View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

Steve Lunetta: Obama's folly

Posted: March 4, 2013 2:00 a.m.
Updated: March 4, 2013 2:00 a.m.
 

The irony is astounding. The sequestration plan that appears to be a machination by President Obama’s White House is now coming back to haunt him big time.

On the surface, it looks like the $85 billion in spending cuts was a political ploy by the White House to force House Republicans to conform to the president’s designs in a number of budget areas.

The only problem is, those pesky GOPers didn’t play along.

For those liberals who are screaming about Republican lies, the Washington Times states that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney even admitted last week that "the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes, by the president’s team."

Sequestration is simply this — if the government can’t put together an agreeable budget by March 1, automatic cuts totaling $85 billion will happen.

This amounts to a little over 2 percent of the total budget. By my calendar, we are after that date.

Seems like everyone is complaining about this. Republicans, Democrats, independents, socialists, conservatives, Bull Moosers, you name it.

Sure, this was the president’s plan. But aren’t these the same folks who voted it in?

How can they complain about something they approved? Rather confusing if you ask me.

In listening to the news, we hear threats of furloughs, closures, and reduced services. A friend of mine works for the FBI and he said they got a notice that they will be off two days without pay every month.

By my calculations, that is a 10 percent pay cut. But, isn’t that more than the 2.5 percent-ish cut they are talking about?

We’ve also heard about the Washington Monument gambit. The President claims that the needed cuts will close the Washington Monument.

Yep, no more visits. In fact, they may need to start selling pieces to cover the cost of mowing the lawn around it.

The other trick is something called the "Golden Watch." This is a ploy used by the Pentagon to protect their budget and includes not buying fuel for aircraft carriers and not deploying ships to support combat troops on the ground.

Of course, they ignore the ludicrous spending programs that could easily be cut — and will be, once the politicking is over.

The same thing happens in all government departments to prove how important they are. But, when push comes to shove, the fat does get trimmed and government becomes leaner and more efficient.

Same thing happened with Prop 13 in the late 1970s. Prop 13 put a limit on how much the state of California could raise or tax real estate. It put a severe crimp in the spending habits of Sacramento.

Opponents (mainly public employee unions) claimed that the world would end if Prop 13 was approved. I was in high school at the time and was forced to fill out an "alternate" four-period schedule that would cut two hours of instruction per day. Anyone else remember that?

Further, all extra-curricular activities including sports would be cut. No more school newspaper, no more hot lunches, and we’d all be sharing textbooks.

There were some benefits, though. Detention would be 15 minutes and not an hour.

Then Prop 13 passed and nothing happened. Funny, but I do not recall a single dropped program or change to my educational schedule. The waste was eliminated, school administrators tightened their belts, and the prop had the intended effect.

Heaven knows what this state would look like if we did not have Prop 13. Things have run amok badly enough even with property tax control.

Why is it such a crisis that the federal budget must contract 2.5 percent? I have heard that the amount to be saved is only about the same as the AIG bailout.

Hasn’t private industry contracted? Haven’t corporate budgets shrunk by far more than 2.5 percent?

The government is not immune to the effects of the economy and the pain needs to be shared. If tax revenues contract, spending must do the same.

Unfortunately, this is a lesson that the state of California has not learned. Everyone enjoying that new 3.5 cents a gallon for gas tax increase?

At 70 cents, California is the most expensive state in the union for fuel taxation. No wonder Texas Gov. Rick Perry came here to woo California business.

The results of sequestration are only beginning to play out. I take solace in the knowledge that this event in American history will soon be called "Obama’s Folly."

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Santa Clarita and really likes the idea of a sequel-station. Empire Strikes back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Ironman 2. He can be reached at slunetta63@yahoo.com.

Mar. 4, 2013 02:00a.m. EST Steve Lunetta: Obama's folly The Signal

The irony is astounding. The sequestration plan that appears to be a machination by President Obama’s White House is now coming back to haunt him big time.

On the surface, it looks like the $85 billion in spending cuts was a political ploy by the White House to force House Republicans to conform to the president’s designs in a number of budget areas.

The only problem is, those pesky GOPers didn’t play along.

For those liberals who are screaming about Republican lies, the Washington Times states that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney even admitted last week that "the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes, by the president’s team."

Sequestration is simply this — if the government can’t put together an agreeable budget by March 1, automatic cuts totaling $85 billion will happen.

This amounts to a little over 2 percent of the total budget. By my calendar, we are after that date.

Seems like everyone is complaining about this. Republicans, Democrats, independents, socialists, conservatives, Bull Moosers, you name it.

