As evidenced in his speech yesterday, President Obama continues to blame the upcoming “sequester” cuts on Republicans, while warning of dire consequences:

Surrounding himself with a group of emergency responders whose jobs he said are on the line, Obama said the looming “sequester” of $85 billion would weaken national defense, disaster response, health care, education, energy development, medical research, border security, FBI investigations, federal prosecutions, air traffic control and airport security.

The cuts are “not smart,” “not fair,” and “people will lose their jobs,” Obama said.

However, the sequester was not only partly the White House’s idea, but last year President Obama threatened to veto any efforts to undo the cuts. But don’t take my word for it:

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced plans for 800,000 civilian layoffs due to the sequester that President Obama blames Republicans for but President Obama demanded remain in the spending bill. Nobody in our illustrious press corps seems to be asking Obama why he signed the bill if the sequester is so horrible. I guess the MSM’s too busy getting the scoop on Tiger (breaking: Obama’s got an “amazing touch” on the golf course).

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

Comments

35 Responses to “Barack ‘the Sequester is the Fault of Republicans’ Obama in 2011: I Will Veto Any Efforts to Undo the Sequester”

  1. SignPainterGuy on February 20th, 2013 4:54 pm

    Barry & Co come up with the sequester idea, he threatens to veto any attempts to undo those cuts, a few days ago he admitted that the cuts are a bad idea, then he begins to campaign (that`d be "add a NEW line of campaigning") against those cuts he insisted on, but now aren`t so good after all ……

    The Fed is printing the same amount EACH MONTH as the cuts.

    The Sequester cuts are about 2% of the "budget" (I hear).

    I`m un-impressed.

  2. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 5:57 pm

    The only problem I have with the cuts is how they are being done. Instead of targeting areas that could be cut without damning our national defense they are going to hit all areas the same. So you will get some cuts to the waste and bloat and a lot of cuts to areas that are truly essential. Not good policy.

    Of course dear leader could care less about that and will make these cuts as bad as possible to punich the masses for not agreeing with his desire to keep spending.

  3. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 6:04 pm

    Doug, one thing that I would point out is that the sequestration is not really laying people off only furloughing them. This is only a temporary reduction in pay for the remainder of this fiscal year. They would do far better to target certain areas for a RIF (Reduction In Force) to make the cuts a true permanent reduction in costs. There are plenty of Fed employees at DoD that could be cut and never missed (the ones you always here about wondering the halls chatting with everyone all day).

  4. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 6:04 pm

    Also, the article at the Hill is not accurate as it says all 800k DoD Civ will be furloughed. This is not true. I am a DoD employee and my job is not facing a furlough due to the fact that my job actually brings money in; therefore it pays for itself and is not affected by the budget cuts (though my job is considered part of the 800k workforce). Most of these stories are scare tactics to try to force the GOp to take yet another tax hike in exchange for imaginary budget cuts in the future as many have pointed out.

    I expect we will see a last minute deal that will avert the sequestration late next week.

    As a side note, the sequestration furloughs would not kick in till 30 days after the sequestration cuts occur (so not till April).

  5. Marshall_Will on February 20th, 2013 6:11 pm

    Oh, you mean "with a scalpel not an axe"….

    Lots of my friends have 'jobs' that involve somewhere between 20 mins. and 2 hours worth of work daily. They're pretty good at 'regulating their workflow' to stretch out as necessary.

    What's funny is, those guys always have the most KICK @SS retirement parties! And why not ( they're so popular! )

  6. Marshall_Will on February 20th, 2013 6:14 pm

    Just wanted to say how jealous I am:

    In all my years of being a just-a-blogger I've never gotten a hat tip ( or ANY tip ) at MM's! JK, great job man. We just keep throwing as much cr@p as we can find on the Unhinged Left and eventually some of it will start sticking?

    Bravo Zulu!

  7. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 6:20 pm

    LOL…I know the types you mean. The sad thing we see here is how many field grade officers and senior non-coms go from the green suit today to the GS12-GS14 position the very next day. The job never existed before they retired, but was created for them in mind.

