Tag Archive: Spending Cuts


Obama: ‘I Am Not A Dictator’

 

 

“I am not a dictator,” President Obama said Friday while defending his efforts to stop the sequester. “I’m the president.”

Obama said there are limits to what he can do to get a deal on the sequester during a press conference in which he blamed Republicans for standing in the way of a deal.

But Obama on Friday characterized himself as the reasonable party in the talks and someone who couldn’t force Republicans to make a deal.

“I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington that even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree that I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld and convince them” to agree on a deal, Obama said.”

 

 

 

———————-

About these ads

Debt Limit , For The Everyman

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: These new tax hikes on the rich are just the first step of “the balanced approach”

 

 

 

 

” Via Mediaite, “balanced approach” is Obama’s Orwellian term for selling tax hikes to the public as a condition of spending cuts even though there’s nothing remotely balanced about our fiscal problems. Spend 10 seconds looking at the graphs in Yuval Levin’s new post at the Corner. That’s the reality that the “balanced approach” pretends to address. As Levin said in another post today, “The fiscal trajectory of our welfare state is not sustainable, no matter how much taxes go up.”

But okay. The left’s new talking point, pushed by The One himself, is that they absolutely positively won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling. No one believes that, but fine. Supposedly, if the GOP wants spending cuts, the debt ceiling is off the table and the price will be additional revenue. One question: Where’s that new revenue coming from? I can’t figure it out. Neither can Megan McArdle:

For starters, there’s a matter of timing. President Obama just successfully raised taxes on the rich. Is he going to go back and do it again in a few months? I’m not sure about the optics here: while I think that a tax increase on the rich was popular and inevitable, I don’t think that Democrats will do well to position themselves as the party that does nothing but demand more tax increases, even on rich people. “

 

 

 

No Deal

LAWMAKERS LEAVE CAPITOL WITHOUT A DEAL

 

 

” Washington D.C. lawmakers in both chambers left the capitol on early Sunday night after negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff fell apart in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – NV) said there is “still time left to reach an agreement.” In the meantime, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will continue negotiations on the phone tonight with Vice President Joe Biden. “

 

 

 

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

 

 

Fiscal Cliff: ABC Talks Taxes 17 Times More Than Spending Cuts

 

 ” America is racing toward the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff deadline when tax hikes and spending cuts automatically take effect. But the overwhelming news focus has been only on tax hikes as a solution to the problem. Since the election, ABC News has talked about raising taxes more than 17 times more than spending cuts.

The network isn’t alone, it was just the worst of the bunch. The Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute analyzed evening news coverage of the budget battle and found both NBC and CBS also discussed taxes far more than spending – spinning the Capitol Hill battle into one where the liberal agenda of increased spending dominated. Overall, the networks focused more than twice as much on tax increases as they did on spending (29 minutes 31 seconds to 12 minutes 54 seconds). “

To The Over The Fiscal Cliff

 

 

 ” Lawmakers kicked off negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff at the White House on Friday with both sides expressing optimism that a deal could be reached before the end of the year.

Republicans in Congress say they understand their political leverage is diminished after the election and are largely resigned to a compromise that would force wealthy families and small businesses to pay more in taxes.

However, GOP leaders have insisted that any new revenue come from closing tax loopholes and other special interest deductions for the wealthy as opposed to raising tax rates which they said would undermine economic growth. “

“Obama administration tries to block sequester layoff notices”

” The latest durable-goods orders report must have the Obama administration — and the Obama campaign — more worried than they publicly let on. According to the National Journal , the White House will press government contractors to hold off on
issuing layoff notices in October in
anticipation of the sequestration cuts, afraid of the political backlash that will ensue. In fact, the Obama administration is offering to indemnify government contractors for losses and fines for delaying
those notices:

  The White House moved to prevent defense and other government contractors from issuing mass layoff notices in anticipation of sequestration, even going so far to say that the contracting agencies would
cover any potential litigation costs or employee compensation costs that could follow.

Some defense companies —including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and EADS North America—have said they expect to send notices to their employees 60 days before sequestration takes effect to comply with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires companies to give advance
warning to workers deemed
reasonably likely to lose their jobs.
Companies appeared undeterred by a July 30 guidance from the Labor Department, which said issuing such notices would be inappropriate, due to the possibility that sequestration may
be averted. The Labor Department
also said companies do not have
enough information about how the
cuts might be implemented to
determine which workers or specific programs could be affected should Congress fail to reach a compromise to reduce the deficit, triggering $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, half from defense, half non-defense. For 2013, that would amount to $109 billion in
spending cuts. “

Heritage Foundation

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,136 other followers