A Student Immigrant Movement rally to support the DREAM Act on September 20, 2010 (openmediaboston/Flickr).

It has been more than five years since the last congressional effort at comprehensive immigration reform dissolved in acrimony. Since that time, the U.S. government has deported nearly 2 million unauthorized immigrants; a weaker economy and tougher border enforcement resulted in arrests of illegal crossers at the border with Mexico dropping from more than 850,000 to 327,000 annually, the lowest since the early 1970s; and skilled immigrants, facing long waits for green cards as well as the diminished opportunities of a weaker economy, are no longer coming to the United States in the numbers they once did.

This week, the effort at rewriting an antiquated and ineffective set of laws starts again. A bipartisan group of senators released today a broad set of principles for a comprehensive reform of immigration laws. Similar bipartisan efforts are quietly under way in the House. President Obama travels to Las Vegas Tuesday to lay out the White House thinking. The optimistic scenarios call for legislation to be approved by later this year.

The biggest hurdles are political ones. Many leaders in the Republican Party, including Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), have come out in support of immigration reform, recognizing that some action is needed to reverse the party’s falling fortunes with the growing number of Latino voters. But in the House, a majority of Republicans come from safe districts where the greatest threat is a primary challenge, and a vote for immigration reform would likely trigger such a challenge. The GOP leadership will either need to persuade those members to take a tough vote for the party’s future, or be prepared to pass legislation with Democratic votes and a minority of Republicans.

But the substantive questions matter enormously as well. The 2006-2007 legislation died for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest ones was that it became such an unwieldy mess of complex and conflicting mandates that even the strongest supporters of reform lost their enthusiasm for it. Here are five big issues that need to be handled successfully this time around.

• Workplace enforcement. The failure to create any effective means for ensuring that employers hire only authorized workers was perhaps the biggest reason the last major immigration reform law, in 1986, was followed by a surge of illegal immigration. In the past five years, considerable progress has been made under a federal system called E-Verify, in which new hires are checked for their eligibility against Social Security and immigration records. About 10 percent of employers are now enrolled and the number is growing rapidly. But the system cannot protect against identity fraud. Legislation will need to resolve this issue, but in a way that does not impose big burdens on small employers. The operating principle should be to create a system that’s easy for honest employers to follow, coupled with aggressive enforcement and harsher penalties against employers who refuse to play by the rules.
• Border security. By the available measures, U.S. borders are far more secure than they were five years ago. But there is little trust in the measures provided by DHS, and as I have written elsewhere with colleagues, substantial improvement in performance measures is badly overdue. The Senate proposal calls for the creation of a commission of southwest governors, attorneys general and community leaders to make recommendations on whether the border is secure, which would provide a trigger for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States to apply for permanent residence and citizenship. This is not a bad suggestion, but there are two dangers. First, the commission may conflate control of illegal immigration with control of illegal drugs moving across the border. Both are real problems, but they are different ones. Second, the Senate proposal sets out the utterly unrealistic goal of arming the Border Patrol “to prevent, detect and apprehend every unauthorized entrant.” If a secure border means no illegal entry, it will fail; as my co-author, former DHS economist Bryan Roberts has noted, even the Cold War inter-German border – with barbed wire, watch towers and armed guards with shoot-to-kill orders – was successfully crossed by about 1,000 people each year.
• Skilled immigration. There is broad consensus that the United States needs to make it easier for the best and brightest immigrants, many graduating from U.S. universities, to remain in this country. Four senators – Rubio, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Chris Coons (D-DE) – are set to introduce legislation that offers a good balance. It would: increase the H-1B visa cap from 65,000 annually to 115,000 but with flexibility depending on labor market conditions; eliminate the quota for graduates with advanced degrees from U.S. universities; allow spouses of H-1B holders to work; eliminate the national quotas for green cards that make waits so long for Chinese and Indians; and make it possible for visa holders to renew without returning to their home countries, a procedure that often triggers lengthy and unnecessary background checks.
• Temporary work programs and/or higher quotas for unskilled immigrants. It is notable that the modern era of illegal migration to the United States began when Congress eliminated the temporary work program known as Bracero in 1964. For all of the many serious problems with the program, it had the virtue of providing legal employment for unskilled workers, mostly from Mexico. When that door closed, many decided that coming to the United States illegally was their only option. The challenge here is to find a balance that opens new legal opportunities for low-skilled immigrant workers without depressing wages or reducing job opportunities for Americans and previous immigrants. It is encouraging to see the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the Service Employees International Union trying to find common ground.
• Legalization. Ironically, if the first four pieces can be put in place, an agreement on some sort of earned legalization for undocumented migrants already in the United States — long considered the most controversial issue — may actually be the easiest piece to achieve. For the past five years, we have tried the alternative, known as “attrition through enforcement.” Record deportation levels, workplace raids and investigations, and a variety of state laws have made life in this country miserable for many of those without status. But surprisingly few have left. Like it or not, they are mostly here to stay. Opinion polls show that the public is pretty comfortable with that, and favors legalization. The real challenge will be to convince lawmakers that a new “amnesty” will not attract another wave of illegal migrants as happened after the 1986 legislation. And for that, the first four pieces – tough border and workplace enforcement couple with sensible and flexible legal immigration quotas – are the key.

• 1 Comment

  • Posted by twins.fan January 29, 2013 at 8:30 am

    What is the Council on Foreign Relations doing writing about work visas? Don’t they have enough work with stories about Syria and Egypt and Algeria, not to mention Iran and North Korea and Russia?

    The fact of the matter is that this organization is another outfit that likes to be called a “Think Tank” in order to project the illusion that they are objective, independent, and unbiased, when in fact they are not independent at all. Their sponsors have a message that they want to get out and that message is one that will increase the profits of the sponsors.

    The message is one that we need more workers from foreign countries. The message is to tout a FALSE skills shortage claim to justify the importation of cheap, entry level, third world workers that displace US STEM workers. The CFR and their sponsors would have us believe that there is a shortage of STEM workers, when there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of disenfranchised US STEM workers and 50% of recent college grads are still without fulltime employment.

    This little piece of corporate propaganda fails to cite the 2011 GAO study that concluded that not only are H-1B visa recipients NOT “highly skilled,” 94% of H-1B visa recipients are not even “Fully Competent.”

    The 2011 GAO report concluded that a mere 6% of H-1B visa recipients are “Fully Competent” with 54% of the recipients of H-1B visa recipients being “Entry Level” workers. In fact, as their last assignment as US STEM worker, many disenfranchised US STEM workers were forced to train their H-1B visa replacement in order to receive a severance package.

    But why should the CFR concern itself with the truth? There is money to be made. Corporate sponsors like Microsoft, Google, Apple, GE, etc have made tons of money reducing labor costs by replacing highly skilled US STEM workers with cheap, entry level, third world workers, primarily from India and Communist China. And CFR’s corporate sponsors want to pass a little of that money onto the CFR.

    Council on Foreign Relations

    • President Obama’s Remarks on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, January 2013

     

    Transition 2012

    Resources on the foreign policy dimensions of the presidential transition

    Essential Documents

    President Obama’s Remarks on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, January 2013

    Speaker: Barack Obama
    Published January 29, 2013

    Speech

    President Obama’s Remarks on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, January 2013

    President Obama gave these remarks in Las Vegas on January 29, 2013, the day after a bipartisan group of senators released their framework for immigration reform. Both plans include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and tightened border security.

    THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you! Thank you so much. (Applause.) It is good to be back in Las Vegas! (Applause.) And it is good to be among so many good friends.

    Let me start off by thanking everybody at Del Sol High School for hosting us. (Applause.) Go Dragons! Let me especially thank your outstanding principal, Lisa Primas. (Applause.)

    There are all kinds of notable guests here, but I just want to mention a few. First of all, our outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is here. (Applause.) Our wonderful Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar. (Applause.) Former Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. (Applause.) Two of the outstanding members of the congressional delegation from Nevada, Steve Horsford and Dina Titus. (Applause.) Your own mayor, Carolyn Goodman. (Applause.)

    But we also have some mayors that flew in because they know how important the issue we’re going to talk about today is. Marie Lopez Rogers from Avondale, Arizona. (Applause.) Kasim Reed from Atlanta, Georgia. (Applause.) Greg Stanton from Phoenix, Arizona. (Applause.) And Ashley Swearengin from Fresno, California. (Applause.)

    And all of you are here, as well as some of the top labor leaders in the country. And we are just so grateful. Some outstanding business leaders are here as well. And of course, we’ve got wonderful students here, so I could not be prouder of our students. (Applause.)

    Now, those of you have a seat, feel free to take a seat. I don’t mind.

    AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, Mr. President!

    THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

    Now, last week, I had the honor of being sworn in for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.) And during my inaugural address, I talked about how making progress on the defining challenges of our time doesn’t require us to settle every debate or ignore every difference that we may have, but it does require us to find common ground and move forward in common purpose. It requires us to act.

    I know that some issues will be harder to lift than others. Some debates will be more contentious. That’s to be expected. But the reason I came here today is because of a challenge where the differences are dwindling; where a broad consensus is emerging; and where a call for action can now be heard coming from all across America. I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.) The time is now. Now is the time. Now is the time. Now is the time.

    AUDIENCE: Sí se puede! Sí se puede!

    THE PRESIDENT: Now is the time.

    I’m here because most Americans agree that it’s time to fix a system that’s been broken for way too long. I’m here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity. Now is the time to do this so we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our country’s future.

    Think about it — we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. That’s who we are — in our bones. The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths. It keeps our workforce young. It keeps our country on the cutting edge. And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.

