president also attracted Republicans to make a rare show of support for a Democratic candidate.

"Obamacons" turn back to Republicans?????

Exactly what is a Obamacon”?  Reuters has published an article that on its surface seems to serve as some sort of prelude to President Obama’s Electoral doom.  Obamacons?

Reuters…..

Known as “Obamacons,” moderate Republicans helped make the Democrat’s case in 2008 that he was a new breed of “post-partisan” politician who would work with both parties. Obama’s youth and the narrative of electing the first black president also attracted Republicans to make a rare show of support for a Democratic candidate. 

“They were actually drawn to the sense of hope that he represented. They also liked the fact that he was black,” said David Gergen, who has served as an advisor to Republican and Democratic presidents. 

Perhaps the most famous Obamacon was former Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose endorsement of Obama shortly before Election Day was a turning point in the 2008 campaign. Powell’s staff says he has not decided who to support in 2012.

I believe the Reuter’s writer’s comments are somewhat factual and even more interesting. Interesting, from the perspective that people really do not factor-in the horrible opponents that candidate Obama ran against in 2007/2008.  How about a few words in acknowledgement that McCain/Palin was a ticket doomed to failure from the moment that McCain was given the nomination? When the GOP added Palin to the ticket, it gave a temporary uplift; the party had stepped way outside of this political model and nominated a woman as Vice President.   The political rise was thoroughly  surpassed by a historical political decent as Palin showed the extent that she  was not ready 

for  national office.

So lets place the Obamacons in perspective.

Presidential re-election statistics are not in President Obama’s favor.  No president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment  rate of 7 per cent and higher.  Well,  the U.S. unemployment rate will be in excess of 8.5 per cent well past 2012/2013.  So, it looks like doom for certain, eh?  Of course, the economy is not improving as expected by our short-term psyches, and we cannot seem to stay mindful that the economy is not significantly worsening.   I read this week that the manufacturing sector is down for the year but I also read this morning that hiring picked up in October while layoffs subsided a bit. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicator is as follows…..

“….increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the third quarter of 2011 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter) according to the “advance” estimate  released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3 percent.” according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

We all know the status of the stock market. If it were not for the economic turmoil in Greece the U.S. Dow Jones   Industrial  Average would have continued at a historical pace for October 2011 and probably well into November 2011.

As the economy goes, the Obamacon perspective puzzles me greatly. Before, I write one more letter,  I will admit to my own frustrations with President Obama.  However, my frustrations do not at all coincide with economic items listed above.

So, the Obamacon’s see doom and nothing but doom.

“Doom”  denotes no hope of improvement and hang your head in shameful defeatism.  

The Obamacons should look a whole bunch closer at the political environment before they start to ooze around speaking about their ‘doom’.  

How would the unemployment figures look if the GOP had allowed our automobile industry to join our electronics industry overseas? A million U.S. workers may have lost heir jobs.   Hundreds of thousands of direct labor automobile workers coupled with even great numbers of ancillary workers in related industries. Unemployment at 9.1%; try-on  10% to 12 % and see how that fits. 

Many people comment about the president’s spending.  Yes, he has put forth legislation and initiatives that increased spending. He has also sought and authorized spending on efforts to recovery from  Bush/ Cheney and the result of their 8 year reign over our economy.  Do you think that stimulus spending was for any purpose beyond dealing with the economy President inherited?  In fact, he was not allowed his full request for stimulus spending at %1.3 Trillion. The request was trimmed to $780 Billion (about) by the GOP and Blue Dog democrats. Paul Krugman and many progressive economists told the Administration that they were settling for far too small a stimulus package.

Did the Obamacons like the president’s continuation of Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Many of those Obamacons commented about the dire consequences if the U.S. had pulled out of each combat theater.   Do they not realize that staying in those wasteful wars, includes associated billions in costs?  By staying in those wars, Obama certainly contributed to significant levels of spending.  The president has to own that fact!

