D.C. caught off guard by Obama sequester vow
President Barack Obama startled Washington during Monday night's foreign policy debate when he said billions in automatic Pentagon cuts “will not happen" — a line that could weaken his bargaining power during an epic spending and tax fight expected when Congress returns.
Obama was responding to criticism from Republican rival Mitt Romney that American national security is at risk if the defense cuts are triggered in early January.
Continue Reading"First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it's something that Congress proposed," Obama said. "It will not happen."
(PHOTOS: Scenes from the Boca Raton debate)
The remark stakes new ground for the president, who has said he wants to avert the sequester cuts by taking a "balanced" approach to solving the budget debacle — meaning he will not sign off on a deal that cuts spending, but doesn't increase revenues. His strongest bargaining chip: the sequester cuts, which he may have just taken off the table.
After the debate, White House senior adviser David Plouffe toned down the president's remarks, saying that “everyone in Washington agrees that sequester ‘should not happen.’”
And Obama’s senior campaign adviser David Axelrod also took a less firm stance on sequester, telling CNN that a balanced deal is widely appealing: "There are plenty of people on both sides who want to get that done, and will get that done."
(Also on POLITICO: Fact-checking the final debate)
Republicans jumped at the news, too.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said the president is "not a dictator yet," expressing surprise over the president's prediction during the debate that sequestration "will not happen."
"I was astonished, I almost fell out of my chair when the president said, 'Don't worry, sequestration won't happen.' We've been begging the president to sit down with us to avoid what his own secretary of defense said would be a devastating blow to our national security. He just said, 'Don't worry, sequestration won't happen.' He's not a dictator yet," McCain told POLITICO Live.
(Also on POLITICO: 7 takeaways from final debate)
Other Republicans piled on as well with attacks about what they called wasted months in which Obama hasn’t negotiated with lawmakers over a way to avert sequestration.
"It is a nice line, but for more than a year the president hasn't lifted a finger to avert the crisis,” said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) “Instead, his policies and positions have increased uncertainty for our troops and the men and women who support them. The effects of sequestration can already be felt. Jobs have already been lost. The president and his party in the Senate have failed to offer even a single real solution that could resolve sequestration. If the president is determined that these cuts won't happen, why has he drug it out this long?”
Another top Republican hawk, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), faulted the president for being late to the party.
“He’s using sequestration as a bargaining chip on the Bush tax cuts expiring. If he wanted it not to happen he should have been leading weeks ago, months ago. We’ve been begging him to come up with a presidential leadership,” Graham said. “Saying it’s not going to happen in a debate and not lifting a finger to prevent it for weeks and months is disingenuous. I think it’s going to happen unless there is some leadership and the president has done nothing to lead on this issue. Tonight he dismissed it with one statement. For months and weeks he’s done nothing to fix the problem. It’s going to happen in January and he’s the commander in chief.”
Readers' Comments (91)
Which is it, Mr. President?
http://www.airforcetime...
"Are you calling Mitt Romney a liar on national TV?" - David Gregory, Meet the Press
"Absolutely. What else do you call it someone doesn't tell the truth" - Newt Gingrich, Republican
Mitt Romney - the flip flopper in chief!
You DO know that PAUL RYAN signed the same bill right ? (and 178 other REUBLICANS!)
Sorry, First link didn't work...imagine that!
http://www.airforcetime...
Obama says House sequestration bill DOA
By John T. Bennett - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Sep 12, 2012 18:44:21 EDT
The White House on Wednesday issued a sharp veto threat of a bill tailored to avoid Pentagon budget cuts slated to take effect in January.
The veto threat came in a state of administration policy that stated White House officials believe the bill "fails the test of fairness and shared responsibility."
The legislation, called the National Security and Job Protection Act, was introduced by Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., who stringently opposes new defense cuts. West's bill would slash $19 billion from discretionary spending accounts, and also contains language that would force the president to replace billions in cuts to planned Pentagon spending set to take effect Jan. 2.
West's legislation, not expected to be taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate if the lower chamber passes it, does not cover the entire $1.2 trillion in automatic federal spending cuts that would kick in in January should lawmakers fail to pass a debt-reduction bill with that same amount of cuts.
As Pentagon officials have warned, the automatic cuts would be made through a process called sequester, which would simply take a certain percentage from all non-exempt federal accounts. Shy of strategy, the cuts could cause job losses and hinder national security, the officials have warned.
Specifically, the White House objects to "destructive cuts in investments critical to the nation's economic future, ranging from education to research and develop infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure enhancement programs has been a theme of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
The veto threat statement also panned the bill for cuts it would allow to mandatory domestic programs like Medicare, which are favored by Democrats like Obama and viewed skeptically by conservatives like West.
The White House's statement also hits on several issues that have been at the forefront of the 2012 presidential election.
The Obama administration opposes the bill because it would slash federal discretionary spending below levels agreed to last summer by congressional leaders of both parties and the White House.
The White House would prefer a bill that raises new federal revenues "by asking the most fortunate Americans to pay their fair share." To help pare the federal debt, Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans; GOP nominee Mitt Romney, on the other hand, opposes all tax increases.
