Seeking Alpha

A new White House report warns that massive across-the-board spending cuts at the start of the...

A new White House report warns that massive across-the-board spending cuts at the start of the new year would be "deeply destructive" to core government responsibilities and especially the military. But Pres. Obama's own defense budget calls for big cuts, and Bob Woodward's new book suggests the Administration instigated the idea of sequestration to gain political ground.
Comments (27)
  • The Power behind the spending cuts....boy I can just see the donations rolling in by each affected company....and the Politician asking for it....
    15 Sep 2012, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • We cannot afford 4 more years of Obama blaming Bush for everything except killing OBL and gay marriage
    15 Sep 2012, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • We cannot go back to the W. Bush years or record borrowing for wars, tax cuts for top 1%, and another recession with 100's thousands being fired each month. Most Americans remember Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus.
    15 Sep 2012, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • Roll out the democratic press corps. we CAN NOT have a reduction in the GROWTH of spending like this!


    we're not even talking about an actual cut in total dollars spent people!
    15 Sep 2012, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • It's weird how one sided this conversation has gotten:
    Repubs put public services on the table
    Dems put defense spending on the table


    Repubs got public services reductions from the Dems and then use the gladiator arena to blame the Dems for holding repubs to their end of the bargain.
    16 Sep 2012, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • What public service reduction are you referring to?


    I must have missed the story on Agency elimination and Agency consolidation in DC??????
    16 Sep 2012, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • Like everything else that comes out of this administration...100% BS.

    15 Sep 2012, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • Spending does have to be reduced, but at a time like this with the economy struggling to create jobs drastic cuts in spending could send the U.S. spiraling into recession or worse.
    15 Sep 2012, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • Massive cuts? What genius confused "Massive" with "Negligible"?
    15 Sep 2012, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Perhaps the White House should read the constitution to remember exactly what the core responsibilities are!


    Then they might find out there are Trillions of NON-core government spending that can be cut.
    15 Sep 2012, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • Huge cuts to Government spending will be "destructive." But, of course, taking lots of additional money away from individuals and the private sector, via taxation, won't cause any harm at all.


    Well, of course not, not if your objective is the gradual nationalization of the entire economy and explicit control over every facet (even the soda they drink) of the life of all citizens.
    15 Sep 2012, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • No money was taken from Mitt Romney for years, he sent millions to offshore bank accounts and created no American jobs, but wants to tax the middle-class.
    15 Sep 2012, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • I say we nationalize and then get our hands on Terry's assets. Sort of like a Community Chest.
    15 Sep 2012, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Doesn't Terry330 understand that no one on this board takes him even the slightest bit seriously and that he is being ignored?
    15 Sep 2012, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • I wouldn't say that, and I think Terry is a she.
    15 Sep 2012, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Terry who?
    15 Sep 2012, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • Spending cuts originated from a bipartisan inability to form an agreement... Has anything changed?
    15 Sep 2012, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • Bush had to be a very great President. No one can defend Obama without discussing Bush.
    16 Sep 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • If someone takes your credit card and puts a couple trillion on it and then comes back and yells at you for not having your financial house in order, what would you do?


    At least half of the talking points that the republicans currently have on Obama are neither his responsibility nor his fault. But, the arguments are powerful and evocative and almost entirely based on misleading information. A big challenge that they are finding is that the American people are too busy, too trusting, or too lazy to actually seek out the facts for themselves and so the false rhetoric stands.
    16 Sep 2012, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • I think thats exactly what has happened.


    Lawmakers have taken my children's and grandchildren's credit card and spent it on hand-outs to those that give them money!!!


    I don't know of any intelligent person that doesn't realize Obama came into office in the middle of a financial mess.


    But please explain what leadership he's shown that has/is/will improve the situation?


    The TARP program was passed under Bush. I totally disagreed with it then and now. I see Geithner going around saying how it saved the world economy. I disagree. But either way it didn't happen under Obama.


    I agree with the GM bailout - I would have supported a different way of doing it - but its correct that we couldn't allow our entire automobile manufacturing footprint to absorb that type of hit without trying to save it. So I'll even give one to Obama even though I think there were better ways of doing the bailout.