    After all, immigrants helped start businesses like Google and Yahoo!. They created entire new industries that, in turn, created new jobs and new prosperity for our citizens. In recent years, one in four high-tech startups in America were founded by immigrants. One in four new small business owners were immigrants, including right here in Nevada — folks who came here seeking opportunity and now want to share that opportunity with other Americans.

    But we all know that today, we have an immigration system that’s out of date and badly broken; a system that’s holding us back instead of helping us grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

    Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows. Yes, they broke the rules. They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. Those are facts. Nobody disputes them. But these 11 million men and women are now here. Many of them have been here for years. And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble. They’re contributing members of the community. They’re looking out for their families. They’re looking out for their neighbors. They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

    Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living. Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay. And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy. Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer. They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules. And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.

    So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.

    We have to make sure that every business and every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules. We have to bring this shadow economy into the light so that everybody is held accountable — businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law. That’s common sense. And that’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)

    There’s another economic reason why we need reform. It’s not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy. It’s also about the folks who try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy.

    Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there’s a good chance they’ll have to leave our country. Think about that.

    Intel was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Right now in one of those classrooms, there’s a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea — their Intel or Instagram — into a big business. We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else? That’s not how you grow new industries in America. That’s how you give new industries to our competitors. That’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)

    Now, during my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.

    First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants. We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000. (Applause.)

    Second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who endanger our communities. And today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever. (Applause.)

    And third, we took up the cause of the DREAMers — (applause) — the young people who were brought to this country as children, young people who have grown up here, built their lives here, have futures here. We said that if you’re able to meet some basic criteria like pursuing an education, then we’ll consider offering you the chance to come out of the shadows so that you can live here and work here legally, so that you can finally have the dignity of knowing you belong.

    But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act. We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now. That’s what we need. (Applause.)

    Now, the good news is that for the first time in many years, Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. (Applause.) Members of both parties, in both chambers, are actively working on a solution. Yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years. So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon, and that’s very encouraging.

    But this time, action must follow. (Applause.) We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We’ve been debating this a very long time. So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done. As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform. And my hope is that this provides some key markers to members of Congress as they craft a bill, because the ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush. You don’t get that matchup very often. (Laughter.) So we know where the consensus should be.

    Now, of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details, and every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process. But it’s important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place. And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away. (Applause.)

    So the principles are pretty straightforward. There are a lot of details behind it. We’re going to hand out a bunch of paper so that everybody will know exactly what we’re talking about. But the principles are pretty straightforward.

    First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement. That means continuing to strengthen security at our borders. It means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers. To be fair, most businesses want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who’s here legally, who’s not. So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someone’s employment status. And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties.

    Second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. (Applause.)

    We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That’s only fair, right? (Applause.)

    So that means it won’t be a quick process but it will be a fair process. And it will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship. (Applause.)

    And the third principle is we’ve got to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the realities of our time. (Applause.) For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America. You shouldn’t have to wait years. (Applause.)

    If you’re a foreign student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here. Because if you succeed, you’ll create American businesses and American jobs. You’ll help us grow our economy. You’ll help us strengthen our middle class.

    So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like: smarter enforcement; a pathway to earned citizenship; improvements in the legal immigration system so that we continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest all around the world. It’s pretty straightforward.

    The question now is simple: Do we have the resolve as a people, as a country, as a government to finally put this issue behind us? I believe that we do. I believe that we do. (Applause.) I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our grasp.

    But I promise you this: The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become. Immigration has always been an issue that enflames passions. That’s not surprising. There are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home; who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United States of America. That’s a big deal.

    When we talk about that in the abstract, it’s easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of “us” versus “them.” And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of “us” used to be “them.” We forget that. (Applause.)

    It’s really important for us to remember our history. Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else. Somebody brought you. (Applause.)

    Ken Salazar, he’s of Mexican American descent, but he points that his family has been living where he lives for 400 years, so he didn’t immigrate anywhere. (Laughter.)

    The Irish who left behind a land of famine. The Germans who fled persecution. The Scandinavians who arrived eager to pioneer out west. The Polish. The Russians. The Italians. The Chinese. The Japanese. The West Indians. The huddled masses who came through Ellis Island on one coast and Angel Island on the other. (Applause.) All those folks, before they were “us,” they were “them.”

    And when each new wave of immigrants arrived, they faced resistance from those who were already here. They faced hardship. They faced racism. They faced ridicule. But over time, as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, as they raised a family, as they built a community, as their kids went to school here, they did their part to build a nation.

    They were the Einsteins and the Carnegies. But they were also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember, but whose actions helped make us who we are; who built this country hand by hand, brick by brick. (Applause.) They all came here knowing that what makes somebody an American is not just blood or birth, but allegiance to our founding principles and the faith in the idea that anyone from anywhere can write the next great chapter of our story.

    And that’s still true today. Just ask Alan Aleman. Alan is here this afternoon — where is Alan? He’s around here — there he is right here. (Applause.) Alan was born in Mexico. (Applause.) He was brought to this country by his parents when he was a child. Growing up, Alan went to an American school, pledged allegiance to the American flag, felt American in every way — and he was, except for one: on paper.

    In high school, Alan watched his friends come of age — driving around town with their new licenses, earning some extra cash from their summer jobs at the mall. He knew he couldn’t do those things. But it didn’t matter that much. What mattered to Alan was earning an education so that he could live up to his God-given potential.

    Last year, when Alan heard the news that we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadows — even if it’s just for two years at a time — he was one of the first to sign up. And a few months ago he was one of the first people in Nevada to get approved. (Applause.) In that moment, Alan said, “I felt the fear vanish. I felt accepted.”

    So today, Alan is in his second year at the College of Southern Nevada. (Applause.) Alan is studying to become a doctor. (Applause.) He hopes to join the Air Force. He’s working hard every single day to build a better life for himself and his family. And all he wants is the opportunity to do his part to build a better America. (Applause.)

    So in the coming weeks, as the idea of reform becomes more real and the debate becomes more heated, and there are folks who are trying to pull this thing apart, remember Alan and all those who share the same hopes and the same dreams. Remember that this is not just a debate about policy. It’s about people. It’s about men and women and young people who want nothing more than the chance to earn their way into the American story.

    Throughout our history, that has only made our nation stronger. And it’s how we will make sure that this century is the same as the last: an American century welcoming of everybody who aspires to do something more, and who is willing to work hard to do it, and is willing to pledge that allegiance to our flag.

    Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

    • Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, January 2013

     

    Transition 2012

    Resources on the foreign policy dimensions of the presidential transition

    Essential Documents

    Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, January 2013

    Published January 28, 2013

    Statement

    Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, January 2013 (PDF)

    A bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators proposed a framework for immigration reform released January 28, 2013 and President Obama outlined his plan for reform in a speech on January 29, 2013. Both plans include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and tightened border security.
    

    Excerpt from the immigration reform framework (PDF):

    “We recognize that our immigration system is broken. And while border security has improved significantly over the last two Administrations, we still don’t have a functioning immigration system. This has created a situation where up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the shadows. Our legislation acknowledges these realities by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here. We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

    Four Basic Legislative Pillars:

    1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

    2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

    3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

    4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

    1. Creating a Path to Citizenship for Unauthorized Immigrants Already Here that is Contingent Upon Securing the Border and Combating Visa Overstays

    - Our legislation will provide a tough, fair, and practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the United States that is contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.

    - To fulfill the basic governmental function of securing our borders, we will continue the increased efforts of the Border Patrol by providing them with the latest technology, infrastructure, and personnel needed to prevent, detect, and apprehend every unauthorized entrant.

    - Additionally, our legislation will increase the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance equipment, improve radio interoperability and increase the number of agents at and between ports of entry. The purpose is to substantially lower the number of successful illegal border crossings while continuing to facilitate commerce.

    - We will strengthen prohibitions against racial profiling and inappropriate use of force, enhance the training of border patrol agents, increase oversight, and create a mechanism to ensure a meaningful opportunity for border communities to share input, including critiques.

    - Our legislation will require the completion of an entry-exit system that tracks whether all persons entering the United States on temporary visas via airports and seaports have left the country as required by law.

    - We recognize that Americans living along the Southwest border are key to recognizing and understanding when the border is truly secure. Our legislation will create a commission comprised of governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.

    - While these security measures are being put into place, we will simultaneously require those who came or remained in the United States without our permission to register with the government. This will include passing a background check and settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes, in order to earn probationary legal status, which will allow them to live and work legally in the United States. Individuals with a serious criminal background or others who pose a threat to our national security will be ineligible for legal status and subject to deportation. Illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes face immediate deportation.

    - We will demonstrate our commitment to securing our borders and combating visa overstays by requiring our proposed enforcement measures be complete before any immigrant on probationary status can earn a green card.

    - Current restrictions preventing non-immigrants from accessing federal public benefits will also apply to lawful probationary immigrants.

    - Once the enforcement measures have been completed, individuals with probationary legal status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements, in order to earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. Those individuals who successfully complete these requirements can eventually earn a green card.

    - Individuals who are present without lawful status – not including people within the two categories identified below – will only receive a green card after every individual who is already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who have complied with the law.

    - Our legislation also recognizes that the circumstances and the conduct of people without lawful status are not the same, and cannot be addressed identically.

    For instance, individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.

    Similarly, individuals who have been working without legal status in the United States agricultural industry have been performing very important and difficult work to maintain America’s food supply while earning subsistence wages. Due to the utmost importance in our nation maintaining the safety of its food supply, agricultural workers who commit to the long term stability of our nation’s agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play in ensuring that Americans have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume. These individuals will earn a path to citizenship through a different process under our new agricultural worker program.”