Sure, this was the president’s plan. But aren’t these the same folks who voted it in?

How can they complain about something they approved? Rather confusing if you ask me.

In listening to the news, we hear threats of furloughs, closures, and reduced services. A friend of mine works for the FBI and he said they got a notice that they will be off two days without pay every month.

By my calculations, that is a 10 percent pay cut. But, isn’t that more than the 2.5 percent-ish cut they are talking about?

We’ve also heard about the Washington Monument gambit. The President claims that the needed cuts will close the Washington Monument.

Yep, no more visits. In fact, they may need to start selling pieces to cover the cost of mowing the lawn around it.

The other trick is something called the "Golden Watch." This is a ploy used by the Pentagon to protect their budget and includes not buying fuel for aircraft carriers and not deploying ships to support combat troops on the ground.

Of course, they ignore the ludicrous spending programs that could easily be cut — and will be, once the politicking is over.

The same thing happens in all government departments to prove how important they are. But, when push comes to shove, the fat does get trimmed and government becomes leaner and more efficient.

Same thing happened with Prop 13 in the late 1970s. Prop 13 put a limit on how much the state of California could raise or tax real estate. It put a severe crimp in the spending habits of Sacramento.

Opponents (mainly public employee unions) claimed that the world would end if Prop 13 was approved. I was in high school at the time and was forced to fill out an "alternate" four-period schedule that would cut two hours of instruction per day. Anyone else remember that?

Further, all extra-curricular activities including sports would be cut. No more school newspaper, no more hot lunches, and we’d all be sharing textbooks.

There were some benefits, though. Detention would be 15 minutes and not an hour.

Then Prop 13 passed and nothing happened. Funny, but I do not recall a single dropped program or change to my educational schedule. The waste was eliminated, school administrators tightened their belts, and the prop had the intended effect.

Heaven knows what this state would look like if we did not have Prop 13. Things have run amok badly enough even with property tax control.

Why is it such a crisis that the federal budget must contract 2.5 percent? I have heard that the amount to be saved is only about the same as the AIG bailout.

Hasn’t private industry contracted? Haven’t corporate budgets shrunk by far more than 2.5 percent?

The government is not immune to the effects of the economy and the pain needs to be shared. If tax revenues contract, spending must do the same.

Unfortunately, this is a lesson that the state of California has not learned. Everyone enjoying that new 3.5 cents a gallon for gas tax increase?

At 70 cents, California is the most expensive state in the union for fuel taxation. No wonder Texas Gov. Rick Perry came here to woo California business.

The results of sequestration are only beginning to play out. I take solace in the knowledge that this event in American history will soon be called "Obama’s Folly."

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Santa Clarita and really likes the idea of a sequel-station. Empire Strikes back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Ironman 2. He can be reached at slunetta63@yahoo.com.

Copyright 2011 MorrisMultimedia . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Comments

therightstuff: Posted: March 4, 2013 11:01 a.m.

It's hilarious watching the White House having to now back track on Obama's scare tactics during his most recent campaign swing about cutting the bloated federal budget. Remember, this is the same politician who deliberately and repeatedly lied about the assault on Benghazi. I said at the time if he and his minions would deliberately and repeatedly lie about a terrorist attack that murdered four Americans, what else would he lie about? We're now seeing the answer to that question. Maybe instead of back tracking on all his lies he should take a page out of Hillary Clinton's book when asked why she lied about Benghazi. Just loudly screech..."What difference does it make!"

There are two lessons that should come out of this. First, Obama needs to get off the campaign trail among his star-struck groopies and try to actually govern for once and Republicans should never trust a Democrat that promises budget cuts after you deliver tax increases.


garyr: Posted: March 4, 2013 11:27 a.m.

"On the surface, it looks like the $85 billion in spending cuts was a political ploy by the White House..."

No it doesn't. White houses do not pass laws. That's the legislature's job. Blame them. Particularly you can blame Howard, since he voted for it.


Dumbounded: Posted: March 4, 2013 11:42 a.m.

Gary, Gary, Gary.....poor lil Gary.....

Jack Lew suggested it as a way out of the budget mess in 2011. Yes, congress passed it but what difference does this make now? The 85 billion is really only 42 billion since we're half way through the year. Despite that spending will still be 15 billion higher than it was in FY 2011-12.

Like the Monty Python movie where they make fun of catholics by showing a scene with 40 or 50 kids while singing "every sperm is sacred", politicians on both sides of the isle think every penny is sacred.