    Stimulus anyone? Didn't Obama basically turn it over to Pelosi and Reid??? Was he too busy working on something else? And they did what was predictible.... giveaway to their special interest groups (and a tax break to those that still had jobs). Sorry Obama failed on this one.


    Fannie/Freddie still a mess and whats the solution? More and more giveaways to those that overspent and more government control over the mortgage market. The lending market is well established and has clear rules that should be followed when payments aren't made. Obama has tried to ignore the law and enact some sort of his own perception of social justice - and he's entirely failed at that and his entire housing policy.


    Prosecutions of Wall Street and Banksters that committed fraud. ...... Well can't write much about that topic because they haven't prosecuted ANYONE!!!!! And it continues..... Why is Jon Corzine a free man? Obama is a LAW professor by trade and he simply allows the rich and connected (on both sides) to get off totally free!! Obama fails on this count.


    Health Care reform. Obama insisted the insurance companies were the problem when he ran..... he didn't fight a lick for single payer.... and then cut all kinds of deals with corporate America as he passed his version of insurance reform. This will just ensure there are more and more pigs at the public trough..... basically stealing from taxpayers under the guise of providing medical care. Obama fails here also simply because he didn't get what he claimed he'd fight for and had to resort to the same tactics he supposedly detests to get something he supposedly doesn't even support!!!


    Economy? Earth to the President - the public sector workforce is supposed to be about Public Service. They are not the economy and they are there to serve the people. Not to enrich themselves and ensure they are members of the upper middle class. That situation existed once in history....... its name was the USSR!!!!


    Obama ordered the strike on Bin Laden and I and all Americans appreciate that he made that call and he got it 100% correct.


    I'll even give him some credit for beginning to get ourselves less involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. But where is the serious plan to downsize our Military as part of an overall fiscal plan to restore sanity to our budget?


    Where has the president been for the past three years while the Senate ignores its constitutional obligation to pass a budget. The president may not like the budget the House has passed - but they have at least passed one. The next step is for the Senate to pass one and then go through the reconciliation process - until that happens its beyond disengenuous for the President point fingers at the "do nothing" Republicans.... when its the Democrats in the Senate that have put the budgetary process on total ice.


    In my book thats simply gutless and constitutes lying to the American people. When has the president called Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer to the White House to berate them and force them to meeting their constitutional obligations?


    Obama made a big show of freezing raises for public employees..... except for the fact that most of them got step raises anyway!!! Another sham.


    The President's own deficit reduction committee came out with a report that the presidend ignored. Instead he gave a speech about his plan..... which basically didn't exsist - the Congressional Budget Office couldn't even "score" it because there was no plan!!!


    The President is a well meaning man that is in a role for which he isn't suited. By his own admission he doesn't want to spend his evenings hammering out deals with Congressmen and women. He wants to spend them with his kids - thats great and every father wants the same things. But he chose to run for the biggest job in the world!
    Heck, I sacrificed many times in regards to my children and family as I was building a business..... that simply goes with the territory - are there individual decisions I regret today - absolutely. But lets compare the importance of my "job" to the President!! - yeah, zero comparison. So he should have told his kids to do their best at school and worked to solve the fiscal problems our country faces. He didn't do that at all and he needs to be replaced.


    I just wish I could say I have tons of confidence in the idiot he's running against. I will say I believe Romney will agree to deals. I don't think he has any serious conservative convictions and there is really nothing in his history to suggest otherwise. He'll make a middle of the road compromise - take away lots of deductions for the rich - not slash as much spending as we should... but it will at least stop the bleeding of federal deficits somewhat. Personally I'd stop the bleeding entirely - slash agencies, fire bureaucrats, downsize the military, raise the retirement age for everything, and basically tell folks they should expect to take care of themselves, their families, and their communities because the day of government being involved in everything is over!
    16 Sep 2012, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • "Obama has tried to ignore the law and enact some sort of his own perception of social justice - and he's entirely failed at that and his entire housing policy."