    Council on Foreign Relations

    Immigration Reform: Three Things to Know

    Video

    Immigration Reform: Three Things to Know

    Speaker: Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
    January 29, 2013

    Download Embed Share

    Following the unveiling of a new immigration plan by a bipartisan group of senators and its subsequent embrace by President Barack Obama, CFR’s Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow Edward Alden offers three reasons why the time may be ripe for a U.S. immigration overhaul:

    • Reduced U.S. allure: In the past, immigration reform efforts had failed largely due to fears that amnesty to undocumented immigrants “would be followed with still higher levels of illegal immigration,” Alden explains. This is unlikely to happen today because of increased border security and improving economic conditions in Mexico, which have “reduced the allure of the United States,” he says.

    • Improved U.S. enforcement: Efforts to ensure that employers only hire those authorized to work in the United States have become more effective, Alden says. “This would do more than any other enforcement measure to turn off the magnet that attracts people to come here illegally,” he argues.

    • Economic costs of current policy: Current immigration policy is associated with substantial economic costs to the United States, Alden says, and “a more flexible immigration system that responds to labor market demands could give a huge boost to the U.S. economy.”

    ---

    Terms of Use: I understand that I may access this audio and/or video file solely for my personal use. Any other use of the file and its content, including display, distribution, reproduction, or alteration in any form for any purpose, whether commercial, noncommercial, educational, or promotional, is expressly prohibited without the written permission of the copyright owner, the Council on Foreign Relations. For more information, write publications@cfr.org.

    Council on Foreign Relations

    • The U.S. Immigration Debate

    Renewing America

    Backgrounder

    The U.S. Immigration Debate

    Author: Brianna Lee, Production Editor
    Updated: January 24, 2013

    • Introduction
    • Status of the Current Immigration Debate
    • An Enforcement-Based Approach to Illegal Immigration
    • Reforming Legal Immigration
    • Federal-State Tensions
    • Outlook for Comprehensive Reform
    • Further Reading

    Introduction

    U.S. immigration policy has been a touchstone for political debate for decades, as policymakers weigh the need to maintain global competitiveness by attracting top foreign talent against the need to curb illegal immigration and secure U.S. borders. Most recently, the debate has focused on how to streamline a heavily bureaucratic visa application process and address the millions of current undocumented immigrants already in the United States—particularly young people brought here by their parents—as well as implementing policy at the local level without jeopardizing public trust within immigrant communities.

    Overall, federal legislation on comprehensive reform has stalled, and the Obama administration has leaned toward enforcement-based policies for curbing illegal immigration during his first term. Meanwhile, restrictive state-level immigration laws–including Arizona’s controversial SB 1070– have highlighted the blurry divide between state and federal authority over immigration policy. However, following President Obama’s reelection in 2012, the administration and Congressional lawmakers have signaled willingness to make a bipartisan effort to tackle comprehensive immigration reform head-on during his second term.

    Status of the Current Immigration Debate

    Public discourse is divided over the issue of illegal immigration. Opponents argue that undocumented immigrants are an economic drain; others say they are an economic boon. Some contend that undocumented workers take jobs that would otherwise be held by American workers, while others argue they do work that Americans are unwilling to undertake. Meanwhile, many experts say that legal immigration must be made more efficient to deter illegal immigration and attract skilled foreign workers, but that the debate over illegal immigration enforcement has blocked progress on broader reform.

    Many Americans think the U.S. immigration system is urgently in need of reform. A January 2012 Gallup poll found nearly two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with the current level of immigration into the United States, with 42 percent of respondents saying it should be decreased. Debates center primarily on immigrants entering from Mexico–although studies by the Pew Hispanic Center show that migration flows between Mexico and the United States have been at net zero since 2007, primarily due to declining U.S. economic opportunity. This new trend “does fundamentally change the nature of U.S.-bound immigration, likely permanently,” writes CFR’s Shannon O’Neil, noting that the shift “has yet to feed into U.S. political debates.”

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Latino population has ballooned over the past few decades, now constituting the nation’s largest and fastest-growing minority group. In May 2012, the U.S. Census reported that more than half of all U.S. births were ethnic minorities–a milestone and testament to rapidly changing U.S. demographics that indicates the broad impact that federal immigration policy will have on a large sector of society.

    An Enforcement-Based Approach to Illegal Immigration

    The federal government employs an enforcement-heavy approach to immigration control. More than 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents operate along the borders–the highest number deployed in U.S. history and twice the level of a decade ago. The Obama administration has also conducted a series of nationwide immigration sweeps to arrest undocumented criminal offenders and increased audits of companies hiring unauthorized workers. President Obama’s policies have also resulted in record-high deportation levels, with nearly 400,000 undocumented immigrants deported in 2011, compared to 281,000 deportations just five years prior.

    The administration has also expanded the Secure Communities program, started in 2008, which allows local law enforcement to share fingerprints of arrestees with the Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) agency to examine their status and criminal history for possible deportation. Secure Communities has provoked harsh criticism in some states (USNWR), where critics say it has led to deportations for minor offenses rather than being applied only to “the most dangerous and violent offenders” (PDF) as intended, eroding trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

    A May 2012 New York Times editorial argued that the ongoing problem of deteriorating trust of law enforcement in immigrant communities is one that “is not going to be fixed by tweaking the detention policy.”

    Because of mounting criticism over Secure Communities, as well as a heavily backlogged immigration court system, ICE has taken steps to refine its deportation priorities and procedures. In June 2011, ICE director John Morton issued a memo (PDF) detailing a various factors–including health conditions, age, and community ties–that should be considered when deciding to move forward with deportation. Later that summer, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a review of 300,000 pending immigration court cases (CNN) to focus on those meeting heightened enforcement priorities. However, these moves have not silenced all of the program’s critics. A May 2012 New York Times editorial argued that the ongoing problem of deteriorating trust of law enforcement in immigrant communities is one that “is not going to be fixed by tweaking the detention policy.”

    The federal government’s policies are criticized by immigration advocates and hardliners alike. Many conservatives argue that the administration is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration, and that allowing thousands of lower-priority undocumented immigrants to remain in the country amounts to “backdoor amnesty.” To further deter illegal immigration, several politicians have supported the idea of an expanded fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Others, including Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, call for more restrictive policies that would induce undocumented immigrants to “self-deport” (NYTimes).

    In contrast, immigrant rights advocates argue that an enforcement-heavy approach instills a culture of fear in immigrant communities, and that they are out of touch with the reality of migration trends. Many analysts support comprehensive immigration reform that emphasizes streamlining legal pathways to citizenship in addition to enforcement policies.

    CFR’s Edward Alden notes that the White House’s enforcement-based approach to illegal immigration represents a”Catch-22 situation” because targeting deportations at those who fall under high priority categories will cause overall deportation numbers to eventually drop, making the administration vulnerable to accusations of being “soft on enforcement.” However, Alden does predict that deportation numbers will drop during the 2012 fiscal year because of the government’s refined deportation categories, and the administration will have to deal politically with this drop in numbers.

    Reforming Legal Immigration

    Reforming the cumbersome visa and citizenship process for immigrants–particularly skilled foreign workers in high-demand STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields–is a priority to ensure that the country retains its competitiveness in the global economy, say some experts and politicians, who are concerned about the prospect of a “reverse brain drain.”

    The U.S. visa system has long been hobbled by prolonged waiting periods, at times lasting years, resulting in part from rigid quotas. Currently, the United States issues 140,000 green cards a year for employment-based immigrants, of which no more than 7 percent can go to applicants from any one country. Applicants from India and China tend to greatly outnumber those from other countries, and therefore face lengthy waits. “These workers can’t start companies, justify buying houses, or grow deep roots in their communities” during these waiting periods, writes Vivek Wadhwa, vice president of academics and innovation at Singularity University. “They could be required to leave the United States immediately–without notice–if their employer lays them off. Rather than live in constant fear and stagnate in their careers, many are returning home.”

    Within Congress, several proposals have been made to improve this process, including the bipartisan Startup Act 2.0, which would introduce a “startup visa” for foreign entrepreneurs who demonstrate intent to create businesses and jobs in the United Statesas well as eliminate individual country visa quotas and offer a new type of visa to foreign students graduating in STEM fields in U.S. universities.

    Guest worker programs for unskilled workers–particularly in the agricultural sector–have also been the subject of heated debate. Critics of the existing H-2A program, which grants temporary visas for seasonal agricultural work, say it is too costly and inflexible for farmers and has not sufficiently curbed illegal immigration. The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security (AgJOBS) Act, a bill that modifies the H-2A program and allows undocumented agricultural workers to apply for green cards under certain conditions, was introduced in 2003 but has floundered in Congress.

    Over the past decade, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act–known as the DREAM Act–has also become a significant part of the national immigration debate. The DREAM Act would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented youth who immigrated as children with their families to the United States. First introduced in 2001, the bill has repeatedly stalled in Congress; in late 2010, it passed through the House, but failed to garner enough votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. Proponents say the act is a crucial measure for protecting undocumented youth, who did not choose to immigrate to the United States, while critics contend that it would encourage others to immigrate illegally with hopes of eventually obtaining permanent residencefor their children. In April 2012, Republican Senator Marco Rubio proposed a version of the act that would grant a temporary, renewable “non-immigrant” visa to undocumented youth who fit DREAM Act criteria, rather than a green card.

