Support President Obama

Democrats need your help to pass President Obama's second term agenda. Sign up and show him you have his back!

Email:


Zip Code:


Thank you for signing:
Support President Obama
Now take more action from our partners!
 

Politics

|

White House Outlines Deep Cuts It May Have To Make

February 9th, 2013 12:51 am Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Trying to ratchet up pressure on Congress, the White House on Friday detailed what it said would be the painful impact on the federal workforce and certain government assistance programs if “large and arbitrary” scheduled government spending cuts are allowed to take place beginning March 1.

They include layoffs or furloughs of “hundreds of thousands” of federal workers, including FBI agents, U.S. prosecutors, food safety inspectors and air traffic controllers, said White House budget officials at a briefing and in a fact sheet that included these examples of what the cuts would mean:

— About 70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teacher jobs would be put at risk and up to 2,100 food safety inspections might have to be canceled.

—Up to 373,000 “seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children” would go untreated, up to 1,000 fewer National Science Foundation research grants and effecting some 12,000 scientists and students could be threatened, many small business loans denied, workplace safety inspections curtailed, federally assisted programs like “Meals on Wheels” slashed and 125,000 low-income renters put at risk of losing government-subsidized housing.

— Approximately 424,000 fewer HIV tests could be conducted by state agencies working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and some 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, would be removed from their current housing and emergency shelter programs.

The White House said the so-called mandatory sequester cuts represent a threat to national security and the economy.

“There is no reason — no reason — for that to happen,” President Barack Obama said Friday.

The spending cuts were originally to take place beginning Jan. 1, but were put off until March 1 in a last-minute deal between Obama and Congress to avert a New Year’s “fiscal cliff” of tax hikes and spending cuts.

At issue are $1.2 trillion of additional spending cuts over the next 10 years, including about $85 billion this year.

Obama has called for a small package of spending cuts and measures to close tax loopholes and put off the deadline again.

But Republicans have so far said no.

“We agree the sequester is the wrong way to cut spending,” Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said Friday. But he added: “The president got his higher taxes on the wealthy last month— with no corresponding cuts. The tax issue has been resolved.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney dismissed such arguments as “convenient spin, but it’s also a lot of baloney.”

Administration budget officials said the list of proposed cuts was compiled by the various federal agencies that would be responsible for carrying them out — and not dictated by the White House.

In the Senate, majority-party Democrats are discussing ways to raise new revenues and curb spending to replace the cuts and aiming for a vote just before March 1. They want to cut spending as well, including direct payments to farmers that are seen as hard to defend.

“It should be a mixture,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Ideas for increasing tax revenue include a minimum tax rate for millionaires, eliminating a tax perk on corporate jets and closing a loophole that allows wealthy people to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes on some of their income.

But the Democratic effort seems sure to be blocked by Republicans, who are dead set against additional tax revenue after yielding to Obama during the fiscal cliff negotiations and agreeing to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. Obama got the tax increases he wanted — with no corresponding spending cuts.

House Republicans are divided between defense hawks hoping to avert Pentagon cuts and tea-party conservatives who back the sequester.

Boehner, R-Ohio, says the sequester was all Obama’s idea in the 2011 negotiations that produced it, but the House speaker hasn’t committed to an effort to block the spending cuts before they strike.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, praised the administration for releasing “compelling information” on the impact of the spending cuts.

“The impacts of sequester are devastating to the American people and the American economy. The public has a right to understand how sequester would impact middle-class families, jobs and the economy,” she said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writers Darlene Superville and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

___

Follow Tom Raum on Twitter:



  • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

    There is no question that indiscriminate spending reductions will exacerbate our rate of unemployment, will cause disruptions in services, and will include furloughs for people that provide critical functions that contribute to our well being and our national security.
    The same is true to spending reductions in social programs, which would not reduce our deficits or national debt since programs such as Social Security and MEDICARE are funded with FICA contributions rather than Federal government taxes. Unfortunately, the 2003 MEDICARE Part D “reform” – read Trojan horse – resulted in unsustainble MEDICARE benefits and subsidies to the pharme and insurance industries that now require general funds to cover all the outlays incurred by that program. SS, on the other hand, remains solvent and only needs minor adjustment to remain solvent for many years to come.
    Our Defense budget must be reduced to reflect real foreign threats. China and Russia, the only countries whose military might would pose a threat to our security to the point that it would justify current DoD spending, are more focused on economic growth and improvement of their standard of living than adventurism. The Islamic threat can be dealt with via more effective intelligence work, drones and special forces. We don’t need 13 carrier groups capable of engaging the entire world, more sophisticated jet fighters and bombers, and a huge army to engage a few thousand Islamic extremists. And we definitely don’t need obsolete military bases at home and abroad.
    Judicious across the board budget cuts are needed. Some agencies should be merged to reduce overhead costs. Foreign aid should be limited to humanitarian aid. Subsidies and loopholes that allow some corporations to pay little or no taxes must end. Last, but not least, we must invest in infrastructure, R&D, modernization and education to remain competitive and increase government revenues through increased taxation as a result of lower unemployment and having a larger pool of qualified workers.

    • Inthenameofliberty

      I agreed with everything that you said, until you wrote ‘increased taxation’.
      Truly? Hasn’t the working class been screwed enough?
      My mom keeps telling me: ‘Work harder, work longer hours, put money away for the kids while you still can!’
      That’s one way to look at it. How about this way: If I work 60 hours a week like I used to, the government will just tax more of it; then I will pay more to have some stranger raise my children while I am working; life will pass me by and before I know it my kids will be strangers – and perhaps they will not have my work ethic and will become troubled kids because I was too busy to be there are CARE for them.
      Increased taxation? I think not. We already pay our fair share of taxes in this house.
      How about people that need help be shown how to break the cycle? How about they wait to have children (like WE did) until they can actually afford to raise them?
      We are always missing the bigger picture. Why doesn’t anyone want to address ALL the problems that got us here in the first place?
      Yes – Big coorporations outsourced jobs. Yes – Bush made horrible calls with terrible outcomes. Yes – the government all but forced banks to give mortgages to people who could not really afford them…..the list goes on and on.
      But maybe if there weren’t already SO many people that were YOUNG and relied on government assistance, then we could have had some cushion.
      Maybe if our people weren’t just about the unhealthiest on the planet (with their obesity, their diabetes, and all the other problems that occur secondary to poor dietary, FREE WILL choices) then we wouldn’t have such a strain on our health care system.
      Maybe if Mexico, and our government, could get their acts together, people wouldn’t be fleeing Mexico to come to the US because Mexico would be a great place to live. Billions of dollars spent in our states bordering Mexico to provide free health care to those fleeing Mexico….maybe we should send the Mexican government the bill.
      So may variables, so many factors. Why aren’t we fixing ourselves from the bottom up? Why do families on food stamps buy pre-packaged foods when they could be buying beans and rice and making healthy meals for the same cost? Why do young people, whose families are already on food stamps, who are already living in government subsidized housing – get to MAKE MORE KIDS that our taxpayers have to take care of? Why are smart people like yourself typing on this page when you (and I) could be donating our free time to help those in need and show them a better way?
      I am tired. Tired of being told that what I pay in taxes is not good enough…that the donations I make to organizations to help people is not good enough….that I am just not good enough.
      Most of all, I am tired of being expected to save this country when their are MILLIONS of able bodies Americans that have been refusing to do their part for all these years.
      Yes – we need to cut military spending. Even better – end ALL wars and there is enough money and resources to fix all humanity – end all hunger – educate all people – and save this planet before we ruin it past the point of no return and we eradicate ourselves.
      I don’t see it happening, Dominick. Not in our lifetimes. I am leaving my children a planet that is much worse off than when I was born.
      And that scares me.

      Compassion is sorely lacking in most of us in the USA. Is it any wonder why?

      • BDD1951

        I agree with Dominick. We should increase taxes back to the Clinton era.