But this lacks perspective. All the 'gloom and doom' you're hearing out of the White House is just political posturing. The budget WITH the sequester is still bigger than last year's budget. All of this talk of giant cuts is just scaremongering and posturing. You can't tell me with the giant size of the federal government we can't find 2% to cut.....especially when it just went up by more than that.

Yup. A manufactured crisis, designed for the specific purpose of keeping the Administration in a perpetual state distraction. If ever there was a clear definition of "domestic terrorist" the radical-right defines it.

Yeah, there's always someone who's gonna bring "racism" into the conversation. bhusseino may be black, but that's not the reason I don't like him. bhusseino is a socialist, plain and simply and I don't want my beloved country, the USofA to go that route. It has never worked and never will.

You have been misinformed.

I do believe the President is attempting to correct for the 12 years of lost revenue and 12 years of pointless, unfunded offshore military adventureism.

Unfortunately he is up against a group who wholeheartedly believes the way to make up for the lost revenue and unfunded expense is to eliminate vital Government services.

The cuts won't in any way restore the lost revenue.

Be specific JM

E Pluribus, as usual you just make a general critical statement without being specific. What did Superwolf say that was inaccurate? You realize that the American People decided on a Republican Congress right? I challenge you to be more specific in your comments.

You realize that Obama did not win in a landslide either?

This country is actually held hostage by an Administration that does not lead---but instead campaigns relentlessly. Even liberal journalists are getting uncomfortable with the blatant lies being repeated by the President on what the effects of sequestration will be today.

It is a sad state of affairs where our President declares that there is absolutely no way to cut the GROWTH of spending by 2% across this bloated government. If he cannot lead in doing this, what CAN he do?

And I love this--"The country is being held hostage by a contigent of far right anti-government, treasonist nut jobs disguising as members of Congress." And you cannot see how "far right" be sustituted for "far left" and be accurate. (BTW, I am not far right--I would not fit in with far right groups)

Smaller and leaner government focused on fostering a business environment that encourages growth-growth in jobs and investment--that empowers people to earn their own way through life. And for those that just cannot,there is a safety net.

History is replete with examples of governments that expanded their control over the masses. And the entire society suffered.

In my neighborhood it is called the 'bush depression'.

You know, when the revenue was cut for no reason and military waste knew no bounds.
But hey, maybe if we cut out the expenses necessary to run a civilized nation, that will make it all better....right?

Oh Eddie, Bless Your Heart....

Really? What a foul, little, impotent troglodyte you are, jimmie. What the matter did your Mommie not hug you, enough?

wow sara, you and ms. represent lesbians so well...i think your problems started because yo mama hugged you a little too much...sad

Jimmie, you're giving the rest of us Men a bad name, as if it wasn't bad enough already based on the way we run the country. I would advise you just come out of the closet and quit pointing fingers at people calling them gay in order to keep telling yourself that your not.
Or possibly just go back to your 6th grade homeroom class and STFU.

Heh, heh, heh! Poor jimmie won't get that message tonite, ms. directed, he and his right hand are on a date.

yep miss, the cure lies in the definition of the family..one man with one woman..not your perversions

so roll over and tell your momma she can stop now ms. and sara...shes screwed you up enough

I'm fine, my kids are almost grown so its been a few years since I've talked to 3rd graders, it was kind of nostalgic for me. :)

No bud, I'm probably one of the most healthy in mind, body and soul of any of the posters. I know the enemies to the family, and they should be stopped. Maybe your overeducated, but still deceived cranial capacity can't take that in..and thats sad. As for third graders ms, you may want to stop eyeing them with lust.

the bell just rang...Jimmie has to go to third period special ed

That would be taught by your two mommies..who have had a ton of practice with their own child..

i do apologize for the rhetoric, i did attempt to keep my [albiet admittingly adolescent] replies on point as far as my original response of the consequences of losing federal funding to programs at the CDC.

