Why The Sequester Really Happened

[DEATH ROW JOE]

In further tribute to birtherplanet a random cut and paste job with a few words highlighted.

Why The Sequester Really Happened (Hint It Has Nothing To Do With The Deficit)
03 Mar 2013
Posted by Stan Collender
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/st ... Between%29
How did the sequester happen? How is it possible that what supposedly was the worst possible way to cut the deficit somehow became what actually happened?

Over the weekend Ezra Klein, in a much retweeted blog post that was the talk of large parts of the political blogosphere, said that the GOP was never going to make a deal to avoid the sequester if it included a tax increase. Nothing...not the prospect of reductions in military spending, not the projected reduction in GDP, not the estimated increase in unemployment, not the lost possibility of a bigger deal to reduce the deficit and not the overwhelming likelihood that Republicans would get blamed for all of this...made any difference.

The GOP's position seems to defy all economic and political commonsense until you realize how much GOP politics have changed in recent years.

The big fear among Republicans -- especially those in the House -- isn't that a Democrat will beat them in the 2014 election. The big GOP concern these days is about being "primaried," the new verb that tells you all you need to know about what's happening in Washington. The redrawing of congressional districts following the 2010 census made sure that there are few multi-party competitive races. If there's a big fight for a House seat, it's far more likely to be in a primary. Once the nomination is over, the seat effectively is won and, except in waves when there is a larger-than-usual change, the general election is more of a formality.

That makes it especially important for someone running for a House seat to pay intense attention to those who vote in her or his primary.Their votes are more important in the almost always lower-turnout primary than in the higher turnout general election. And, most significantly, they are not necessarily (I'm being kind here) representative of the district as a whole.

This is particularly important to House Republicans because they are in the majority and desperately want to keep it. In fact, since the 2012 election, I've been told repeatedly by a number of incumbent GOP representatives that maintaining control of the House rather than winning the White House or gaining a majority in the Senate is their top priority.

That gives enormous power to those who vote in GOP primaries. The issue that's almost singularly important to them is taxes.

That means that anything that even hints at let alone actually includes a tax increase an absolute political mistake for Republicans. This is true even if it prevents a bigger deficit reduction deal from happening, does overall harm to the U.S. economy, cuts the Pentagon or prevents a Republican takeover of the Senate in 2014.

One of the most interesting aspects of this situation is that the Democratic political strategy is just the opposite. The only way for the Dems to win control of the House is to broaden their appeal to the wider audience that votes in the general election and get them to turnout on election day. That means that, rather than doing anything and everything possible to avoid it, letting the sequester happen and then making sure Republicans are blamed for the pain and disgust is the better way to go.

And that explains all you need to know about why there was no deal to prevent the sequester last Friday. It was never about cutting spending or reducing the deficit; the fight always was about keeping or winning control of the House of Representatives in the next election. It wasn't about dueling economic philosophies and it definitely wasn't about the deficit.

Instead, Republicans and Democrats were playing to completely different audiences. That made a deal to avoid a sequester far less likely than most of us ever wanted to admit.

[Sheep_Mafia]

So now it's come to posting opinion pieces?

I prefer this version as to why it happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj1y3q92 ... e=youtu.be

As for opinon pieces, this one from liberal journalist Bob Woodward is pretty good. You may have heard about it...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... rob-nabors

[DEATH ROW JOE]

So now it's come to posting opinion pieces?

This is not an opinion piece. It's factual reporting by Stan Collander who is "one of the world’s leading experts on the U.S. budget and congressional budget process."

I prefer this version as to why it happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj1y3q92 ... e=youtu.be

Not sure you understand that video. You apparently think there is a contradiction in those two statements.

In the first statement, Obama says he will veto any change to the sequester unless it includes revenue.

In the second statement, Obama explains the consequences of the GOP refusing to consider revenue.

