View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

Steve Lunetta: Obama's new folly

Posted: March 11, 2013 2:00 a.m.
Updated: March 11, 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. 11, 2013 02:00a.m. EDT Steve Lunetta: Obama's new 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

Manq: Posted: March 11, 2013 11:29 a.m.

Good article, Steve.


Indy: Posted: March 11, 2013 11:36 a.m.

Lunetta wrote: 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.

Indy: Without really knowing it, this statement is the reason our congress has single digit approval from the public as both parties are failing miserably to plan and properly budget our future.

Assuming that government is full of ‘waste and fraud’ and that includes ‘fat’ is reasonable provided it backed up in both facts and magnitude.

Likewise, the ‘demand’ for services issue from the public is totally hidden such that most Americans don’t know what ‘their’ demands cost in taxes.

For example, you’d have a hard time finding a conservative that doesn’t want more hard earned tax dollars spent on defense.

Yet, today, the defense budget is costing about $2,300.00 per American, or about $9,000.00 for a family of four, ‘per year’.

How many of you are paying that?

Can we afford to continue?

And what about the ‘waste and fraud’ and ‘fat’ in the military . . . has your congressman McKeon noted any of that to you?

I haven’t seen it.

And what about when the ‘over spending’ involves a new jet fighter. We now see that the F35 is now costing us about $400,000,000.00 ($400 million) dollars ‘EACH’, substantially more than ‘planned’. Yet, where’s the ‘waste and fraud’ and ‘fat’ outrage from this Op-ed writer?

Is silence is golden the approach he takes on defense ‘waste and fraud’?

In any event, a percentage point here or there is not the problem.

We should see Democrats as well as Republicans ‘filibustering’ in the senate by actually ‘taking the floor’ and ‘educating the public’ on the cost of their demands and truly ‘leading’ the public versus the current ‘backroom’ deals and just playing the ‘blame game’ that to me is just absolute proof that most of these folks in congress haven’t a proverbial clue to the cost of our demands with respect to affordability.

This Op-ed really didn’t push the ball forward . . . I’ve heard every conservative ‘talking point’ put forth in it many many times over the last 30+ years and just look where we’re at . . .

We need real change including a media that actually reads these Op-eds and then goes to ‘work’ by providing some fact checking, context, and heaven forbid ‘facts’ that support or deny such rhetoric.

What is the media waiting for?


therightstuff: Posted: March 11, 2013 11:40 a.m.

The Fact Checker of the Washington Post (hardly a conservative paper) gave Obama's false claim of Capitol janitors receiving ‘a pay cut’ their worst score of "Four Pinocchios". Here's their conclusion:

"Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad--and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments. We originally thought this was maybe a Two Pinocchio rating, but in light of the AOC memo and the confirmation that security guards will not face a pay cut, nothing in Obama’s statement came close to being correct."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sequester-spin-obamas-incorrect-claim-of-capitol-janitors-receiving-a-pay-cut/2013/03/01/3407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html

If Obama would deliberately and repeatedly lie about a terrorist attack in Benghazi that murdered four Americans, he wouldn't bat an eye to lie about the impact of the sequester. Shameless minions like Hillary Clinton can screech..."What difference does it make!" but according to all the polls, most Americans are beginning to catch on. Soooooo proud I didn't waste my vote on this character.


LADIMAS: Posted: March 11, 2013 12:23 p.m.

"Soooooo proud I didn't waste my vote on this character"
I'm sooooooo, one more "O" than you TRS, happy that you didn't waste
your vote on "that character" you wasted your vote on the other "character"
which was a truly wasted, wasted, wasted vote !!!


Socalguy: Posted: March 11, 2013 1:20 p.m.

"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?"

No it's not. Agencies can not cut 10% off the top, can you tell your mortgage company, electric company etc. I am paying only 90% for the next 8 months, sorry does not work that way. Agencies have to pay 100% of certain things (rent, electricity, health care portion, etc.) The only things they can really trim back is on payroll, purchasing new products, travel etc.) all those will direclty affect the economy by stifiling small businesses and slow down the economic recovery.


therightstuff: Posted: March 11, 2013 1:54 p.m.

Wow Lois, FOUR Pinocchios for your president's latest lie and you still don't care. As long as the politician has a (D) next to their name, "what difference does it make", right?


Indy: Posted: March 11, 2013 2:39 p.m.

Lunetta wrote prior column: 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.
Lunetta wrote this column: 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.
Indy prior column: 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.