    In June 2012, President Obama announced that the federal government would no longer deport undocumented youths who immigrated to the United States before the age of sixteen and are younger than thirty, have been in the country for five continuous years, and have no criminal history. Under the new policy, these immigrants would be eligible for two-year work permits that have no limits on how many times they can be renewed.

    Federal-State Tensions

    Amid stalled federal comprehensive legislation and complaints that the federal government has not satisfactorily stemmed the tide of illegal immigration, several measures have been passed to handle many immigration matters at the state level, creating an uneven patchwork of standards across the country. The use of E-Verify, an electronic system used by employers to verify employees’ immigration status, varies widely across the country, as the federal government has not passed a mandate for all states to participate. More than a dozen states have mandated its use by state agencies and employers, while California has prohibited local municipalities from enforcing its use. In other states, use of E-Verify remains optional. State laws have also been passed to ease conditions for undocumented youth through granting access to in-state college tuition as well as public and private sources of financial aid.

    But the chances of passing [federal comprehensive immigration] legislation amid heightened political polarization and the messy politics of an election year are dim, say some analysts.

    Several states have attempted to pass restrictive laws targeted at curbing illegal immigration. In April 2010, Arizona passed SB 1070 (PDF), a controversial law that imposes criminal punishments on undocumented immigrants and those who harbor, employ, or transport them. One provision of SB 1070 authorizes local law enforcement to stop and ask for proof of citizenship if there is “reasonable suspicion” that someone may be undocumented, an aspect of the law that pro-immigration and civil rights advocates argue has led to racial profiling. Despite harsh criticism over Arizona’s law, however, several other states–including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida–have approved or considered similar legislation in its wake.

    In July 2010, the federal government challenged the constitutionality of SB 1070 and the case was brought before the Supreme Court. In June 2012, the court struck down three of the four major parts of the law (USAToday), including provisions that made it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to seek or perform work or fail to carry registration papers, and one provision that allowed law enforcement to arrest them without a warrant if there was “probable cause” that they committed a public offense. However, the court upheld the controversial “papers, please” provision allowing law enforcement to ask for proof of citizenship, saying that Arizona did not overstep its state jurisdiction to enact this portion of the law.
    

    The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on similar state-level immigration laws. The major issue in the case was the boundary between state and federal jurisdiction on immigration matters; the federal government chose not to argue against SB 1070 as a civil rights infringement. The Justice Department has argued that immigration policy is a matter under federal jurisdiction, and that SB 1070 oversteps federal authority on the matter.

    The immigration jurisdiction question has become a thorny issue not just in the wake of laws like SB 1070, but also in tensions over the Secure Communities program. Secure Communities began as a voluntary opt-in process, but when several states, unhappy with the program, attempted to opt out, their requests were denied. ICE has since stated that participation is mandatory and that the program will expand to all fifty states (PDF) by 2013, eliciting protest from some local governments. To date, however, the program has not faced any legal challenges.

    Outlook for Comprehensive Reform

    Comprehensive immigration reform, which would combine improvements to enforcement policies and legal immigration procedures and would offer legal status to many of the roughly eleven million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, has in the past received some bipartisan support. But in recent years, political polarization has dimmed chances for comprehensive reform. “This issue is caught up in the political paralysis of Washington,” said Angela Maria Kelley of the Center for American Progress, “and it’s Exhibit A of the victims of an issue that used to be bipartisan and now finds itself at the bottom of the heap because members can’t break out of their partisan shell.”

    However, after President Obama was reelected for a second presidential term in 2012, government officials and lawmakers have made several indications that they are ready to make a bipartisan push for broad, comprehensive immigration reform. In 2012, Republican Senator Marco Rubio put forward an immigration proposal (NYT) that includes an employment verification program, a nationwide exit system to provide a check on overstayed visas, and a means to offer legal status—via a temporary “nonimmigrant visa” that could later lead to residency—to undocumented immigrants already in the United States. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in January 2013 that immigration reform would be a top priority (TheHill) for the 113^th Congress, and President Obama addressed the matter in his 2013 inaugural speech, saying, “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity–until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

    Further Reading

    The Kauffman Foundation’s series of reports on immigration and the U.S. economy focuses on the linkages between education, entrepreneurship, and global migration flows that impact U.S. competitiveness.

    A September 2011 task force report on Secure Communities (PDF) outlines the impact of the controversial program, concluding that ICE must improve its use of prosecutorial discretion to regain public trust.

    The Immigration Policy Center’s guide to Arizona v. United States (PDF) provides legal background to the Supreme Court case over Arizona’s SB 1070 and an analysis of the ruling’s potential aftermath.

    This Center for American Progress report details the impact of restrictive immigration policies on the lives of undocumented immigrants.

    CFR’s Task Force Report on U.S. immigration policy offers a strategy for maintaining U.S. political and economic leadership by attracting skilled immigrants, a program of legalization for those living in the United States illegally, and steps for securing the country’s borders in an effective and humane way.

    Council on Foreign Relations

    • U.S. Immigration Reform Will Happen–at Last

     

    Article

    U.S. Immigration Reform Will Happen—At Last

    Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
    January 1, 2013
    Financial Times

    The November election had many consequences, but few may be as profound as its impact on the likelihood of immigration reform.

    Why? It has a good deal to do with domestic politics. One out of every six Americans is of at least some Hispanic heritage. The Republican party will not continue to be a national party able to compete successfully in presidential elections unless it embraces a more open approach toward immigrants and immigration. It doesn’t hurt that two potential Republican nominees in 2016 — former Florida governor Jeb Bush and current Florida senator Marco Rubio — are strong advocates of just such change.

    Understanding the consequences of immigration reform for the US requires unpacking the issue into its three essential components. The first, illegal entry, has largely been resolved, the result of increased vigilance at borders, a slowed economy that offers fewer jobs, and smaller family sizes in Mexico that leaves fewer young men wanting to come to the US.

    The second dimension is the most controversial: the state of the 11m people who entered or have remained in the country illegally. Forcing them to leave or “self-deport” as Mitt Romney put it is not a serious option. But forcing these men, women,and children to live in the shadows is inhumane and limits what they can contribute to US society.

    Increasingly being talked about is a path to normalisation or even citizenship in which individuals — especially those who have jobs and some education, pay their taxes and have no criminal record — could, over the course of a decade or two, be able to stay legally and possibly become full citizens. Those doing public service could get there even sooner.

    The third dimension of immigration is the least talked about but the most important for the country’s future: legal immigration. What is being sought is increasing the number of people with advanced degrees and required skills who can enter and remain in the US. American competitiveness would surely benefit. Seen this way, immigration is less of a problem than it is a strategic instrument.

    The arguments for reform are strong, but they have been for some time. What is new is the politics. Immigration reform is back on the agenda of the country of immigrants.

    This article appears in full on CFR.org by permission of its original publisher. It was originally available here (Subscription required).

    Council on Foreign Relations

    • U.S. Immigration Policy

    Follow Us On

    Task Force Report

    U.S. Immigration Policy

    Chairs: Jeb Bush, President, Jeb Bush & Associates LLC, and Thomas F. McLarty III, President, McLarty Associates
    Director: Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow

    Download Now

    Order Print EditionPublisher Council on Foreign Relations Press

    Release Date July 2009

    Price $15.00

    164 pages
    ISBN 978-0-87609-421-1
    Task Force Report No. 63

    Share

    82

    19

    Overview

    “The continued failure to devise and implement a sound and sustainable immigration policy threatens to weaken America’s economy, to jeopardize its diplomacy, and to imperil its national security,” concludes a new Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force co-chaired by former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former White House chief of staff Thomas “Mack” McLarty.

    “The stakes are too high to fail,” says the report. “If the United States continues to mishandle its immigration policy, it will damage one of the vital underpinnings of American prosperity and security, and could condemn the country to a long, slow decline in its status in the world.” For this reason, the report urges: “The United States needs a fundamental overhaul of its immigration laws.”

    U.S. Immigration Policy contends that America has reaped tremendous benefits from opening its doors to immigrants, as well as to students, skilled employees and others who may only live in the country for shorter periods of time. But it warns that “the continued inability of the United States to develop and enforce a workable system of immigration laws threatens to undermine these achievements.”

    Directed by CFR Senior Fellow Edward Alden, the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy reflects the consensus of a bipartisan group of eminent leaders in the fields of immigration policy, homeland security, education, labor, business, academia and human rights. The group urges Congress and the Obama administration to move ahead with immigration reform legislation that achieves three critical goals:

    • Reforms the legal immigration system so that it operates more efficiently, responds more accurately to labor market needs, and enhances U.S. competitiveness;
    • Restores the integrity of immigration laws through an enforcement regime that strongly discourages employers and employees from operating outside that legal system, secures America’s borders, and levies significant penalties against those who violate the rules;
    • Offers a fair, humane, and orderly way to allow many of the roughly twelve million migrants currently living illegally in the United States to earn the right to remain legally.

    According to the report, the high level of illegal immigration in the country is increasingly damaging to U.S. national interests—”[it] diminishes respect for the law, creates potential security risks, weakens labor rights, strains U.S. relations with its Mexican neighbor, and unfairly burdens public education and social services in many states.”

    But it contends that “no enforcement effort will succeed properly unless the legal channels for coming to the United States can be made to work better.” Therefore, “the U.S. government must invest in creating a working immigration system that alleviates long and counterproductive backlogs and delays, and ensures that whatever laws are enacted by Congress are enforced thoroughly and effectively.”

    The Task Force lays out a series of concrete, realistic recommendations for legislation and administrative reforms that would be part of an immigration policy that better serves America’s national interests:

    -Comprehensive immigration reform: A new effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill should be a first-tier priority for the Obama administration and Congress, and should be started without delay.