@Rob - I have reached out to our local editor in the past on this very issue. I agree with you, and would think that this type of trash would be detrimental to their image. However, the same problem exists all across the internet, and its' tough to hold the publication responsible. Some would argue freedom of speech, others simply behave and contribute in a positive manner. However, with the exception of a few folks who post with their full name, we all enjoy the anonymity. It's a tough situation, and do not know if there is a solution. Even with a Facebook only scenario, people could simply create a new FB profile and start right back up.

So you'd like to silence people that disagree with you or post things that offend you, or you don't believe are as 'smart' as you are?

I use my real name robbo man.. and I post on all the sites..use your brain Robbo and you can figure out who I am and I am only one...you just have that many people who despise your only commentary of "you're a troll if you disagree with me"..

Eddie, Check the JFK tax reductions and resulting increase in revenues.

Jeff,
If we ever approach the marginal tax rates that were in place when the (probably necessary) JFK cuts occurred again, then that comparison will be in order.
In any case, that was a one time event and would require a cut from similarly HIGH marginal rates to have similar effect.
We ain't anywhere near that level of taxation any more.

So how do you recoup the trillions lost during the failed 'tax cut' experiment?

Mr. Stephen, government subsidized cell phone are very real and we all (land and cell subscribers) contribute towards their payment via the Universal Service Fund. This program first started out with land lines then expanded to include cell phones. It is a huge business, it has really gotten out of hand, and it is easily taken advantage of.

Four years ago there were roughly 7 million households signed up for subsidized cell phones. Today there are 17 million households signed up. The Mexican cell phone company Tracfone (Carlos Slim) has 4 million subscribers in America for subsidized phones and collected $452 million in subsidies last year. AT&T and Sprint collected approximately $274 million each last year. Again, subsidized cell phones are a huge business and we are paying for it.

Special hamburger and a Cheerwine while you celebrate?

Mr. Stephen, I forgot to add that of our 57 states providing subsidized cell phones, 38 of them offer FREE cell phone service with up to 250 free minutes per month. Georgia is one of the states that will provide you with a free cell phone.

Please pass the yellow mustard!

Eddie asks, Eddie receives a logical reply:

Here we are on March 1, 2013. The first day of the "Sequester"— a law passed 18 months ago to achieve a 2.4 percent reduction in federal spending by imposing an "across the board" reduction in all federal discretionary accounts. But what does it mean to you and your family? And what does it mean for the future of our country?

As you know, our federal budget is in bad shape. America spends $3.5 trillion each year. America is collecting more tax revenue than ever before in our nation's history, and yet America is spending so much more than we are taking in that we're borrowing about 30 cents of every dollar that we spend. So far, we've borrowed $16.6 trillion from the Chinese, Germans, our own citizens and more—a debt that our children and grandchildren must repay.

Those are big numbers, so let's put it in the context of an average American family. David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General, calculated these numbers at the end of 2012. The median annual income for an American family is $50,502. If that family spent $73,417 last year and had an accumulated credit card balance of $322,205, that family would look like America. Clearly, that family is headed toward disaster financially, and so too is America. Sequester isn't so bold that it would ask this family to live within its $50,502 means; sequester asks only that the family reduce its spending from $73,417 last year to $71,655 this year.

I know what many of you are thinking: "Rob, reductions in spending are never easy, but that is just a drop in the bucket! This family must make much bigger reductions in spending if it is to survive." You're absolutely right, but look at the hype already surrounding this first step. For example, the U.S. Education Secretary claims that the sequester is already causing American teachers to get pink slips. Even the Washington Post is giving this outrageous statement "four Pinocchios," but this gives you some idea of the aggressive campaign to ensure that we continue to borrow and spend more and more.