Indy this column: Sadly, this writer completely ignores that CA government taxes for services that the public ‘demands and expects’.

The Op-ed writer euphemizes the tax based using ‘spending habits’ for some poor proxy for real budget management at the state level.

For example, we saw that over a 15 year period, the ‘good hard working taxpayers’ added about 1 million net new students to k-12. This added about a $10 billion dollar ‘demand’ ‘per year’ to the tax base yet republican legislators here in SCV-land were still reciting the same type of talking points that Lunetta does here.

The problem, again, is the students pay for this political ideology that doesn’t map to the fiscal reality we see before us . . . witness the high student teacher ratio and the high persistent drop out rate.

The issue to tax real estate should have been ‘reformed’ by Prop 13 by counting the number of people living on a given parcel since more people require more taxes.

This would align the ‘demand’ for services issues more appropriately in addition to other fees on your property tax bill that is more specific to the property.

And if you don’t want to tax property, then raise the personal income taxes consistent with the ‘demands’ placed on the tax base.

Either way, the reality is that if politicians are afraid to confront the public with the cost of their demands for services, at least be clear and upfront about it and don’t hide behind euphemistic slogans and talking points.

That’s not leadership . . .


Manq: Posted: March 11, 2013 2:41 p.m.

Who is Lois, TRS?

BTW- I care. But what do we do about it? Regret voting for him? I don't, considering the alternative.

I can't remember any time in history we had a president who was 100% truthful with the American public. Not sure it ever happened. Ever. Not even Honest Abe.


Indy: Posted: March 11, 2013 3:54 p.m.

Socalguy wrote:No it's not. Agencies cannot cut 10% off the top, can you tell your Mortgage Company, electric company etc. I am paying only 90% for the next 8 months; sorry does not work that way. Agencies have to pay 100% of certain things (rent, electricity, health care portion, etc.) The only things they can really trim back is on payroll, purchasing new products, travel etc.) all those will directly affect the economy by stifling small businesses and slow down the economic recovery.

Indy: The operative issue here for the GOP is what Lunetta wrote ‘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.’

This is just being naïve but it fits the ‘anti-government’ politics of conservatives who just can’t fathom that cutting budgets has nothing to do with the so called ‘fat’.

It’s also an affront to me as a professionally trained manager with a MBA that conservatives that discuss ‘waste and fraud’ each election can’t seem to find the wherewithal to get the MBA talent into running government.

No organization’s budget should have ‘fat’ in it . . . if it’s properly budgeted.

And Lunetta offers little substantiation except that he repeats his own assertions almost every column as if the methodology of good management hasn’t been invented in the United States!

In any event, I doubt seriously if Lunetta, being an engineer, has the background or experience to understand how good management can be effective.

And in his defense, our so called ‘leaders’ seem to be the most economically and managerially illiterate people that hold positions of authority. They are little more that political opportunist that realizes they can get votes by pandering to the public’s ignorance.

Until we can get a media that does some background checks beyond simply informing us what other politicos of their same party support them, we’re watching our government be destroyed by people that should know better or at least know to go to for help.

We’ve got the talent in the US but sadly, most of it is in the private sector where working professionals aren’t even asked to help . . .

Add in the fact that lobbyist essentially ‘own’ our politicians and you can really see what we’re up against.

But it isn’t over yet . . .


This message has been removed due to a violation.

Manq: Posted: March 11, 2013 6:58 p.m.

Ladimas' commentary is comical, TRS. But no need to "out" her.

Do you want anyone else 'outing' you? I know who several of the posters here are in real life, and a few know who I am.


Socalguy: Posted: March 11, 2013 7:03 p.m.

Steve Luneta has no clue of what he is talking about.... none.


OldReliable: Posted: March 11, 2013 7:14 p.m.

Socalguy has no clue of what he is talking about... none.


therightstuff: Posted: March 11, 2013 8:49 p.m.

Tell you what Manq, if you ever catch me complimenting my own letters in posts, feel free to "out" me.


LADIMAS: Posted: March 12, 2013 12:27 a.m.

Per TRS : "I've stopped writing letters to the editor at The Signal because they never get published." I wonder way ??

1) They aren't worthy to be published
2) Too much cynicism
3) No logical thinking
4) Too brash
5) Too assertive
6) Too Demeaning
7) Too Hateful
8) Name calling
9) Too confrontational
To name a few reasons why your LTE aren't published !!