    -Attracting skilled immigrants: The United States must tackle head-on the growing competition for skilled immigrants from other countries, and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. The report urges an end to the hard caps on employment-based immigrant visas and skilled work visas in favor of a more flexible system, the elimination of strict nationality quotas, and new opportunities for foreign students earning advanced degrees to remain in the United States after they graduate.

    -National security: The Task Force calls for minimizing visa restrictions that impede scientific collaboration, noting that America’s long-term security depends on maintaining its place as a world leader in science and technology. The administration should also permit a broader effort by the U.S. military to recruit recent immigrants who are not yet citizens or green card holders, so as to bolster U.S. military capabilities.

    -Employer enforcement: The Task Force supports a mandatory system for verifying those who are authorized to work in the United States, including a workable and reliable biometric verification system with secure documents. Tougher penalties should be levied against those who refuse to comply. It calls employer enforcement “the single most effective and humane enforcement tool available to discourage illegal migration.”

    -Simplifying, streamlining, and investing in the immigration system: Congress and the Obama administration should establish a high-level independent commission to make recommendations for simplifying the administration and improving the transparency of U.S. immigration laws. The government must redouble its efforts to reduce backlogs and other unnecessary delays by investing in the personnel and technology necessary for handling visa and immigration applications efficiently.

    -Improving America’s image abroad: The administration and Congress should launch a comprehensive review of the current security-related restrictions on travel to the United States, with an eye toward lifting restrictions that do not significantly reduce the risk of terrorists or criminals entering the country.

    -Border enforcement: The report favors the full implementation of the Secure Border Initiative to gain greater operational control of the country’s borders. It also calls for the expansion of “smart border” initiatives that use information technologies and targeting tools to help distinguish individuals who may pose a security risk to the United States while facilitating easier entry by the vast majority of legitimate visitors and immigrants.

    -State and local enforcement: State and local police forces can and should be used to augment federal immigration enforcement capabilities, as long as this does not interfere with their core mission of maintaining safety and security in the communities they serve.

    -Earned legalization: The Task Force favors a policy of earned legalization, not amnesty, for many of the illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. The DREAM Act, reintroduced in the 111th Congress, provides the right model by requiring that young people without status who wish to remain in the United States must attend college or perform military service and demonstrate good moral character in order to earn their eligibility for permanent residence.

    Upholding American values: The report identifies three areas that need immediate and serious review—incarceration policies, the severe penalties for minor immigration and criminal violations, and policies on refugees and asylees—and offers steps to address them, including:

    • Expand the use of alternatives to detention, such as ankle bracelets or monitoring parolees.
    • Allow greater discretion in implementing some of the penalties that were previously passed by Congress, such as the mandatory three, five, and ten year bars for many returning deportees.
    • Create an office within the Department of Homeland Security that is responsible for refugee protection, and give greater priority for refugee issues throughout the Department of Homeland Security and in the White House.

    The consensus on the bipartisan Task Force around these issues demonstrates that progress on immigration can be achieved. The report concludes that “the United States has the understanding, the capabilities, and the incentives to move forward and create a more intelligent, better functioning immigration system that will serve the country’s interests. It is time to get on with the job.”

    Council on Foreign Relations

    • The Sequester and the Closing Window for a Fiscal Bargain

    Robert Kahn

    Macro and Markets

    Robert Kahn analyzes economic policies for an integrated world.

    The Sequester and the Closing Window for a Fiscal Bargain

    by Robert Kahn
    January 31, 2013

    The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget valiantly continues to make the case for “going big” in the fiscal negotiations. I fear their argument is falling on deaf ears:  the window for a fiscal bargain–grand, bland or otherwise–that deals with our long-term fiscal challenge is closing.  The upcoming sequester battle provides one last opportunity to make such a deal.  Yet both Republicans and Democrats say that they are prepared to allow the sequester to take effect on March 1, at least for a while, and they seem to mean it.  A deal that addresses longer term debt sustainability and at least partly restores the sequester cuts remains possible, though unlikely, as part of the continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government from March 28.  That’s the real deadline.

    Why is the window closing?

    • A diminished sense of urgency.  Budget deals since the fall of 2010 have reduced the deficit by $2.35 billion, and by various estimates another $1.25 to $1.5 billion stabilizes the debt at around 80 percent of GDP through the middle of the decade.  Allowing the sequester to go into effect gets you most of the way there.
    • Fundamental differences.  The January 1 fiscal cliff package widened the divide between the sides on what they want from the upcoming negotiations in terms of revenues and entitlement cuts.  Earlier failed efforts to reach a grand bargain also have left scar tissue of bad feelings and distrust that may make a deal harder to achieve.
    • The low hanging fruit is gone.  Now the cuts on the table–e.g. Medicare–and proposals for new revenue face much more entrenched opposition.  For many, the sequester is the less painful option.
    • Market discipline isn’t working.  Both in the summer of 2011 and again last fall, fears of a market meltdown were not realized.  While I’d argue that there were meaningful costs to these episodes in terms of confidence, spending and investment, fear of the market response looks unlikely to play an important role in the upcoming cliff debates.

    The Sequester

    In this context, it’s hard to see agreement prior to March 1 on any package of alternative measures that would turn off the sequester for this year.  The sequester that resulted from the failure of the “supercommittee” cuts budget authority by $85 billion in fiscal year 2013, constituting half of a percentage point of GDP.  In addition, a “mini-sequester” of around $7 billion resulting from spending above limits set in August 2011 also will take effect on March 27.  However, on a cash basis, the effect on government spending will be felt only slowly.  One reason is that a significant portion of spending–and in particular military spending–pays out over several years after budget authority is received.  Notice periods for furloughs of government employees, and uncertainty about the magnitude of the cuts needed, also mean that the direct reduction in government spending will be small in March before beginning to ramp up.

    With logic that only makes sense in DC, it may be easier to reverse the $85 billion in cuts for fiscal year 2013 (and replace them with other measures) after March 1, in the context of the CR that will fund the government from March 27.  This is a hard deadline, as failure to achieve a deal results in a government shutdown that is unlikely to be politically sustainble for more than a few days.  Restoring the cuts through raising the caps in the CR would seem a hard sell to House Republicans, unless replaced by credible cuts elsewhere.  If entitlements and revenue are off the table, it’s difficult to see where cuts to offset the sequester would come from.  Alternatively, replacing at least a portion of the sequester cuts with savings in the out years through revenue and entitlement reforms not only addresses our longer-term challenge, it would defuse the subsequent debt limit and fiscal year 2014 budget cliffs.  Seems worth a try.

    Member Login

    © Copyright 2012, Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved

    Supporting the congress since 1975

    contact cbo

    • Full Text

    • document

    • Additional Data

    • data underlying figures
    • Tax Receipts
    • The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023
    • economic baseline projections
    • Historical Estimates of Potential GDP
    • historical budget data
    • budget projections
    • key assumptions in projecting potential gdp
    • Trust Fund Projections Under the Baseline

    • Supplemental Material

    • slides from press briefing

    • Baseline Projections for Selected Spending Programs

    • Student Loan Programs—February 2013 Baseline
    • Pell Grant Programs—February 2013 Baseline
    • Child Nutrition Programs—February 2013 Baseline
    • Supplemental Nutrition Program—February 2013 Baseline
    • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—February 2013 Baseline
    • Child Support Enforcement—February 2013 Baseline
    • Child Support Collections—February 2013 Baseline
    • Foster Care and Adoption Assistance—February 2013 Baseline
    • Military Retirement—February 2013 Baseline
    • Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation—February 2013 Baseline
    • Supplemental Security Income—February 2013 Baseline
    • Unemployment Compensation—February 2013 Baseline
    • Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance—February 2013 Baseline
    • Social Security Disability Insurance—February 2013 Baseline
    • Social Security Trust Fund—February 2013 Baseline
    • Medicaid—February 2013 Baseline
    • Children’s Health Insurance Program—February 2013 Baseline
    • Medicare—February 2013 Baseline
    • Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage—February 2013 Baseline
    • Federal Programs that Guarantee Mortgages—February 2013 Baseline
    • Highway Trust Fund Accounts—February 2013 Baseline
    • USDA Mandatory Farm Programs—February 2013 Baseline

    related publications

    • Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths

      February 05, 2013

    • Choices for Deficit Reduction

      November 08, 2012

    • An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022

      August 21, 2012

    • The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook

      June 04, 2012

    • Sign Up For CBO Emails
    • Sign up for All CBO RSS Feeds

    The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

    24 Share on reddit

    report

    February 5, 2013

    read complete document  (pdf, 846 kb)

    Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law. After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO projects, causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year; if that happens, 2014 will be the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7½ percent of the labor force—the longest such period in the past 70 years.

    If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain historically high relative to the size of the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path, CBO projects (see figure below).

    

    Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates rose to more normal levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they might ordinarily to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.

    Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP

    The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage of GDP for the third year in a row in 2012, will fall again in 2013, if current laws remain the same. At an estimated $845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of GDP, it would be only about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. Nevertheless, if the laws that govern taxes and spending do not change, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest percentage since 1950.

    With revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the deficit is projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. In later years, however, projected deficits rise steadily, reaching almost 4 percent of GDP in 2023. For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled just 36 percent of GDP.) Moreover, debt would be increasing relative to the size of the economy in the second half of the decade.

    Those projections are not CBO’s predictions of future outcomes. As specified in law, CBO’s baseline projections are constructed under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a benchmark against which potential changes in law can be measured.