    At the MTF (Military Treatment Facility) I work at we are actually almost 300 personnel overstaffed, in large part due to the very problem I pointed out above. You would think they would use the sequestration to cut the extra 300 personnel instead of furloughing almost all the staff which in turn will reduce patient care and increase waiting times (say hello to the future of Obamacare). Of course that would mean showing the door to all those that really don't have a job, but that makes way too much sense.

  8. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 6:22 pm

    Thanks and thanks Doug for the H/T.

  9. Granny55 on February 20th, 2013 6:38 pm

    And wanna bet that his statements from 2011 will not be played on the nightly news tonight????? It will be crickets…..

  10. Marshall_Will on February 20th, 2013 6:38 pm

    TS,

    In trying to pick up that next stripe ( time's getting critical, OR has a "20 & OUT" policy ) I called, both Columbus AND Philly looking for a Defense Logistic Agency opening.

    The *minute* I identified myself as a potential applicant.., Walls.Go.Up. Dude was like; "We really wouldn't be interested" or your qualifications really wouldn't APPLY here..? So I turned right around and got -equally- nasty w/ the dude.

    It was SO obvious he was miffed those openings went out on "The Portal" when clearly… he was reserving them for buddies/officers coming off Active Duty! Hey, that's cool. I get it. But when you're sandbagging ( and these were only PT/Reserve-type openings ) don't expect ME to make anyone feel 'good' about it.

  11. Marshall_Will on February 20th, 2013 6:41 pm

    Oh, I should have added, even though they're considered "part time" positions, they're still excellent bargaining chips b/c they more times than not parlay themselves into: Part Time work ( w/ FULL Time PAY ) mega-retirement points and all KINDS of advancement!

    As you know, in a regular Guard Unit, you can go on every deployment that comes up ( but don't look for any pats on the back? ) You got your CHECK, right?

  12. Marshall_Will on February 20th, 2013 6:43 pm

    Well, there's a few ways to hijack a thread. 1) Making gross or suggestive innuendos. 2) Flaming any poster like say.., Pasadena Phil? or… 3) Actually being um, intelligent and bringing up angles and tangents others simply didn't THINK of..!?

  13. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 6:44 pm

    Oh come now Granny….you're taking the 2011 statements out of context (channeling the MSM talking heads).

  14. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 6:46 pm

    No kidding. I have disabled vet preference (80%) and still have had a hard time getting my foot in the door. Doing some research and talking to some friends I have found the way to read the job listings. If they are "open to the public" and have relocation expenses included then chances are they do not already have someone slotted for the position already and you actually stand a chance to get a call about your interest in the position.

  15. Marshall_Will on February 20th, 2013 7:07 pm

    Wow… well, thanks firstly and thanks for staying IN the workforce!

    You know, it's funny, my recruiter buddy said a lot of guys that came back 30-40%, went to college, got OUT ( found the economy STILL sucked ) and then wanted to come BACK on Active Duty..?

    He was like, Dude, there's nothing I can DO for you!? A real sad scenario all the way around.

    Yeah, the PCS Factor is what has made me a lead candidate for the Portland deal. I really…. don't want it. BTDT and PDX has a lot of BRAC baggage to boot. Ought to bring a fella right up to the 5 yardline of retirement!?

  16. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 7:33 pm

    Even if I wanted to stay at home and just collect a disability check my wife wouldn't let me. I would drive her up the wall, becuase I would be bored within a day and be driving her crazy with "projects".

    Seriously though, I just don't feel right if I haven't put in an honest days work as I am more than capable of doing.

    Ill bet PDX has a lot of BRAC baggage. We are trying to avoid some of that here with the sequestration. Once everyone found out our department isn't being touched by it they are coming out of the woodwork with all sorts of crazy experience to try to get "picked up" for a a job that doesn't even exist.

  17. Marshall_Will on February 20th, 2013 7:42 pm

    Well YEAH it doesn't 'exist'… until you MAKE it exist!?

