Boehner: Democrats are more scared of the sequester than we are.

[^_^ 5,021]

The Republicans' stronger card, Mr. Boehner believes, will be the automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs—defense and domestic. It now appears that the president made a severe political miscalculation when he came up with the sequester idea in 2011.

As Mr. Boehner tells the story: Mr. Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester—the other "cliff"—because it included deep defense cuts. But Republicans never raised the issue. "It wasn't until literally last week that the White House brought up replacing the sequester," Mr. Boehner says. "They said, 'We can't have the sequester.' They were always counting on us to bring this to the table."

Mr. Boehner says he has significant Republican support, including GOP defense hawks, on his side for letting the sequester do its work. "I got that in my back pocket," the speaker says. He is counting on the president's liberal base putting pressure on him when cherished domestic programs face the sequester's sharp knife. Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is "as much leverage as we're going to get."

That leverage, he reasons, is what will force Democrats to the table on entitlements.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225620234902106.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1357581680' post='5907698]

Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is "as much leverage as we're going to get."

So is he now saying that the Republican will not play another immensely dumb round of chicken with the US and global economy this time around when it comes time for Congress to authorize the executive to pay the bills Congress has incurred? That would be a plus. As fort he sequester, I say let it be and focus on actual tax reform to broaden the base which should boost revenues. Then the country should get back to investing in the future. It's not asked to much that our infrastructure doesn't fall further behind that of other industrialized countries.

[^_^ 5,021]

As fort he sequester, I say let it be ...

And by "let it be", you mean let it proceed as planned?

Because if you do, this may herald a new era of bipartisan harmony here on VJ. I suspect most of our RWN's feel the same way.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1357582559' post='5907730]And by "let it be", you mean let it proceed as planned?

I do.

[^_^ 5,021]

I do.

I await Danno's return so you can both celebrate the slowing of the rate of growth of the Federal budget.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I agree with Let it be as well.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1357582745' post='5907739]I await Danno's return so you can both celebrate the slowing of the rate of growth of the Federal budget.

The growth of the federal budget has slowed for years now. Danno and folks like him wouldn't have noticed that. I like the sequester because it would show that world won't end if we cut a few bucks from the DoD. It's an important lesson that we must learn. No part of the federal budget has exploded like defense. It has more than doubled over the past decade from just over $300 billion to just under $700 billion. So anyone wanting to talk about the government getting too big - the DoD is a huge part of where that happens.

Defense used to consume roughly 3% of GDP and we were by far the largest military spender at the time when we spent 3% of GDP on the DoD. Now we're in excess of 4.7% of GDP. That 1.7% means that last year alone, we spend over $255 billion more on defense than we would have under the alternate 3% of GDP scenario. As the economy grows, that excess spending gets more adding close to $3 trillion over the course of the next decade. That's $3 trillion dollars that we do not have and will have to borrow.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Darnell 8,478]

what else is in Boehner's back pocket?

This is gonna be fun to watch - y'all catching c-span in the early mornings? You should, it's fun to watch !

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Even the most liberal troop hating commie turns into a hawk come defense appropriation time. McDermott hates everything about war and the military, but is the biggest ####### when it comes to bringing defense money to his district. Pelosi was the same way when it came to the Presidio of San Francisco.

The growth of the federal budget has slowed for years now.

You mean it is still growing? That is crazy.

Edited January 7, 2013 by The Patriot

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

[quote name=' timestamp='1357581680' post='5907698]

The Republicans' stronger card, Mr. Boehner believes, will be the automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs—defense and domestic. It now appears that the president made a severe political miscalculation when he came up with the sequester idea in 2011.

As Mr. Boehner tells the story: Mr. Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester—the other "cliff"—because it included deep defense cuts. But Republicans never raised the issue. "It wasn't until literally last week that the White House brought up replacing the sequester," Mr. Boehner says. "They said, 'We can't have the sequester.' They were always counting on us to bring this to the table."

Mr. Boehner says he has significant Republican support, including GOP defense hawks, on his side for letting the sequester do its work. "I got that in my back pocket," the speaker says. He is counting on the president's liberal base putting pressure on him when cherished domestic programs face the sequester's sharp knife. Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is "as much leverage as we're going to get."

That leverage, he reasons, is what will force Democrats to the table on entitlements.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225620234902106.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

interesting

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You mean it is still growing? That is crazy.

Well, yes. You can't have more money going to the military industrial complex and more money going to the medical industrial complex and not have federal spending increase. The corporations in these spheres ought to make money for their shareholders. Without federal money, they'd be out of steam and their investors would be out of returns. We can't have that, can we? What do they buy politicians for if not for returns?