    Revenues

    Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).

    As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.

    Outlays

    In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)

    After 2017, if current laws remain in place, outlays will start growing again as a percentage of GDP. The aging of the population, increasing health care costs, and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost spending for Social Security and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising interest rates will significantly increase the government’s debt-service costs. In CBO’s baseline, outlays reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023 and are on an upward trajectory.

    Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections

    The deficits projected in CBO’s current baseline are significantly larger than the ones in CBO’s baseline of August 2012. At that time, CBO projected deficits totaling $2.3 trillion for the 2013–2022 period; in the current baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by $4.6 trillion. That increase stems chiefly from the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240), which made changes to tax and spending laws that will boost deficits by a total of $4.0 trillion (excluding debt-service costs) between 2013 and 2022, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO’s updated baseline also takes into account other legislative actions since August, as well as a new economic forecast and some technical revisions to its projections.

    Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook

    Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved, and this year, lawmakers will face three significant budgetary deadlines:

    • Automatic reductions in spending are scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of March; when that happens, funding for many government activities will be reduced by 5 percent or more.
    • The continuing resolution that currently provides operational funding for much of the government will expire in late March. If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.
    • A statutory limit on federal debt, which was temporarily removed, will take effect again in mid-May. The Treasury will be able to continue borrowing for a short time after that by using what are known as extraordinary measures. But to avoid a default on the government’s obligations, the debt limit will need to be adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in the year.

    Budgetary outcomes will also be affected by decisions about whether to continue certain policies that have been in effect in recent years. Such policies could be continued, for example, by extending some tax provisions that are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that is due to occur in 2014. If, for instance, lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March (but left in place the original caps on discretionary funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO’s baseline projections. With those changes, and no offsetting reductions in deficits, debt held by the public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 rather than to 77 percent.

    In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to face the longer-term budgetary issues posed by the substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising health care costs and the aging of the population.

    Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years

    The U.S. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since the recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates that underlying factors in the economy will spur a more rapid expansion beginning next year.

    Even so, under the fiscal policies embodied in current law, output is expected to remain below its potential (or maximum sustainable) level until 2017 (see figure below). By CBO’s estimates, in the fourth quarter of 2012, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was about 5½ percent below its potential level. That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap between actual and potential GDP that existed at the end of the recession because the growth of output since then has been only slightly greater than the growth of potential output. With such a large gap between actual and potential GDP persisting for so long, CBO projects that the total loss of output, relative to the economy’s potential, between 2007 and 2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output that the United States produced last year.

    

    The Economic Outlook for 2013

    CBO expects that economic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent. That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur—including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates are projected to remain low.

    The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018

    After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth, CBO projects—3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 2015 through 2018. In particular, CBO expects that the effects of the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing construction (though from a very low level), rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, and business investment over the next few years.

    Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the unemployment rate to remain high—above 7½ percent through 2014—before falling to 5½ percent at the end of 2017. The rate of inflation is projected to rise slowly after this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the price index for personal consumption expenditures will reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 3 month Treasury bills—which has hovered near zero for the past several years—is expected to climb to 4 percent by the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 5.2 percent in 2017.

    The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023

    For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the economy; rather, CBO assumes that GDP will stay at its maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects that both actual and potential real GDP will grow at an average rate of 2¼ percent a year between 2019 and 2023. That pace is much slower than the average growth rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is that the growth of the labor force will slow down because of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the long-standing increase in women’s participation in the labor force. CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.

    Updated February 5, 2013, to correct an error in note “a” to Table 1-7.

    • Bipartisanship
    • |
    • Contact Us
    • |
    • Mailing Lists
    • |
    • Press & Media

    
    

    Archives

    Subscribe to BPC’s blog

    Disclaimer
    The views expressed on this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Bipartisan Policy Center, its founders, or its board of directors.

    Now It’s Time for Sequester Anxiety

    Posted January 29, 2013

    Our estimate of roughly 1 million lost jobs remains our base case if a full sequester occurs as scheduled

    By Steve Bell

    Senate passage of H.R. 325, the “No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013,” seems likely to occur sometime in the next two weeks. Some senators will have amendments to the bill, but the consensus is that those amendments will fail on the Senate floor.

    If all goes smoothly, then the battle over increasing the debt ceiling recedes until summer. That leaves Congress facing a March 1 automatic sequester that would cut both defense and non-defense domestic accounts far below current appropriated levels. So the “fiscal cliff” now gives way to “sequester anxiety.” These across-the-board cuts in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 spending loom as the next fiscal hurdle for policymakers.

    We believe that at least a partial sequester, and very possibly the full sequester, is likely to go into effect.

    Our calculations indicate slight changes in the percentage cuts for both defense and non-defense* (as a result of recent developments) as follows:

    • Defense discretionary: across-the-board cuts to funds remaining on March 1 by program, project and activity of roughly 16 percent ($55 billion over the next seven months)**
    • Non-defense discretionary: across-the-board cuts to funds remaining on March 1 by program, project and activity of roughly 9 percent ($27 billion over the next seven months)**

    Defense accounts endure a larger cut because when Congress passed the Continuing Resolution (CR) for Appropriations for FY 2013, defense spending exceeded the original cap imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. In short, defense will take both a “big” sequester – as a result of the super committee’s failure – and a “little” sequester, while domestic spending was not increased above cap levels in the CR and thus will only be impacted by the former sequester, resulting in a smaller cut. (Furthermore, the recently-passed $50.5 billion of Sandy relief aid will be subject to sequestration on the non-defense side, thereby reducing the overall percentage cut. An upcoming technical blog post will have more detail on the revised sequester percentages.)

    A variety of media accounts have outlined the impact that the pending sequester has already had on defense contracts, as well as the announcement that the Department of Defense has begun a systematic review of the nature of civilian personnel furloughs that might be required. Because the sequester will now occur over a seven-month period, and not the conventional 12-month fiscal year, agencies are already experiencing serious disruption as officials try to determine how they will implement the sequester cuts.

    ---

    “We believe that at least a partial sequester, and very possibly the full sequester, is likely to go into effect.”

    ---

    In addition, both the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) and the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analyses of the economic impact of sequestration have begun to materialize and seem to be generally accurate. A slowdown of business activity due merely to the possibility of a sequester has already led to reductions in workforce among defense contractors and sub-contractors, and in some cases significant profit declines. CBO estimated a decline of 0.7 percent in 2013 gross domestic product (GDP) growth because of the ripple effect of the sequester cuts on smaller businesses and on government personnel. For an economy that already suffers from chronic unemployment and very slow expansion, the sequester could push the nation into sub-2 percent GDP growth for 2013 and perhaps 2014. This morning’s GDP negative growth for the fourth quarter exemplifies the kind of downward pressure a sequester would create.

    Our estimate of approximately one million lost jobs due to sequester remains our base case if a full sequester occurs as scheduled on March 1.

    Then, Congress must begin to look at the CR for FY 2013, which expires March 27.

    Lurking still in the background is the likely battle once again over the debt ceiling, the suspension of which would expire on May 18. As noted above, if H.R. 325 is passed in short order, our estimates are that Treasury will be able to get to August and perhaps beyond before the X Date, when all of its Extraordinary Measures and cash on hand are exhausted.

    ---

    * There are also sequester cuts to mandatory spending programs, including a cut of 2 percent to Medicare provider and plan payments, and a larger percentage cut to other non-exempt programs. BPC’s forthcoming post will spell these cuts out in more detail.
    ** Assumes that funds are obligated proportionally throughout the fiscal year.

    ---

    Related Posts

    • The House Republican Debt Limit Proposal, Explained
      January 23, 2013

    ---

    Economic Policy Project

    Comments

    Brian Allan Cobb (not verified)

    Jan. 31, 2013

    Whatever happened to the beauty of the capitalist free enterprise system?

    In the event of the sequester, won’t the release of these funds from the dead hand of government to the vibrant free enterprise system create heaven on earth?

    • reply

    Ace (not verified)

    Feb. 12, 2013

    The spending being cut is borrowed. There’s no funds to release.

    • reply

    Post new comment

    Debt Limit

    Latest BPC Updates

    H.R. 325, The Debt Limit, and Extraordinary Measures: A Technical Note

    When Will the Next Debt Limit X Date Be?

    The House Republican Debt Limit Proposal, Explained

    ---

    Click to view all updates

    Rental Demand

    

    With roughly 5 to 6 million new renter households expected to form over the next ten years, BPC’s Housing Commission is considering the policy implications of how supply and demand will allow for people to choose a housing options that best fits their needs and preferences.

    Click to view the infographic

    The Price of Inaction

    

    If Iran achieves nuclear weapons capability, widespread instability could aggravate uncertainty about the security of energy production and transport, raising oil prices and negatively impacting the U.S. economy.

    Read BPC’s analysis of the energy and economic effects of a nuclear Iran

    ---

    Click to view the infographic

    Health Care Spending

    Over just the last 30 years, the percentage of our GDP devoted to spending on health care has doubled. This rapid growth in health expenditures creates an unsustainable burden on America’s economy, with far-reaching consequences.

    BPC’s Health Care Cost Containment Initiative plans to produce a comprehensive, bipartisan package of health care cost containment options that, if implemented together, could reduce system-wide health care costs, slow cost growth and improve the efficiency and quality of care in the United States.