    Too funny, as I've said, same thing at our daughter's state agency. Everyone suddenly became 'indispensable' to their mission!

    Yup, PDX has more issues than you can shake a STICK at. In fact had it not been for our former Gov. it was already slated for shutdown. Then he begged and got a last minute reprieve. They've been living on borrowed time ever since.

    But here's the thing, for all their unpopularity, each time another ( unrelated ) Base gets the axe.., it seems to, 'solidify' their existence? And to be honest, if consolidated w/ us, MAN it would be a crowded base! Parking alone is f'd as it is.

  18. SignPainterGuy on February 20th, 2013 9:01 pm

    I get it !

    Rush pointed out again today that the $85 B in cuts, 2+% of the annual budget, is not a real cut in spending per say, but a reduction in the rate of INCREASE in spending ! Is that right ?

    It follows with the left`s (actually ANY pol`s whining) cries of "spending cuts" when in fact, (as an example) they asked for a 10% increase but got only a 6% increase, they claim it`s a 4% cut in spending. NO, it`s a 4% INCREASE in spending !

  19. SignPainterGuy on February 20th, 2013 11:08 pm

    No, but they will wear out the false claim that it`s the Republicans` fault if it goes thru !

  20. Truesoldier__ on February 20th, 2013 11:41 pm

    And that is onlt a temporary reduction in the spending. Come next fiscal year it will be back up at the current levels, sort of like the SSI tax went back up this year to the level it was at prior to the SSI holiday.

  21. jeffythequick on February 21st, 2013 11:32 am

    You know, if the Party of Assistant Democrats actually grew a pair, they'd just pass a balanced budget for 2014 that was actually balanced (income=outgo), and negotiate from there.

    I mean no CRs, no shenanigans…

    Of course, we are talking about the Party of Stupid, so more cheese, Grommit!

  22. Marshall_Will on February 21st, 2013 1:20 pm

    No more CHEESE..? Shirley you can't be serious!

    I looked at the Sequester 'impact' on The Guard ( Army AND Air ) and it's really not all that bad? Nothing we can't live with. Typically if we want to change/improve something on the Base, it's probably a few years out regardless.

    Once you burn thru those dollars, you suck it up til next Budget. Did I just say 'Budget'? So your parking lot dealy falls through? Planes & People! Everything else is BS anyway…

  23. jeffythequick on February 21st, 2013 1:36 pm

    Other than those items authorized directly by Article I, Section 8 would be on the elimination block. After that, we can negotiate.

    I put the Armed Forces directly in that category.*

    *I really have to read before hitting submit. The armed forces are directly authorized by Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

  24. Marshall_Will on February 21st, 2013 2:01 pm

    Jeff,

    It's no secret the Air Guard ( and AF Reserve ) get about 12% of the AF budget, but fly over 30% of the missions! Active Duty guys get hacked off any time that topic comes up. Yeah but… bu…!?

    So there's plenty of waste that can be trimmed. As TS kind of noted above, we now have (3) former base C.O's w/ cushy ( high paying ) civilian jobs at our base… NOT sure exactly what they 'do' or how having 3 individuals w/ near identical backgrounds and qualifications 'benefits' the mission or base personnel but..?

    Unlike broad swaths of the rest of Gov. agencies, I'm willing to take my turn in the barrel. EPA, DOE, GSA and numerous others need at least a 50% haircut. For starters…

  25. JetHeadJoe on February 21st, 2013 2:14 pm

    Either Obama thinks we're in the seventh grade, or he's stuck there due to arrested development. He says what's convenient, when it's convenient, and doesn't realize he's contradicted himself, or he doesn't care that he's done so.

    I'm sorry, Mr. President, but we're paying attention. It's as a wise man said: "Fame is fleeting, but the Internet is forever." (extra brownie points for those who can identify the wise man.)

  26. Truesoldier__ on February 21st, 2013 2:19 pm

    COme now. They have to have 3 people to do the job of one to avoid a dictatorship mentality. This way all the major decisions can be done via a committee of 3. It would take a 2 people to vote to approve a decision before anything could be done.