WE AREN'T CUTTING SQUAT! WE ARE SLOWING THE RATE OF INCREASE AND THE WORLD WILL NOT END!

Good lord people, educate yourselves on the nonsense our leaders, from both parties, are trying to jam down our throats. They lie!


stevehw: Posted: March 4, 2013 12:44 p.m.

Right-wingers have such short memories...

"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

John Boehner on the Budget Control Act which created the sequester. Doubtless that 2% comes from the fact that DoD gets cut, too...if they'd have been left alone, I'm quite certain he and the rest of the republicans who voted for it would be 100% happy.


ricketzz: Posted: March 5, 2013 9:35 a.m.

All spending is done by the Congress. The President may or may not sign a spending bill, but that's the extent of his spending authority. Spending and deficit, as % of GDP, have gone down significantly in the past 4 years.

I love the Sequester, as it reduces the full on bonkers Pentagon spending. War is not a jobs program.


philellis: Posted: March 5, 2013 11:05 a.m.

ricketzz, are you saying that it was not Bush's fault and that recent spending cuts are the responsibility of the Republican controlled Congress?


Dumbounded: Posted: March 5, 2013 11:12 a.m.

Left-wingers are such poo poo heads......


OldReliable: Posted: March 6, 2013 11:03 a.m.

When will the Dem Senate and the Dem W/H ever pass a budget!?


Indy: Posted: March 6, 2013 11:31 a.m.

ricketzz wrote: I love the Sequester, as it reduces the full on bonkers Pentagon spending. War is not a jobs program.

Indy: Yes, I’m in agreement on defense spending.

Apparently the GOP is as well knowing that the defense budget is ‘bloated’ after two wars and felt that it was going to be reduced anyway as the fighting stops.

I am at odds, however, with the nonsensical approach to cutting government without full disclose to the public.

The public needs ‘leadership’ versus our congress reciting slogans like ‘over spending’.

If we’re over spending, why is it so?

Why can’t a asserted ‘unlimited’ growth economy accommodate the services the public has ‘demanded and expected’ for decades?

I’m afraid that the denial of resource constraints along with the population growth will indeed have people working longer for less.

That’s already happening in the manufacturing sector where ‘free trade’ globalization has manufacturing moving to the nations with the lowest wages. ( See Lester Thurow’s book: The Future of Capitalism)

The reason this issue of scarcity is being hidden is that those benefiting from the globalization are the ones lobbying our congress essentially saying why invest in the US why the ‘growth’ will be off shore.

And since only 10 to 20% of the citizens own 80 to 90% of all stocks, then the issue turns from middle class wage growth to blaming the poor for being poor irrespective of the economics in play to insure that wealth continues to concentrate as we see here.

In any event, the sequester was great for the partisans in that it provides more fodder to ‘blame the other party’ when in fact, both parties including the President are living in a fantasy economic world driven by their respective folklore/ideology and the public is left wanting for a rational approach for the future.

Anyway, the US spends on defense:

- more than 5 times that of China
- more than the total of the next 16 nations
- and averages about $9,000.00/family of four/year

Defense spending fed by both fear and the plea for ‘jobs’ (just ask McKeon) fails to accept that dollars spent on military overkill are hurting people here in that the dollars are sitting in $400 million dollars F35 jets (EACH) that can’t help the domestic side of things.

Government spending will have to be reduced as middle class wages fall . . . there really is no chance otherwise and the public will have to accept the reductions in government services whether it’s waiting in longer lines or finding themselves homeless with no safety net benefits.

America . . . love it or leave it . . . your call.


Indy: Posted: March 9, 2013 8:12 p.m.

Lunetta wrote: Then Prop 13 passed and nothing happened. Funny, but I do not recall a single dropped program or change to my educational schedule. The waste was eliminated, school administrators tightened their belts, and the prop had the intended effect.

Indy: Yes, here in the Hart District, since Prop 13 the student teacher ratio has gone from 25 students per teacher to how 39.

The dropout rate of our students has been more than 1 in 4 since Proposition 13 where CA used to have a ‘quality education’ label.

All Prop 13 did was isolate the ‘demand’ issue for public services from property and ignore the ‘demand’ replacement of taxes from income.

Saying ‘waste’ in removed by cutting state budgets is naive.

And administrators have never been the problem as the rising student teacher ratio indicates.

In any event, if you’re going to provide a weekly column, why not move from the conservative ideology positions and actually start dealing with reality.

Prop 13 has been one of the biggest disasters to his the state and sadly, the ‘students’ have been the ones to pay for it.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...