Now if you bother to read the news item I posted, you will see that the GOP "was never going to make a deal to avoid the sequester if it included a tax increase. Nothing...not the prospect of reductions in military spending, not the projected reduction in GDP, not the estimated increase in unemployment, not the lost possibility of a bigger deal to reduce the deficit and not the overwhelming likelihood that Republicans would get blamed for all of this...made any difference."

As for opinon pieces, this one from liberal journalist Bob Woodward is pretty good. You may have heard about it...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... rob-nabors

You're a bit confused. The news article I posted deals with why the sequeter went into effect. The news article you linked deals with how the sequester came about. Woodward did not write an opinion piece. He wrote a news article.

In addition to learning math, you also need to learn the difference between facts and opinions.

We know how the sequester came about. The GOP refused to raise the debt ceiling. In order to get the debt ceiling raised so that the executive branch could pay for the spending ordered by Congress, Obama proposed a sequester which included cuts to programs that were very popular with the GOP. The GOP agreed to the sequester because they thought Obama would lose the election and then they could return to the days of "Reagan taught us deficits do not matter." Obama's strategy was to delay deficit reduction and put the GOP in a position where they would agree to additional revenue.

Obama did not lose the election. The GOP mistakenly believed their own propaganda and wound up getting an unskewed poll shoved up their collective asses (you can relate to that).

The issue then became will the sequester take effect or will the GOP agree to additional revenue as well as spending cuts.

We now know thanks to this news piece by Collander that the GOP would never consider additional revenue no matter how many cuts Obama agreed to.

IN other words, Obama was wasting his time negotiating with a recalcitrant GOP.

Now since every post to you includes a math lesson, let's look at whether revenue is a problem.

Revenue in FY 2001 was 1,990,203. FY 2001 was a recession year. The first Bush recession started in March 2001 and ended Nov 2001, a month after the end of the fiscal year.

Now adjust 1,990,203 for 11 years of population growth and inflation.

1,990,203 (231.317/177.7) = 2,590,702 (2001 revenue in 2012 dollars)

2,590,702 x (315.5/284.2) = 2,876,024 (adjusted for inflation and population).

Revenue in FY 2012 was 2,449,093.

So revenue has not even kept pace with inflation, let alone population growth and inflation. 2001 was a recession year too. So revenue was not temporarily inflated by a booming economy.

We have a revenue problem stupid.

If that is not apparent to you, then you need to learn some math.

Start with 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, 1+3 = 4, work all the way up to 100.

Recommended reading:

[KneelandBobDylan]

[Sheep_Mafia]

So DRJ, if we have needed additional revenue, what is your explanation as to why the democrats didn't really attempt to raise taxes or close loopholes while they had the chance prior to the 2010 get the hell out elections? They had a few weeks with the ole super majority even and didn't even sniff it. Obama went along with the thought that it would be improper given the recovery but we're still very much in recovery in a number of indicators. Even added to the cuts.

My explanation first would be we only need additional revenue to get out of the mess that's been and continues to be created. Certainly that's not even close to all being on Obama but once again, he just continued the Bush tax cuts and in fact added to them. He's still continuing the majority of them in an effort to pander and if we legitimately need to raise revenue he should be suggesting tax overall and not just slamming the successful.

Not to mention, the newly released figures show the government forecasting record tax collection in this current fiscal year.

Then there is the matter of the ignorant payroll tax reduction that Obama and the Congress did install during that time frame. If we need revenue that was an odd way of doing things. Not to mention it failed.

If you really believe its all a revenue problem, then you agree that Obama just like Congress lack the courage to change the tax system as they should. That or you believe the successful should shoulder all of the weight. Either way, low taxes are at least a core supposed principle of the GOP. At least it can appear they are holding to their principle when Obama and the left are just cowards.

[KneelandBobDylan]

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:

1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority.

2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.

3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casts his last vote in April and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority.

4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.

6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.

7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.

8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.

8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.


Sheepster...full of shit as usual.

[Sheep_Mafia]

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:

1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority.