    But prior to any vote they would have to have a committee meeting in which they would have expert testimony from a paid consultant (usually their brother-in-law) that would prove whether or not they need the project completed.

    Even after the testimony there may be some lingering doubt in the project and may require a trip to the hq of the company to do the project (especially if that company resides on a South Pacific island).

    Then and only then would they truly be able to vote the project down as they would have no choice as they have run out of budget money for the year.

  27. Marshall_Will on February 21st, 2013 2:26 pm

    Joe,

    From Coronation I on, many of us noticed Obama's perception of "what it's like to be pResident" was that of an 8th grade boy's. All the kewl stuff you could do and neat gadgets and whatnot!?

    With obviously no concept of the responsibilities… The dude is retarded. And this is the GAME he plays everyday. (He) makes all kinds of off-the-cuff proposals, launches random rockets AND… leaves the adults to gauge just how plausible/outlandish they are from 'there'? It keeps Michelle and Doug employed.

    FROM 'there', he tweaks, back peddles, spins and launches another fleet of trial balloons until he gets the result he's LOOKING for? Then blames others when they go down in FLAMES. He's made Himself completely inconsequential and we're barely out of Coronation II.

  28. Truesoldier__ on February 21st, 2013 2:32 pm

    Speaking of Obama and economics…..Anyone see what Jay Leno had to say about it?

    JAY LENO: Hey, over the weekend, President Obama, you know that, President Obama played golf with Tiger Woods. And Tiger said the president was a very good golfer for a guy who only plays five days a week. You know, so, that's pretty good. [Laughter]

    Actually, you know what the president's handicap is? Anybody know? Doesn't understand economics. That's the handicap. But other than that, other than that, he's fine. [Cheers, whistles, applause]

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/0

  29. SignPainterGuy on February 21st, 2013 3:10 pm

    Apparently we all agree; some cuts are necessary, but they should be "smart cuts" !

    If the sequester will disrupt what appears to be the "real mission" of this WH, then I too say, "Bring on the sequester" !! http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/21/white-house-of

  30. Truesoldier__ on February 21st, 2013 3:13 pm

    Here's a plan….How about we furlough Congress and the President for the next 4 years as a way to cut spending?

  31. SignPainterGuy on February 21st, 2013 3:33 pm

    We should always see the people responsible for the ramifications of laws / legislation passed effected FIRST and FOREMOST !

  32. Truesoldier__ on February 21st, 2013 3:37 pm

    Especially when you consider that Congress has not done their job and actually pass a budget in over 3 years. If they were employed by anyone other than the government they would have been fired a long, long, long time ago.

  33. SignPainterGuy on February 21st, 2013 3:54 pm

    ABSOLUTELY !

    They are required BY LAW to pass a budget each year. Even though Dingy Harry has never explained "why" he has not allowed the passage or even introduction of a "real" budget proposal (Barry has submitted several, but they all went down with near unanimous rejection), it is clear what`s going on; first, to submit a budget is to articulate your plans (dem-libs can`t let THAT cat out of the bag) and second, without a budget, you get automatic "base line" budgeting – this / next year`s spending will be at least at the level of last year`s.

  34. Marshall_Will on February 21st, 2013 4:02 pm

    ( Have you been reading our Base weekly NEWS letter!? )

    The affirmation of that is how quickly people ditch you like an ugly girl at a dance when you say "Naw… I'm just another supply Sgt. and don't have authority over discretionary purchasing decisions".

    See Ya'! Actually I *do* but it's just not me to string people along for freebies in the hopes they'll become our primary vendor for ____. I've seen enough -corruption- to last a lifetime, and I'm just trying to finish my time out in peace.

    But this IS the "homestretch" so many guys view as their Right to "cash in". Dangerous game my friends…

  35. hopy on March 31st, 2014 7:05 am

    cuts not smart, not fair, people will lose their jobs. I agree with his opinions on Obama, he's right

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.