The so-called Obamacons, are conspicuously quiet about GOP (and Blue Dog) obstructionism that has been a clear policy  since January 20, 2009.  McConnell, DeMint, Boehner, Cantor and all have been audacious and brazen about not supporting any of the president’s proposals. How do they know, and how do you and I  know,  that the president’s proposals may have been at least as successful as salvaging the automobile industry. Thus possibly providing additionally impetus for an improving economy.

I  would really love for a Obamacon to explain to me how the GOP policies and success at grid-locking the federal government has helped to improve the economy.  Did the GOP fully support helping families with renewing of unemployment payments in December of last year. They were dead-set in bargaining unemployment for the unemployed along side of leaving the Bush tax cuts in the IRS Tax Codes.  

How about this comment from the Reuters article.

After years of bipartisan gridlock in Congress, high unemployment and a gaping budget deficit, Obama has lost some of his luster.

“Spending levels and tax policy are probably the most important issues for me at the federal level and things have not gone in the direction that I would favor in those departments,” ex-Massachusetts Governor William Weld told Reuters. “Governor Romney has a picture perfect textbook on those issues.” 

Weld, who backed Obama against Senator John McCain in 2008, said he would choose not just Romney over Obama in 2012 but some of the other Republican contenders as well if they won their party’s nomination.

High unemployment?  Yes, it was at 7.6% when the president took office. it is at 9.1 per cent now.   According to US News Money Careers (February 2009).

The unemployment rate rocketed to a more than 16-year high of 7.6 percent from 7.2 percent in December. The government also revised earlier job loss numbers to shower deeper cuts in November and December. About half of the 3.6 million jobs lost since the start of the recession have been lost in the past three months, indicating the economic slowdown is far from over.

US News referenced a recession that started in 2007 and was only acknowledged (as a Bush recession, in December 2008)after the GOP election loss.  

If my math does not fail me, the unemployment rate is 1.5 per cent higher than when the President took office. 

Of course, an unemployment rate at the 9.1 per cent level is unacceptable regardless of who sits in the White House.   It would be very helpful if a Obamacon could help me understand the following.  The sentence just prior to the US News sentence posted above reads  as follows.

Employers slashed their payrolls by 598,000 jobs in January, marking not only the biggest monthly cut since the recession began in December 2007, but the biggest since 1974, the Labor Department reported today. 

For sake of brevity I am going to forego posting that revealing Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) chart that shows an immediate turn-around in the number of jobs losses after January 2009.

Ex-Governor William Weld’s comments above are typical of those in the GOP who want to simply sweep our past under a rug. They hope that we ‘so soon forgot’ and they hope we make the same mistakes we have made in the past.  I think about that old adage, “What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.

I am going to post a link related to the Reuters comm

ent about “gaping budget deficit“.  You will navigate to a page that is full of information related to the ‘gaping budget deficit”.  While, I have admitted above that President Obama has contributed the deficit, I post the link for a picture of how a cooperative Congress,  and the Administration could possibly have lowered the budget deficit and federal spending.  Yes, Health Services stands out as “THE ” area of most spending. An area that relates to human beings and probably our aging populations.  The Health Services category is followed very closely by Defense Spending. Obviously an area of “DO NOT TOUCH’, by all on the Right and many on the conservative Left.

Ex-governor Weld,  “Governor Romney has a picture perfect textbook on those issues.” Really?

Ex-Governor Weld, according to Reuters….

Weld, who backed Obama against Senator John McCain in 2008, said he would choose not just Romney over Obama in 2012 but some of the other Republican contenders as well if they won their party’s nomination.

Really?  Who?  Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich?  Really?  Have heard neither speak about fixing any of the problems identified by Weld.  You and I  know how they plan to approach federal governance.

“Weld backed Obama in 2008”. We can only assume that his statement means that he voted for candidate Obama. 

Ex-Governor Weld and Reuters……. the words of the OBamacon.