While your planes are late because of the sequester, remember how Obama is selectively cutting spending

Those working on Obamacare are apparently being exempt from the budget cuts.  From The Hill newspaper:

The office implementing most of President Obama's healthcare law is not furloughing its workers as a result of sequestration, its director said Wednesday.
Gary Cohen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, said Wednesday that his office has not cut its workers' hours and pay as a result of the automatic budget cuts that went into effect in March.
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of politicizing the sequester by targeting highly visible programs like airport security and White House tours.
The fact that ObamaCare officials haven't been furloughed shows that the cuts are political, Rep. Greg Harper (R-Miss.) said Wednesday.
"We're talking about at least a 15 percent furlough of current air-traffic controllers, resulting in delays and perhaps safety concerns, but yet this has been a selective political item by the administration," Harper said. . . .

First note that during the air traffic controller striking during the Reagan administration, administrators were able to step in and they kept the planes flying.  Yet, today with a much smaller reduction in number of workers, we have hours of delays.  In addition, note that all airports are not facing the same impact from air traffic control cuts.  If you are going to make the cuts in air traffic control, it seems to me that the efficient thing to do would be to cut so that each place faces the same delays.  That way you could actually reduce total delays.

The chief of the FAA told Congress today that Washington-area airports will largely escape the effects of the air traffic controller furloughs — a blessing for lawmakers who fly out of the nation’s capitol. 

Michael Huerta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, told a congressional panel that the Washington region’s airports are spaced out enough and have enough spare capacity that furloughs to air traffic controllers won’t hurt as much here. . . .

UPDATE: Even the Chicago Tribune finds that Obama wants to make the sequester cuts as painful as possible.

. . . So, what could the administration do to make a reduction of barely 1 percent of actual federal outlays — less than $45 billion of this year's roughly $3.8 trillion — turn citizens against Republicans who oppose more tax increases? Easy, or so the president's men and women figured: Cue the air controller furloughs! Let's stall some flights on the tarmac!
Sure enough, travel delays have followed. We're less certain, though, that this hostage-taking will cut the way the White House expects: The scheme relies on citizens being — how to put this delicately? — stupid enough to think that the Federal Aviation Administration can't find a more flier-friendly way to save $600 million. 

To believe that, though: 

• Americans would have to ignore the plan that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., delivered in early March to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, detailing how LaHood's FAA could save twice that amount — $1.2 billion. 

• Americans would have to ignore House Republicans who note that LaHood's supposedly destitute FAA is spending some $500 million on consultants — and $300 million on travel and supplies. 

• And Americans would have to ignore Democrats' refusal to accept congressional Republicans' offer to give the administration more flexibility in sequester cuts — an offer House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., reiterated during a meeting Monday with the Tribune editorial board. No, the White House doesn't want flexibility. The White House wants what the president predicted March 1. . . . . 

Read More

Yet another Democrat budget that claims to cut the deficit but actually increases it.

This is pretty amazing the way Democrats keep claiming to cut the deficit only to actually be increasing it.  For past examples of this see here, here, and here.  From Fox News:

Senate Democrats' budget plan is coming under increasing criticism from Republicans, who say it effectively pats itself on the back twice for savings that were only achieved once -- and even then, promises another $7.3 trillion in debt over the next decade. . . . 

Democrats claimed all along their plan would achieve $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, half through spending cuts and half through tax hikes. 

But the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, argues the plan is taking credit for the reduced spending level already achieved when mandatory, across-the-board cuts known as sequester took effect March 1. 

The Democrats' plan would replace the sequester and build on that savings for a total of $975 billion in alternative cuts and $975 billion in tax hikes over 10 years. But, as Democratic staffers acknowledged during committee testimony last week, their plan also counts the replacement cuts toward their total deficit-reduction figure. 

"I believe you're using the money twice," Sessions said, arguing that the true savings is more like $700 billion. . . .

Read More

Senate Democrats plan increases both taxes AND spending, deficits reduced only because taxes increase more

From The Hill newspaper:

The budget would dedicate $100 billion to economic stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending and job training.  Murray argues that her budget cuts $1.85 trillion from deficits over 10 years. But once the sequester cuts are turned off, Murray’s budget appears to reduce deficits by about $800 billion, using the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline. The Murray budget does not contain net spending cuts with the sequester turned off. . . .

Paul Ryan has this take:

Ryan took aim at President Obama and Senate Democrats, saying the tax increases in a proposal from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) only "fuel more spending."
"We know where this path leads—straight into a debt crisis, and along the way, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and less security," Ryan said, painting a desperate image of rising interest rates and inflating debt payments.
"Our finances will collapse," he warned. "You think this can't happen here? Just look at Europe." . . .

Read More

So much for the notion that Obama cares about controlling the Federal deficit

From Fox News:

President Obama met Wednesday with House Republicans in an apparent bid to find consensus on fiscal policy, even as he seemed to antagonize the other side by claiming there's no "immediate crisis in terms of debt."  

His statement would be sharply at odds with a core Republican principle that the debt must be addressed soon -- and which underpinned the cost-cutting GOP budget released Tuesday. The president also acknowledged, in an interview aired earlier in the day, that differences with the GOP might be "too wide" to bridge. . . .

Wasn't this the same guy who attacked George Bush over much smaller deficits and blamed the poor economy on those much smaller deficits?

Read More

Politico's take on Obama's charm offensive

Even reporters are concluding that there is no substance to the Obama charm offensive.  From Jim Vendehei and Mike Allen at Politico:

The truth is Obama has lost some leverage [after the sequester debate] — and needed a bunch of high-profile meetings with adversaries to swat away reports that he’s too stubborn and too political. But, in private, nothing has really changed. . . .  

