Skip to main content

View Diary: There's one foolproof plan to avoid the looming budget sequester: repeal it (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But, if the President would take back his "veto (0+ / 0-)

    threat," why couldn't it be repealed?

    I've heard Rep Chris Van Hollen, of all people, say that there is no reason that the sequester cannot be repealed (IOW, no law precludes the Congress from taking action to repeal the sequester.)

    The "austerity" you refer to is trading tax loopholes (which according to Bowles-Simpson will primarily fall on the lower and middle classes) for draconian cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  

    If I may ask, exactly what do you mean by preventing "the austerity that Democrats do not want?"

    It is beginning to appear that Democrats have decided to get on board with Pete Peterson's demands (see excerpt and link, below), and cut the social insurance programs, in order to funnel money to him and other billionaires, via a 'private infrastructure bank,' etc.

    Otherwise, why don't Democrats (and the White House) allow, and push for, military spending cuts?  Having worked with DOD for over twenty years, I can vouch for the fact that there is A LOT OF FAT TO CUT.

    I went through repeated RIFS and furloughs during my career.  These mechanisms are simply "budgetary tools," and have been used for decades. The "end of the world" scenario is ridiculous, at best.

    Bottom line, for the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone in Washington believes that the effect of temporary, short-term furloughs (mainly), could be any worse than the effect of cuts to seniors' pocketbooks, which will surely hamper their ability to participate in the broader economy.

    Why did you start the Peter G. Peterson Foundation?

    I think of my life as one of those great, only-in-America stories. And I want to do all I can to make sure that my own grandchildren and future generations of Americans benefit from a growing economy that provides abundant opportunities for success. This will require investments in areas such as education, research and development, and infrastructure that give rise to innovation and new jobs.

    Here's the link to the entire Q&A.

    IMHO, we need to cut military spending, not social programs, in order to "free up" money to spend on infrastructure, R&E, etc.

    BTW, don't mean to be contentious.  I agree with you on a lot of matters.  :-)


    "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible." --Frank L. Gaines

    "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

    by musiccitymollie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:38:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The way to free up money is for Congress to loosen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the purse strings.
      The idea that dollars first have to transit through banks and the bond market before the Congress can spend is ludicrous. All it does is remunerate a permanent class of middlemen who have grown accustomed to getting a cut of every public dollar spent. They're like highway men of old, except their holdup is enshrined in the laws. The outlaws are now inlaws. The illegal is not legal.

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:04:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (25)
  • Elections (25)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site