2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.

3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casts his last vote in April and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority.

4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.

6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.

7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.

8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.

8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.


Sheepster...full of shit as usual.

What is wrong with you? Do you just not read or is it comprehension?

Let me help you...I said specifically that they had a super majority for a few weeks. You said 24 days. 3 + weeks equals a few weeks. No where did I claim it to have been for the full 2 years or anything other than a few weeks. Why is that hard for you to understand? 24 days or 3+ weeks was long enough for them to repeal the Bush tax cuts on all or just the successful if they were interested in that. They passed Obamacare without reading it. Could of slipped that in there.

So they passed an enormously large and complex bill in Obamacare (without proper vetting or comprehension) but in your mind couldn't do away with the Bush tax cuts?

All of that of course ignores that not only did they not repeal the Bush cuts that they loathe so much, they passed further cuts.

[KneelandBobDylan]

13 actual days because of Kennedy being ill. CAN'T YOU FUCKING READ, DIPSHIT?

[Sheep_Mafia]

13 actual days because of kennedy being ill. CAN'T YOU FUCKING READ, DIPSHIT?

You once again have brought bogus information here and are now complaining that I don't buy it. Ted Kennedy showed up to vote for that irresponsible healthcare bill so he could still do that if required evidently. So yeah, he still counts just like he did for that. Aside from that, there was another period after Kennedy died and was replaced by a liberal. It is generally considered to be closer to 4 months with some saying less, anywhere from weeks to 4 months, (not sure why the liberals are confused so much on that but they are) and certainly not 13 freaking days. The recess part is where your information goes awry aside from the Kennedy illness. Check your source (once again).

You cannot hide from the fact that they had a super majority long enough to correct the tax cuts. Again, they passed freaking Obamacare. Obama said he didn't think the timing was right to do away with the cuts and once again actually added to them. Why are you suggesting that even if they had a super majority for longer they would have done that?

2 weeks, 3 weeks or 4 months is irrelevant. Just like a liberal to grab hold of the irrelevant part of an argument. In this case, like with many, the irrelevant is the only part you have.

[KneelandBobDylan]

13 actual days because of kennedy being ill. CAN'T YOU FUCKING READ, DIPSHIT?

You once again have brought bogus information here and are now complaining that I don't buy it. Ted Kennedy showed up to vote for that irresponsible healthcare bill so he could still do that if required evidently. So yeah, he still counts just like he did for that. Aside from that, there was another period after Kennedy died and was replaced by a liberal. It is generally considered to be closer to 4 months and certainly not 13 freaking days. The recess part is where your information goes awry aside from the Kennedy illness. Check your source (once again).

You cannot hide from the fact that they had a super majority long enough to correct the tax cuts. Again, they passed freaking Obamacare. Obama said he didn't think the timing was right to do away with the cuts and once again actually added to them. Why are you suggesting that even if they had a super majority for longer they would have done that?

2 weeks, 3 weeks or 4 months is irrelevant. Just like a liberal to grab hold of the irrelevant part of an argument. In this case, like with many, the irrelevant is the only part you have.

August 26, 2009 -- Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, a leading proponent of health care reform, dies. That risks Senate Democrats losing their 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority.

December 24, 2009 -- The Senate passes its health care bill 60-39.


Swing and a miss.

[Sheep_Mafia]

August 26, 2009 -- Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, a leading proponent of health care reform, dies. That risks Senate Democrats losing their 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority.

December 24, 2009 -- The Senate passes its health care bill 60-39.


Swing and a miss.

He showed up to vote on healthcare. Which bill is once again irrelevant. They once again had a super majority in the Senate in December. Still once again, timeline isn't relevant to your excuse making.

http://cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-4246055.html

Your source is outright incorrect as it specifically states that though he could technically return to vote he never did. Yep, he sure did.

[KneelandBobDylan]

August 26, 2009 -- Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, a leading proponent of health care reform, dies. That risks Senate Democrats losing their 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority.