    ---

    Staff Paper

    What Is Driving U.S. Health Care Spending? America’s Unsustainable Health Care Cost Growth

    ---

    From BPC’s Blog

    Health Care Cost Drivers Report

    Generation Gap

    

    Large numbers of Baby Boomers may move out of their current homes over the next decade. The extent to which younger Echo Boomer households are in a position to buy those homes will affect neighborhood stability and the demand for new construction.

    Click to view the infographic

    Expert Forum

    November 2012: What have we learned from past disaster recovery efforts that could be applied in the way of housing assistance following Hurricane Sandy?

    ---

    October 2012: What should be the interaction (if any) between state and local policies that impact housing availability and affordability?

    ---

    September 2012: What statement(s) related to housing—policy, or otherwise—would you want to hear in the presidential debates?

    ---

    August 2012: What is the role of housing education and counseling in the future housing economy and finance system?

    ---

    July 2012: Do alternative forms of homeownership, such as shared equity models and rent-to-own programs, present viable alternatives for future homeownership?

    ---

    June 2012: What are the best options for the millions of single-family homes that may be left behind by Baby Boomers as they age?

    ---

    May 2012: What can we learn from current or previous efforts to link evidence-based outcomes to policy or program development?

    ---

    April 2012: What lessons can the U.S. learn from housing programs, policies, or regulatory frameworks in other countries?

    ---

    March 2012: How can housing policy be responsive to today’s urgent needs and simultaneously address long-term trends?

    ---

    February 2012: What are some of the key characteristics of a healthy housing system?

    ---

    January 2012: What should the federal government do to address the inventory of foreclosed properties?

    ---

    December 2011: What are the most pressing issues in housing policy today?

    Stay Connected

    

    Join Our Mailing List

    Navigate:

    • POLITICO
    • Congress
    • House GOP thinks unthinkable on defense cuts

    

    House GOP thinks unthinkable on defense cuts

    • 145
    • 36

    • Short URL
      URL
    • Email
    • Print

    

    The Pentagon is no longer immune from budgetary cuts. | AP Photo

    By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 2/5/13 4:35 AM EST

    The Republican mantra for decades has been: cut NPR, EPA and the National Endowment for the Arts.

    Now add the Pentagon to the list.

    Continue Reading

    Text Size

    • -
    • +
    • reset

    Why Pentagon no longer immune from cuts

    Latest on POLITICO

    • Ben Carson vs. Obama
    • Site grades pundits on predictions
    • GOP should avoid immigration trap
    • N. Korea’s test could teach a lot
    • Seek the wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew
    • Universal preschool raises bar

    In the modern history of the Republican Party, it would have been unthinkable. The GOP is built on two core tenets — small government and big defense spending — and for decades, the two ideas co-existed peacefully. Republicans wanted to cut the federal budget — everywhere except the Pentagon. No more.

    (Also on POLITICO: Partisan paralysis returns to the Hill)

    The reason: A new breed of conservatives in the House cares so much about cutting spending they’re willing to extend that to the budget for bullets and bombs, too — in this case, by letting $500 billion in across-the-board automatic budget cuts over 10 years take effect, alongside a similar number for domestic agencies.

    “I’m reading what a lot of different members are saying, and I find there’s not as much opposition to sequestration as I thought there might be,” Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of the Pentagon’s purse strings, told POLITICO.

    “I don’t think I have any real feeling for which direction this House is going, and this is the first time in a long time that I haven’t had a pretty good feel for it,” Young added.

    (Also on POLITICO: Double whammy for Pentagon)

    It’s got defense hawks in the House on edge — and on the defensive. But the members of the next generation say their argument is straightforward: Of course they want a strong national defense, but spending is spending.

    “What you’re hearing from some folks about the status of the sequester simply tells you that there’s a group of Republicans who are willing to look at the Defense Department equally with the other departments,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a sophomore who has been leading the campaign for spending cuts, including at the Pentagon.

    “I think Republicans lose credibility when they say we have to look everywhere for savings except defense,” he added.

    Republican Policy Committee Chairman James Lankford of Oklahoma said sequester isn’t his first choice. He’d rather shift cuts to domestic programs, but he knows that’s an idea Senate Democrats aren’t going to swallow.

    “I haven’t done the head count, but I can tell you a large part is committed to saying we have to reduce spending. We’d rather do it another way. But if the only way it can be done is sequestration, then it has to be done,” said Lankford, a sophomore who quickly rose to the top ranks of Republican leadership.

    Right now, bets are on the automatic cuts taking place. It would take a dramatic, last-minute action from the White House to prevent them.

    And sequestration saber rattling is loud enough that the defense industry is taking notice. Pentagon brass, who had long insisted they weren’t planning for sequestration, outlined several short-term personnel measures in case Congress doesn’t turn off the automatic cuts by the March 1 deadline, including hiring freezes, voluntary early retirements and furloughs of up to 30 days.

    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • »

    • 145
    • 36

    • Short URL
      URL
    • Email
    • Print

    Back to top

    Author:

    • Darren Samuelsohn (dsamuelsohn@politico.com | @dsamuelsohn)

    

    Leave a message…

    • Discussion
    • Community
    • My Disqus 84
    • Share

    • 

      automaticftp • 9 days ago

      Actually, the military is absurdly top-heavy. Cut one- third of officers O-4 and above and one-third of enlisted E-7 and above.

      Then, kill the most wasteful program, ever – the F-35. We do not need it, and cannot afford it. While we’re at it, kill all the other programs that aren’t needed, like the XM-25 et al.

      We spend way too much on defense – it is not a jobs program. We’d be much safer investing the money in basic science and infrastructure.

    • 42
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        dddsba automaticftp • 9 days ago

        ABSOLUTELY – this sequestration and massive budget cuts are FABULOUS! START CUTTING DEEP & WIDE. Hey, Military-Folk: COPE. Just pretend that Paul Ryan’s budget has passed and that this is your “premium support plan” VOUCHER. Enjoy it

      • 11
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        piniella automaticftp • 9 days ago

        [Then, kill the most wasteful program, ever - the F-35.] When I first read about this program, I was immediately reminded of the failed F-111 program which was also supposed to create planes suitable for each branch of the military.

      • 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        tehe3 automaticftp • 9 days ago

        The Republicans agreed to these cuts. Give them credit for that. Rumor has it that the Dems want to stop the cuts and increase military spending. They think the cuts will hurt Obama and the Dems in Virginia in 2014.

        We will see if Obama proposes a short or long term fix to the sequester. If he does, it will mean he is simply a “tax and spend” Democrat of the worst kind! It will mean he is a fraud and someone who is trying to destroy our economy.

        It will mean he is willing to spend more money now, but let entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt and disappear for the elderly in 10-20 years. That would be proof that Obama cares NOTHING about the middle class, and is only concerned about enriching his corporate buddies who helped him get reelected!

      • 2 6
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          gabba001 tehe3 • 9 days ago

          and just where did this “rumor” start? just now with you?

        • 7
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • 

          dddsba tehe3 • 9 days ago

          Good point – the military needs to start shrinking NOW! All entitlements should be off the table now and forever. Cut where real savings can be found!

        • 8 2
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            TSIndiana dddsba • 9 days ago

            Cut Israel.

          • 7
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              bendorion TSIndiana • 9 days ago

              OMG, Lindsay and John will be so disappointed. We are the United States of Israel, in their reality

            • 4
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
          • 

            Joseph Lammers dddsba • 8 days ago

            Yes, the military needs to shrink at least some, but entitlements need to be on the table too. We could eliminate the entire Department of Defense and we’d STILL be running a deficit. The real savings can be found in entitlements.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
        • 

          Guest tehe3 • 8 days ago

          What you say is ungrounded…
          “Tax and spend”? That’s how a government WORKS. It HAS to tax.
          Spending creates jobs. Jobs make a better economy. Spending does give us a good economy.

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
    • 

      W0X0F • 9 days ago

      This ain’t rocket science. Bring all the troops home, close all overseas bases, and concentrate on defending the US.

      We should not be the worlds policeman, or Israel/Saudi mercenaries.

    • 38 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        delta bravo W0X0F • 9 days ago

        couldn’t agree more. why do we need to provide “socialist europe” with missile defense and US troops? the defense budget can easily be cut by 2/3rds and still have roughly more money than clinton’s 2000 defense budget. use the money to rebuild america and the jobs created will more than adequately make up for those lost in the defense industry.

      • 17 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          Daxis delta bravo • 9 days ago

          Socialist Europe?
          I agree with you on making spending cuts but don’t paint Europe with such a broad brush.

        • 8
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            delta bravo Daxis • 9 days ago

            nothing at all against europe… it was snark since right wingers love calling them “socialist”.

          • 12 1
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              dddsba delta bravo • 9 days ago

              They don’t even understand what it really means

            • 9 2
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
      • 

        TSIndiana W0X0F • 9 days ago

        Even cutting from 800 to 300 foreign bases would be a HUGE savings. I agree re Israel and the paid war mercenaries.

      • 4 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        tehe3 W0X0F • 9 days ago

        The DOJ has decided we can’t use enhanced interrogation, but we can kill ‘em with drones!

        http://openchannel.nbcnews.com…

        This looks like the same DOJ office that ruled it was legal to use water-boarding to question KSM which helped us find OBL. Now they have a new ruling on killing Americans with missiles!

        Shazam!

      • 1 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          big beast tehe3 • 9 days ago

          You’re attempting to tie torture in with bombing, well the Geneva convention says different, torture is torture and bombing is bombing.

          Remember how we bomb :

          1. Dresden

          2. Iraq

          3. Vietnam

          4. Japan

          Were these war crimes, waterboarding is. Stick to things you know and by the look of it, you don’t know much.