Obama would have to persuade Republicans to vote for a tax increase for the second time in less than one year. Can you imagine Boehner and his troops heading into the 2014 midterm elections dominated by conservative activists having to explain, not one, but two increases? . . . .

Read More

An explanation for why the sequester is good for the economy

Jeff Miron has an explanation available here that is similar to what I have in "At the Brink."

Read More

Obama and Senate Democrats solution to Sequester?: Increase government spending by $62.4 billion, raise taxes by $55.1 billion, raise the deficit by $7.2 billion!

How can anyone take the Democrats seriously?  Their offer to replace the sequester cuts is to increase government spending and the deficit.  Obama supports the Democratic Senate alternative.

CBO estimates that S. 388 would increase direct spending by $62.4 billion and revenues by $55.1 billion over the 2013–2023 period. Thus, the cumulative deficit would increase by $7.2 billion from those changes.

Obama has been critical of what he claims is a "meat cleaver" approach to cutting the deficit.  But his solution is to increase the deficit.  His offer to Republicans who are trying to cut the deficit is to increase it.

UPDATE: IBD claims that Obama's own proposal is even worse, though as they point out the plan has been well hidden.

. . . Turns out, Obama did have one [though he] . . . hasn't exactly been promoting this so-called plan. . . .
There are no details, for example, about the $200 billion in cuts to defense and domestic discretionary programs, other than that Obama wants them split evenly.
And while he offers $400 billion in "health savings," 30% are lumped in a bucket labeled "other."
Worse, Obama's "balanced" plan actually counts hundreds of billions of new revenues from taxes, fees and rebates as "spending reductions." Examples:
• His plan to "strengthen" unemployment insurance is labeled as a cut, but it's really a $50 billion tax hike.
• The $35 billion from the federal worker retirement programs involves boosting worker contributions.
• Most of the $35 billion in Medicare savings comes from charging wealthy seniors more.
• The $140 billion in "reduced payments to drug companies" are in fact rebates Obama wants drugmakers to pay Uncle Sam for selling drugs to poor seniors.
• Then there's the $45 billion in spectrum fees and asset sales that Obama lists as spending reductions.
Viewed correctly, it turns out that more than $300 billion — about a third — of Obama's proposed "spending cuts" are actually revenue increases. . . .

Read More

New piece in Investors' Business Daily: "Obama's Sequester Cuts Are A Mere 1% Of Budget"

My new piece starts this way:

President Obama is almost breathless predicting "devastating" consequences if the sequester trigger is pulled. 

He warns the cuts "will hurt our economy ... add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. ... The unemployment rate might tick up again." 

But will a $44 billion cut in spending out of a $3.8 trillion budget, a mere 1%, really be a "meat cleaver approach" that will "eviscerate" government programs? 

Obama frightens people by pretending that the $1 trillion cut takes place right away rather than being spread out over 10 years. 

He has taken almost every possible position on spending and taxes. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama continually promised to "cut net spending" and make government smaller. The stimulus was promised not to "raise projected deficits beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two." . . . .

Read More

Total federal debt

From Robert Samuelson:

TREASURY DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC: $11.3 trillion 

FEDERAL LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES: $2.9 trillion in 2011 

FANNIE AND FREDDIE: $5.1 trillion 

THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION: $7.3 trillion . . .

Read More

Some notes on Obama's State of the Union Address

More "investments" (read "spending") and no concern about the deficit (except as an excuse to raise taxes).  The call for more government spending will be based on Keynesianism claims that it will stimulate the economy.  Taxes are being pushed out of "fairness."

The president is expected to revive his calls Tuesday for government "investments" in infrastructure and education -- meaning spending. He'll focus on economic growth, while acknowledging the need to close the deficit through a combination of budget cuts and tax increases.  

"The core emphasis that he has always placed in these big speeches remains the same, and it will remain the same -- the need to make the economy work for the middle class," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.  

He declined to get into specifics, but said the speech will focus on "proposals that are necessary to help the middle class grow and to help the economy grow."  

Carney pointedly countered House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who a day earlier dismissed the idea that Washington has a spending problem.  

"Of course the president believes that we have a spending problem," Carney said. Still, he said "we need more investments that help the key industries of the 21st Century ... take root here." . . .

From the Washington Post:

When President Obama delivers his State of the Union addressTuesday evening, here’s one thing you won’t hear: an ambitious new plan to rein in the national debt. 

In recent weeks, the White House has pressed the message that, if policymakers can agree on a strategy for replacing across-the-board spending cuts set to hit next month, Obama will pretty much have achieved what he has called “our ultimate goal” of halting the rapid rise in government borrowing. 

“Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit [over the next decade] by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans,” Obama said during his weekend radio address. “That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt.” . . . 

Meanwhile some "conservatives" such as William Kristol are fighting against the sequester, which seems the only way to cut government spending right now.

Sequester is only one step down a stairway at the bottom of which the stones will break beneath our feet. But it’s an important step. It’s too important a step for the Republican party to be complicit in. Its likely negative consequences are far more important than any possible benefit that could come from a small and probably temporary cut in domestic discretionary spending, or from the satisfaction of highlighting the hypocrisy of Barack Obama and the irresponsibility of Harry Reid. Barack Obama and Harry Reid may be willing to sacrifice the national interest for petty and temporary political victories. Republicans shouldn’t be willing to do so. A great political party, on matters of great moment, puts national defense, and the national interest, first. 

Read More