    I was following you until that one...working to prevent machine-gun foreclosures wasn't an action of social justice, it actually served to help the economy. Obama deployed a lot of parachutes...the housing markets were tanking and to he had a lot of success with reducing the rate of descent...but human nature is to question why we haven't gone back to the hypercredit-based growth in's because that growth wasn't real.


    Romney hasn't said anything about what he's going to reduce in terms of deductions. By all accounts, his proposed budget would INCREASE taxes on those making less than 100k/yr. He's talking about reducing public costs, and then he talks about invading every country that looks at us cross-eyed. How does that reduce the deficit at all? Nothing in Romney's rhetoric is self-consistent. You don't spur growth by cutting upper income taxes, it's a fallacy that has been perpetuated ad infinatum by people who benefit from the lie.
    16 Sep 2012, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • I'm no Romney fan, but the reason he hasn't said anything about what he'd cut is that the second he does the airwaves will be flooded with screaming idiots proclaiming that he hates whatever group of people the cuts will affect.


    I agree that simply cutting upper class taxes won't stimulate growth, but drastically simplifying the tax code and getting the government out of picking winners and losers through the tax code would stimulate growth.


    Guess what, when you owe 16Trillion dollars taxes will have to INCREASE on those earning less than 100k, those earning 100k and those earning far above 100k.


    And finally what would have helped the economy the best would have been to let housing reach whatever bottom it would reach. Moving isn't some catastrophic happening in life that cripples people. I've moved many times in life and I'm still standing. The government giving handouts to those that made poor financial choices was simply stupid and not befitting a country that supposedly is built on things like freedom and hard work.
    16 Sep 2012, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • The problem Romney - and Obama too for that matter - has is that he can't propose to cut anything when the "fiscal cliff's" cuts are already on the table. It would come across as disingenuous.


    The fiscal cliff actually creates a very interesting problem for the election because it represents two difficult, and incompatible problems: one is the unsustainable debt profile of the country's future, and the other is a weak economy in need of stimulus as opposed to tax increases/spending cuts.


    No matter what position either candidate takes on these issues, he can get hammered from the other side. Obama is in the stronger position because, well, he tried, and what he got was effectively a bipartisan agreement even though it arose from an inability to reach an actual agreement. Romney has to attack the fiscal cliff, but good luck with that.


    The only thing Romney can possibly have going for him over Obama is if he can somehow convince us that he can end the deadlock in D.C. and come up with bipartisan agreements to move the country forward where Obama could not. And the intransigent nature of the current Reps/Dems doesn't suggest he can.
    17 Sep 2012, 06:46 AM Reply Like
  • We could reduce government by 10s of thousands of staffers and no one would ever even know it happened. Most of the federal goverment should be done by the state governments like EPA, HUD, DoEd, etc. Government needs to be on zero based budgeting. The public needs to understand where more of the money is spent. Try digging that info out of the Federal Budget now!
    16 Sep 2012, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • What this administration has done better than its predecessor is reduce overall government employment levels.

    16 Sep 2012, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • kmi, I think you need to looks to the individual graphs.


    Local government has reduced by about 500K. State government by about 200K. (both from about Oct 2008 to when that chart ends).


    But Federal government looks like it slightly increased from 2.7 million to 2.8 million.


    So the administration has increased federal employees (the most expensive), while states and localities have fired about 700K employees (less expensive when compared to federal employees as a general rule).


    I'd love to be able to say federal employees have been reduced but they haven't - heck I'm all for a 50% reduction next year!


    And something else to give thought to... there was about an 8% reduction in the private workforce - peak to trough. But no corresponding decrease at any level of government - which shows just how secure government jobs are in comparison to the private sector - something that should be taken into account when determining pay for "public servants".
    16 Sep 2012, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • If you hover over the chart it is you read can individual numbers, it says from what I see vis a vis federal employment:


    Jan '09: 2,792,000
    Oct '11: 2,812,000


    We could call it flat, or assume that the downtrend in the last months continues, or we can even guess that federal employment went up in '12.


    But yes, you're right that federal employment did not track the private sector losses, and I'd agree that what is most worrying is that Government wages and benefits have not tracked the private sector either.
    16 Sep 2012, 03:20 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)