December 24, 2009 -- The Senate passes its health care bill 60-39.


Swing and a miss.

He showed up to vote on healthcare. Which bill is once again irrelevant. They once again had a super majority in the Senate in December. Still once again, timeline isn't relevant to your excuse making.

http://cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-4246055.html

Your source is outright incorrect as it specifically states that though he could technically return to vote he never did. Yep, he sure did.

Wrong.

You said " Ted Kennedy showed up to vote for THAT irresponsible healthcare bill so he could still do that if required evidently. " That infers that he showed up to vote on the healthcare bill that passed. He didn't, he was dead.

Parse away Mongglio Jr.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

So DRJ, if we have needed additional revenue, what is your explanation as to why the democrats didn't really attempt to raise taxes or close loopholes while they had the chance prior to the 2010 get the hell out elections? They had a few weeks with the ole super majority even and didn't even sniff it. Obama went along with the thought that it would be improper given the recovery but we're still very much in recovery in a number of indicators. Even added to the cuts.

They did not raise taxes in 2010 because in March 2009 they passed a 290.7 billion tax cut that was set to expire in 2011. The Bush tax cuts were also set to expire in 2011. Additional revenue was built into the law in 2010.

My explanation first would be we only need additional revenue to get out of the mess that's been and continues to be created. Certainly that's not even close to all being on Obama but once again, he just continued the Bush tax cuts and in fact added to them. He's still continuing the majority of them in an effort to pander and if we legitimately need to raise revenue he should be suggesting tax overall and not just slamming the successful.

We need additional revenue because of
1) tax cuts under Bush and Obama
2) health care makes up 1/3 of the federal budget and health care inflation outpaces economic growth (the tax base)
3) demographic shifts put a larger percentage of the population in social security and medicare.

Not to mention, the newly released figures show the government forecasting record tax collection in this current fiscal year.

Actually revenue is only projected to be 16.9% of GDP in FY 2013. Spending has not been below 17% of GDP since 1965, the year medicare was enacted. So even though the nominal value "sets a record", it's hardly sufficient revenue unless there are huge and politically unfeasible cuts in spending.

Then there is the matter of the ignorant payroll tax reduction that Obama and the Congress did install during that time frame. If we need revenue that was an odd way of doing things. Not to mention it failed.

A payroll tax holiday is not odd and its probably the most effective tax cut to boost the economy since most of the tax cut goes to workers with a low savings rate. A tax cut for the wealthy does nothing to boost growth or investment.

If you really believe its all a revenue problem, then you agree that Obama just like Congress lack the courage to change the tax system as they should.

I never said it is "all" a revenue problem. Actually, the problem is health care inflation due to a profit driven rather than a results driven health care system. IF the US had the same rate of health care inflation as the rest of the industrialized world, the US would have projected surpluses rather than huge projected deficits.

However, so long as the US has a highly inefficient health care system, there needs to be more revenue as well as spending cuts somewhere. The GOP line that it is not a revenue problem and only a spending problem is horseshit.

That or you believe the successful should shoulder all of the weight.

People who make a lot of income pay a lot of income tax. They do not shoulder all the weight though. Income tax receipts in 2012 were 1.164 trillion and total tax revenue was 2.4 trillion. So income tax is less than half of total tax receipts. Even if they pay 2/3 of that they are not shouldering all of the weight, not even close.

You think raising taxes on people who are not successful is a solution? LMFAO. The Koch Bros have programed you well.

[FullMetalWhackit]

Why are you guys arguing over all of this? As if you're on separate teams and have to win the argument. We're all Americans. Neither party is serious and you are being played for political points while the country goes down the shitter.

[SmokingGun]

Why are you guys arguing over all of this? As if you're on separate teams and have to win the argument. We're all Americans. Neither party is serious and you are being played for political points while the country goes down the shitter.

+1

actually, +16,000,000,000,000