AlwaysRight: Posted: March 12, 2013 12:50 a.m.

Didn't anyone even notice this is a reprint from last week? LOL.
Indy does an in-depth" analysis and doesn't even remember a column from
a week ago! Priceless....

The "real" column will run Thursday. Lucky LADIMAS and Indy! They get to read
Lunetta twice in one week!


therightstuff: Posted: March 12, 2013 1:28 a.m.

"""I wonder way ??"""

Gee Lois...I wonder way, too. Duuhhhh.....


ricketzz: Posted: March 12, 2013 9:08 a.m.

I just hope they never end this sequester. It is the first reduction in spending not necessitated by a failing economy. Anybody who complains is too dependent on government.


Manq: Posted: March 12, 2013 11:06 a.m.

That's not really true, Ricketzz.

The ideal way to cut is to make a decision which sacrifice to make, not to just have arbitrary cuts. A leadership failure at the government level that affects people who do not have to be affected doesn't make them too dependent on the government.

TRS: I'll never out anyone here TRS. I don't even want to say who I know. Some say we need to stop using aliases but I say it is a good channel for people to publish uninhibited thoughts. It is ultimate creativity and almost no control. There are other venues to be more polite where people are typically much more shy.


Socalguy: Posted: March 12, 2013 1:16 p.m.

The people that say this sequester is great and its only 10% how hard can that be have no clue how Federal Agencies function. This will hurt our economy greatly and hurt small businesses and slow down the economic recovery.




OldReliable: Posted: March 12, 2013 7:10 p.m.

I say again: Socalguy has no clue of what he is talking about... none.



ricketzz: Posted: March 13, 2013 9:47 a.m.

Manq; we blew our chance to be "ideal" about 30 years ago. Any progress made today is imperfect and accidental, but still a move in the right direction. I bet Lockheed says "Uncle" first.


Socalguy: Posted: March 13, 2013 1:06 p.m.

OLD.... prove me wrong


ricketzz: Posted: March 14, 2013 9:42 a.m.

Manq, we had the chance to do it your way and blew it. The sooner we accept the cuts and start adapting the sooner we can start healing. The country is firmly in the grip of special interests, and the biggest special interest group wasting our money is the Doctor Strangelove Military Industrial Complex. Our military makes us less secure by letting the mission creep to the point where we now help businesses steal raw materials from poor countries and support cruel dictators who assist us.


OldReliable: Posted: March 14, 2013 11:52 p.m.

Socalguy, try proving this statement of yours regarding sequester is true: "This will hurt our economy greatly and hurt small businesses and slow down the economic recovery." Hello...


OldReliable: Posted: March 14, 2013 11:54 p.m.

Hey Ricketzzz, entitlement spending is out of control and that is America's #1 economic problem.


ricketzz: Posted: March 15, 2013 9:22 a.m.

What is meant by "entitlement" spending? Our #1 problem is spreading the work out so more people have jobs. If PPACA makes businesses hire more part-timers, great. We'd be a lot happier if we had more free time and less crap.


Socalguy: Posted: March 15, 2013 1:26 p.m.

OLD... I will to simplify it for you:
Agencies can not cut 10% off the top, can you tell your mortgage company, electric company etc. I am paying only 90% for the next 8 months, sorry does not work that way. Agencies have to pay 100% of certain things (rent, electricity, health care portion, security, contracts on their copiesrs etc...etc.) The only things they can really trim back is on payroll, purchasing new products, travel etc.) all those will direclty affect the economy by stifiling small businesses and slow down the economic recovery. They wil affect the economy becsaue the governemtn procures tons of things from small businesses,if they can not purchase new things, small businesses do not get any money for those. Same goes for the travel industry. Also, government employees that have 22 furloguh days (wich amounts to 20% pay cut) will cut way back on spending thus affecting small businesses and our economy... OLD this concluded my class in economics 101.


Indy: Posted: March 15, 2013 9:57 p.m.

Socalguy,

Excellent summary . . .

It's good to note that the political nonsense that is used as a proxy for Americans leaves out the details you noted . . .

I doubt even if most politicians even understood or know what you wrote.


ricketzz: Posted: March 17, 2013 10:40 a.m.

America's #1 economic problem is the fact that the Banksters and BP drag us around by the short and curlies.

http://dailybail.com/home/glenn-greenwald-hsbc-is-the-too-big-to-jail-poster-child.html



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 ...