I won't defend the Sequester as the smartest way to reduce spending. It isn't, and that is why I supported a replacement for the sequester last year that would have kept intact important funding for our national priorities and simultaneously made a variety of targeted and long overdue reductions to failing, ineffective, and duplicative federal programs. Twice in the House we passed these alternative reductions, but the Senate didn't take our bills up and hasn't passed any replacement bills of its own. While the President is talking a lot about the sequester, he is doing very little to press the Senate to pass anything.

When any family is borrowing 30 cents of every dollar it spends, getting that family back to sound fiscal ground is hard. So too is getting America back to sound fiscal ground. I will work with anyone—Republican or Democrat, House or Senate—to ensure that freedom and opportunity thrive in America for generations to come. But working together means being honest with each other about the size of our problem and the options for a solution. Those who cry "Wolf!" each time a reduction that the President, the House, and Senate have all agreed to is about to go into effect, undermine America's trust in the elected government in Washington.

The long term answer to America's fiscal woes is renegotiating the benefits that my generation (born in 1970) and those younger have been promised over the next 75 years. The medium term answer is to move back toward solving local problems with local solutions and getting the federal government out of those roles that local government or the private sector should be doing. The short term answer--unless the Senate is able to pass an alternative like the House has (the Senate failed twice again yesterday)--is to follow through on this 2.4% across-the-board reduction.

No, it isn't enough. Yes, in some cases it will be hard. No, we still can't look our children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them that we have done all that we could to preserve America's freedom and opportunity for them. Yes, I will continue to work at it—achieving as much each and every day as we can—until we can look those children in the eye and tell them with confidence that we are passing America along to them even stronger than we received it.

Together, we will succeed.

As always, if your family is facing any particular challenges with or questions about the sequester, please contact me. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,
Image removed by sender. Signature
Rob Woodall
Member of Congress

P.S. Please sign-up for my e-newsletter if you’d like to stay informed about what’s happening in Washington, D.C., and around the 7th District.

just a note again about reality...

Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.

and this from BS Mountian Faux News

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/who-do-owe-most-that-16-trillion-to-hint-it-isnt-china/#ixzz2MOnNC0vL

just a note again about reality...

Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.

and this from BS Mountian Faux News

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/who-do-owe-most-that-16-trillion-to-hint-it-isnt-china/#ixzz2MOnNC0vL

Your point is correct the US owns most of it's T-Bills and other outstanding debt.

What does that mean? Our mountain of debt is approaching an event horizon, whereby our debt service will become equal to our total income (GDP). What happens if we allow default on ourselves?

Think Black Hole of worldwide Depression.

Scarily both sides realize this as a solution (I am not making this up.) This Dr. Strangelove solution would mean that all Federal monies owed to Social Security, Aid for Dependent Families, Medicare/caid, all the largest Federal programs (entitlement, though that word has a negative image) would have to STOP.

Both the Neo-Cons and folks on extreme Left talk about this event as if it is a good thing. Starting over. When?

2018-2024. Do the math.

Phil,
This does not answer the simple question about how we make up for 12 years of lost revenue (a result of very ill-advised tax cuts), two unfunded wars and I neglected to mention, the clean-up required as a result of Gramm-Leach-Blilay (the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the inevitable financial crisis that followed).

Yes spending reductions are obviously necessary. These reductions should start with a 60% cut in military expenditures, especially procurement of pointless weapons systems that do not address any current or predicted threat.

However, we cannot 'cut' our way into success when the enormous expenses languish in the face of record 'profits' at the top of the pyramid.
The function of the United States productive citizenry is not to ensure a protected, permanent concatenation of untaxed wealth. Priming the pump to set aside the debt from which they 'profited' is clearly called for.

It is comforting that rep. woodall did not blather on about the mis-named 'fair tax' as a remedy to this catastrophe. I guess even he has come to accept the idea as a failure.

The Peter Peterson Foundation offers several views on both taxes and spending on their website. The Foundation seeks to educate Americans about the issues we face, so that we can do OUR job - That is, communicate with lawmakers.

http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-Outlook/2013/02/020813-CBO-February-2013-Report.aspx
A lot of information, this policy issue is complex in it's content and breadth, not easily 'sound-biteable."