Pres Obama / VP Biden 3
Flip Romney / Lyin Ryan 1
Nice flip-flop to try and salvage Ohio though.
Shame you can't walk back what you've been saying for two years isn't Mitens?
Americans are seeing through the empy rhetotic and chronic flip-flopping we call Mitt Romney
Obama was lying through his teeth.
If he were serious he would have tried to work on this months ago when the entire government was begging him to get an agreement.
For the past two years, instead of governance, Obama chose fundraising, campaigns, golfing, the View, Parties with Hollywood and the elite, Letterman, Comedy Central and any and all comedy show appearances that were available.
4 dead in Benghazi and Obama flies off to Las Vegas.
Obama calls our dead Americans "bumps in the road" and "Not Optimal".
Hello President Romney!
Some brass... blaming the President for not "lifting a finger." It's Congress that needs to come up with a balanced set of cuts and revenue raisers, period. The President submits a DOA budget and then Congress writes their own. That's how it works in America, everyone knows this.
Of course the sequester is not going to happen.
The only reason we have it looming in the 1st place is the immature tea party babies demanded it as the price for not welching on the country's debts by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. But they wrote it in the law, then refused deals to raise $1 in taxes for every spending cut via the super committee. Now they run around blaming Obama like it was his idea.
The US outspends China, number 2 in military spending, 6 to 1. The numbers 2-15 on the military spending list internationally do not come close to the amount of money the US spend on defense, even when combined.
I think moderate cuts are very reasonable, particularly on R and D. Our citizen-soldiers, outfitted with the best weapons, armor, vehicles, and systems money can buy are still essentially defenseless against suicide bomber attacks, IEDs, and roadside bombs. This spending doesn't mean we are making war any less dangerous for our servicemen and servicewomen.
The Great War will someday be over food. Fending off 2 billion starving people who suddenly decide to head for the USA will be difficult and challenging.
The following Defense Spending numbers were extracted from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), end-of-fiscal year, monthly reports http://1.usa.gov/Hl0pXR other sources, which reflect considerably higher Defense Spending numbers, may include some portion of this Military Spending http://bit.ly/fN6BfT
Defense is one of the few Constitutionally-mandated functions of the federal government.
Religious Republican zombies are coming out of the woodwork -- descending on America! Scary or what?
Romney; would be the equivalent to the Taliban -- in his treatment of women’s rights and the gay community -- with his extreme cultist attitude … if ever elected!
Religion; is the biggest bully on the block!
IRS codes prohibit churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates!
The IRS … should immediately tax churches -- that break that rule!
Churches -- are opposing gay rights -- based on a cult! Tax them or shut them down!
Roman Catholic; Baptist & Mormon churches who were involved in Proposition 8; against the gay community – should be shut down immediately and/or have their tax exemption status revoked!
Church manses; mansions; corporate jets and Christian college campuses … should face taxes or be shut down -- based on corruption and/or being involved in cultism!
Mormons are nothing more than homophobic bigots and lustful religious lunatics; who harvested women … attempting to scrutinize themselves; into eternity – without success!
Obama should be praised for standing up for human rights … by supporting the gay community! To see the religious lunatics try to manipulate government and our lives – is
shameful.
Romney as President; would mean the darkest & meanest period in the United States of America’s history. Homophobic -- witchcraft would rule the government from Rome & Salt Lake City …!
www.FightForDignity.com
The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 between the US and the Barbary States, unanimously approved by the US Senate on June 10, 1797, specifically states that the US is NOT a Christian nation. At that time, the US government was still dominated by those who are referred to today as the "Founding Fathers". ARTICLE 11: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...! John F. Kennedy September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. Separation of church and state was enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What the religious radicals don't tell people, and what, tragically, many Americans apparently don't know, is that when it comes to determining what the laws of the United States mean, the only document that matters is the Constitution. The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.
This could be a scary comment if it shows that Obama wants to cave again. But it could also mean he expects the Repubs to cave when he gets re-elected. As he pointed out, he didn't create sequester, Congress did. He doesn't believe they will continue their intransigence once they realize they no longer have any way to block any election of his again.
"The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity."
Whatever.
It also doesn't mention abortion, homosexuals, or education.
SixSixSix:
Oct. 23, 2012 - 3:52 AM EST
"As he (Obama) pointed out, he didn't create sequester, Congress did."
I wonder who the President was that signed that legislation into law....
You might want to go back and look at the Constitution again.
"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
Someone acknowledged God in the Constitution.
As usual, when Obama is caught lying or flip-flopping, the ONLY defense Obamaniacs ever have is to point the finger and say "but HE did it too!"
Pathetic. Maudlin. Childish.
Or, in other words, EPIC FAIL.
Your 4 years of fame are almost up Barry. Tell Michelle to have her 22 servants start packing your bags. You'll be leavin' come January.
wonder who the President was that signed that legislation into law....Remember that constitution you were talking about, maybe you should read it....
You must be logged in to comment
Not yet a member?
Register Now