I do not believe rhetoric such as "balancing the budget on the backs of the middle-class and poor' is helpful, nor is "tax the rich." As in most things in life, balance is critical.

We cannot simply cut defense and leave social programs, as they are - And taxing one segment of society (the rich) without closing IRS loopholes, specious credits, and other tax schemes is unbalanced.

Pure 'supply-side' Capitalism led to the idiotic decisions, i.e.Repeal of Glass-Steagall at the end of the Great Greed Cycle, post-Reagan.

Our financial future depends on overcoming factors such as, political shenanigans, public apathy, poor understanding of the issues, and inability of voters to communicate with their Reps.

Factors such as 'puddin' sticks,' i.e. talk show doofii, non-news, and other noise, create enough confusion to keep real solutions from surfacing.

The rich will always land with their feet on the ground. The middle class will get pummeled, and the poor - Well, little will change for them, their reality is bleak either way.

Eddie, you realize that raising taxes does not necessarily raise revenues, right? History shows the opposite effect in many cases.

Jeff T,

IF your suggestion were true, the Government would be rolling in money, as the inverse of your suggestion would have occurred (which 'supply side' predicts, yet has never occurred in a continuous fashion). Cutting taxes didn't supply the needed revenue, but HIGHER taxes from 1993-2000 DID. Let's go back to what worked.

And to Mr. Knatterly, pete peterson is a one man debt panic industry. He has been so wrong for so long he doesn't have any other way to turn. Please, if we are going to refer to 'experts' let's pick some with a winning track record.

I suggest you check your history. There were times in which lowered tax rates raised government revenue. This is undisputed.

Jeff,
I don't dispute that the ray-gun tax cuts caused revenue to exceed expenditures, briefly, for about 35 days, before the curves diverged and the ray-gun deficits came to color the budget for the following 6 years.

What has not occurred is an situation in which tax cuts created continuous, long term improvements in overall revenue.

Mr. Stephen, You may have heard that intimated on O’Reilly, Hannity, or similar programs, but not on their news casts. Many folks confuse the two.

By the way, appreciate your service!

Please pass the yellow mustard!

The ONLY way we are going to resolve the issues we face as a Nation, is as a Nation together.

Griping about free phones, while perhaps a legitimate beef, is so small a part of the issue.

Eddie has a point about unfunded wars as a large part of our new debt. The current Administration supports a dysfunctional Senate, as Rep. Woodall states.

Many to blam, but unless YOU quit wasting time belly-arching on blogs and get involved with the 250 year old process, YOU become a part of the problem, avoiding any solution.

BOTH Parties got us to where we are - Don't ever forget that.

Wrong. That program was only for emergency landlines. It got expanded later....

As always, ideology trumps reality!

@Jerome

Law and Order is critical, but we are fast becoming willful pawns to the Prison Industrial Complex with drug laws for non-violent offenders warehousing the wrong people.

Georgia is attempting to correct this situation by changing certain mandatory sentencing laws for non-violent offenders, look for other measures. We can save billions by treating drug abuse as a medical issue and NOT a criminal issue, unless violence is involved.

Had not seen Smart Ass White Boy (SAWB) in awhile, LOL. There's a whole generation that prolly has no idea what SAWB meant....

Phil,
What a classic wrong wing fallback!
Let's see, pete peterson, founder of Blackstone Group. Why would he so hate the most successful American safety net program? Because it works and it denies those successfully sequestered funds from the likes of Blackstone! Back in 2003, mr. peterson had the ear of the shrub administration and there was a strong push to 'privatize' Social Security. Just think of how bad the 'shrub depression' would have been had the retirement savings of the ENTIRE COUNTRY been WIPED OUT along with the imaginary housing wealth?
We are lucky that there are learned economists working to protect the vital retirement income of the average American, lest the likes of peterson turn that income into more 'profit' for his industry and 'loss' for the Citizens!

Phil,

And if I hated America, I would be working to steal from the weakest among us, not help protect the assets we all need, collectively, to survive.

Phil,
And to return to my original question, how would mr. peterson get back the 12 years of missing revenue?

Hey Eddie!

How do you go FROM Peterson GIVING $458MILLION of his own money to social programs TO Peterson HATING the same programs?

If SS was privatized, those invested would face risk-based losses like everyone else. Most everyone has recovered from losses with a Dow topping 14,000 NOW.

Man, you are one seriously out-of-touch hombre'. I hope you are better at being a mechanic than you are student of economics or even finance.

Like Phil said, BOTH Parties got us to where we are today, it will take both Parties together to get us out.

Norman,
Reread phil's post and then google to find out where peterson put his 458 million.
It wasn't in direct aid to 'social programs', it was to fund his various efforts to privatize Social Security.
Yes the DOW has rebounded (or re-bubbled). That would not have helped anyone at or near the end of life from 2007-2012 would it? Get back to me at the end of April. While on this subject, what real value modification in the products and services represented in the DOW (or S&P) have increased in value concurrent with their outrageous current PtoE?
Retirement income through Social Security was not intended to be a gamble, it was intended to be a Guarantee.
'Fixing' what ails Social Security and Medicare is simple, eliminate the 'cap' on 941 payroll taxes (or at the very least raise it to the first 350k of earnings). An inflation index attached when ray-gun last raised it would have a value of approximately 350k today.

Eddie,

Instead of RAISING the SS tax up to $350K, how about making the SS available to workers after 60 or 80 quarter (15 to 20 years of work), instead of only 40 quarters or ten years. Who only works for 10 years, then collects for the rest of their life?

Interesting point on Peterson, I don't have time to investigate that. The Peterson website is a wealth of non-political information.

The idea of privatizing SS should be an option left up to each worker. Guarantee plans (traditional SS) would pay out less than a newly defined risk-based plan, at the option of each worker...

Eddie,

What about the current Administrations proposal to offer workers an optional benefit guarantee paid by mandating a portion of portfolio assets toward US notes?

I'll say this, BOTH sides just LIE. This plan is being falsely labelled as "Gov't to seize 401K Plans," a durn lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/iras-401ks-and-you/

Norman,
Identify 5 people who receive full benefit after 40 quarters.

I didn't think you could.

I understand you have a different, ideologically driven view of the world. I am simply attempting to demonstrate we have attempted forming policy around the ideology you are approaching and we have ample evidence of it's failure.

Civilization has it's costs and revenue needs to be returned to the levels that have PROVEN to work.

I appreciate your point of view, Eddie.

Unless BOTH sides can figure a way to resolve issues of National importance, together, as we have for over 250 years, we are destined to fail. What has taken 30-50 years to occur, will take time to undo. Personally, I know it is possible, but I think something REALLY BAD will have to happen before real change happens.

Read "Shock Doctrine," and realize that the government will be prepared to step in... I would like to avoid that scenario, please and thank you. The great American Experiment will not fail, if we can delve past the sound-bites and seek rational solutions to our mutual problems.

History will judge US policy during the past thirty years as wasteful, indulgent, marked by an unprecedented greed cycle exploited by our leaders in industry and government.

"We will stand together or hang separately," comes to mind.

I know several dual-citizenship families that have worked here ten years, get SS, and now have left the US. WAKE UP, Eddie, people come to the US and use us.

The ONE fundamental FACT about any government - IT GROWS. Revenue will never keep up with spending. Fool's folly to believe otherwise.

Both Parties have a hand in YOUR wallet. The GOP spends on 'Guns' the Dems on 'Butter.' This debate started with Ike, then Kennedy, and was decided by Johnson. We have be going down the path ever since, fueled by BOTH Parties.

Without Guns there is no Butter, without Butter who needs Guns....