        • 7 1
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            Scotty Starnes big beast • 9 days ago

            Those tortured souls live. Drone strikes kill and often kill innocent individuals.

          • 0 1
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              KeithE4Phx Scotty Starnes • 9 days ago

              So did those two atomic bombs we dropped on Japan in 1945. What’s your point?

            • 1
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
          • 

            Richard Schachner big beast • 9 days ago

            Most of the bombing on those places should have been war crimes as most of them were dropped solely on civilian targets. Don’t believe everything your government tells you.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              big beast Richard Schachner • 8 days ago

              I don’t, but war crimes are the domain of the Geneva conventions and not the government, they determine what is a war crime and what isn’t.

            • 1
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
    • 

      Justin Bilyj • 9 days ago

      Two things
      1) The republicans don’t stand for large defense and small government. Their predecessors did. Modern day Republicans stand for Large Corrupt Government that provide kickbacks from the banking corporations that control way too much. They also stand for not defense, but a large military industrial complex whichsucks the Amercian republic dry, it is a cancer that needs the light of day shined on it. DEFENSE SPENDING is being used as an excuse to enrich these blacklisted corporations.
      2) not all military spending is defense spending

    • 20 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        Scotty Starnes Justin Bilyj • 9 days ago

        Except for the simple fact that large corporations and banks bankrolled Obama’s presidency twice (most campaign $$$ in history). NO bankers prosecuted because of their ties to Team Obama and Eric Holder, along with others at the DOJ, representing these crooks before being given prime jobs due to their bundling for Obama.

        Also should point out that defense spending isn’t what is bankrupting the US.

      • 2 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        Jesse Justin Bilyj • 9 days ago

        So blindly partisan… How many bank CEOs has Obama gone after? How much influence and law writing is happening at the Executive level to help big business? ACA was passed as a gift to big business, only Dems vote for it. Just recently the IRS implemented new tax preparer rules to benefit HR Block, supported by the Executive. If you don’t believe large, old corporations don’t use the regulation power of government to grow and maintain share you are honestly ignorant to reality.

      • 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          Richard Schachner Jesse • 9 days ago

          So what is new? All that has been happening ever since we started electing presidents and congress.

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
    • 

      PenelopeO • 9 days ago

      Who do repubs think they are fooling. Cutting spending is far down on the list for them (as evidenced by their vote for Ryan’s budget). Their FIRST and ONLY concern is to prevent those at the top from paying a single penny more to fund government. They would rather see defense spending slashed than compromise on additional revenues that dems demand. They can see in the current climate, they would lose that fight, so better to let the sequester take place.

    • 12
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        Joseph Lammers PenelopeO • 8 days ago

        If cutting spending is far down on the list for Republicans, it is non-existent for Democrats. Let the sequestration go forward!

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      Kevin Brock • 9 days ago

      The GOP is really between a rock and a hard place on this. They have their “chainsaw cuts” wing, who want to simply take a chainsaw to the budget and slash away willy-nilly. And they have those members from states with a big military presence, like California, Virginia, and North Carolina, who apparently are now afraid of being branded with the “K” word – for either Keynes or Krugman. You don’t hear them coming out on the talk shows lamenting the jobs that would be lost as a result of these cuts.

      But it seems that the chainsaw crowd are blind to the effects of Cameron’s austerity in Britain, now with their triple-dip recession. They are hell bent on throwing the economy into another tailspin, that will be even more difficult to recover from.

    • 9
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        rothbardsghost Kevin Brock • 9 days ago

        Kevin, the reality is that the Defense budget, and military spending, cannot, and should not, serve as a jobs program. Arguing against cuts because it may have an impact on the economy is circular logic at it’s finest. Theoretically, every government program can be said to “create jobs” because folks need to be employed to administer the programs, etc. But, what always gets forgotten is that an economy that’s being propped by wild and out of control spending is illusory, it’s not a real economy, at least not one that can thrive once the government checks stop flowing, which is pretty likely when you’re 16 trillion in debt. Frankly this has always been the problem with both Keynes and Krugman- at some point the house of cards economy propped up by government pumping hits the wall of fiscal reality.

      • 10
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          Jon rothbardsghost • 9 days ago

          Kevin is right. The danger of sequester is that the republicans actually are OK with allowing these huge budget cuts to military to get the 10% cut across the board that goes along with this. They then figure they can fight for military increases later.

          The problem is, the sequester will kill the recovery dead and then we are back in a recession and higher unemployment at a fragile time. The US will hurt, but other economies across the globe would be devastated by this as well.

          The Republican party needs to listen to Bobby Jindal and stop being the party of dumb.

        • 6
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            rothbardsghost Jon • 9 days ago

            Jon, I have no doubt that the GOP wants to tie defense cuts to across the board cuts and that they’ve calculated that agreeing to defense cuts is the best way to go about it.

            What I have a problem with is this idea of yours that we should avoid cuts because they will “kill the recovery”. I would submit that a “recovery” which is dependent upon business as usual out of D.C., with the crazed out of control spending to prop it up, is not a real recovery, it’s an illusion. That has to be the case if we’ll “slide back into recession” once the government spigot is cut off. At what point is the “recovery” strong enough to sustain itself, without being propped up by crazed spending of money we don’t have ? we can only keep papering over the true state of the economy for so long by spending, borrowing and printing money. at some point that type of economy has to collapse, it’s inevitable.

          • 3
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              John Funk rothbardsghost • 9 days ago

              While I agree with your broader point that an economy cannot stand on public spending alone, you’re wrong in this. A government – rather, a country – is not a family, where simply tightening our belt alone is a feasible strategy. Everything here is cyclical; my spending is your income and your spending is my income. Surely we can agree on that basic point, yes? If I lower my spending, your income goes down. Which means that you lower your spending, and someone else’s income goes down, etc. Business lay off because there’s not enough demand, which causes a further decrease in demand because people are laid off and don’t have incomes.

              Government spending in terms of investment (which we sorely need anyway) can get people spending and increase demand. And once the business has hired two more workers to deal with the increased demand, that’s two more people earning wages buying things, increasing demand, etc.

              Economies are cyclical. We should have been priming the pump from the middle out from the beginning.

            • 4
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
            • • 

                Scotty Starnes John Funk • 9 days ago

                Explain why $6 trillion plus in spending and another $ 4 trillion in monetizing the debt (quantitative easing) hasn’t worked?

              • 0 1
              • •
              • Reply
              • •
              • Share ›
              • • 

                  John Funk Scotty Starnes • 7 days ago

                  How do you know it hasn’t? Maybe we’d be all the more fucked if we hadn’t done it. (See also: Austerity programs in Europe plunging economies back into recession).

                  There’s an argument to be made that there was not enough money spent, and not enough of the money spent in the right places (like infrastructure, etc).

                • 0
                • •
                • Reply
                • •
                • Share ›
          • 

            Scotty Starnes Jon • 9 days ago

            Coming from someone who clearly is an low-information voter and doesn’t know Obama and Democrats are the ones who asked for these defense cuts in the fiscal cliff deal. Read more, comment less.

          • 1 1
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              Jon Scotty Starnes • 7 days ago

              Scotty, do you know why the sequestration was devised in the first place? It sure as hell wasn’t because either side actually wanted the sequester to go through. In fact it was set up to be so distasteful to both sides that they would basically have a gun to thier heads to compromise and reach a budget that looked nothing like the sequestration. So right now there are Republicans in the House, that are so gung ho about cutting the budget, that they are willing to go ahead and allow the sequestration to go through rather than compromise with Democrats to come up with a reasonable budget. This despite the fact that John Boehner and Obama were very close to a huge deal between 3 and 4 Trillion $. The Tea Party ruined any chance of that deal. They are so against compromising at all with Obama and the Democrats, that they are now willing to go nuclear instead of taking a bipartisan deal and making history.

              So think again about who you consider “low-information.” Don’t sit here and act like any Democrat wants the sequestration to go through. They sure as hell don’t. They would rather reach a compromise budget deal. If the Republicans want to go Nuclear and allow sequestration, and send the US and the World head long into recession again, there is no one else to blame but Republicans.

            • 0
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
        • 

          tomfiore rothbardsghost • 9 days ago

          Well that’s a yes and no type of situation. There are plenty of government programs that just exist to transfer money from one part of the economy to the other and leave no real lasting impact. It can be argued that military spending is one of the worst in that regard since the protection that is provided is basically invisible to those of us protected and the spending is mostly consumed and is gone. On the other hand if you take something like the interstate highway system or mass transit in the old line large cities you see something that has created commerce where none existed. Somewhere in the middle you find things like the education system which can produce the workforce to keep us at the top of the world economy, but frequently does little other than bore the uninterested consumers and leave them incapable of coping with the workforce post graduation. You can argue that entropy sets in with some programs, but it is really unfair to suggest that all government spending is wild and out of control.

        • 2
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • 

          upside22 rothbardsghost • 9 days ago

          There are only three ways to finance government of the size we have:

          1) Taxes — distorts and kills the private economy
          2)Borrowing — when you have to borrow in order to just pay the interest on the debt then you *are* bankrupt just like a family that is running up credit card debt on one card to pay the interest on a second card.
          3) Printing money — this does nothing but devalue existing money making everything more expensive.

          Just doing one of these would give some hope that things could get better. We, however, are doing all three as fast as we can. This does not bode well for the future!

        • 3 1
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            stray upside22 • 9 days ago

            Just a month ago the long term capital gains rate went up nearly 9% and the Dow had no problem hitting 14k. That’s not the first time a tax hike led to increased confidence. Meanwhile, Europe is back in a recession due to its austerity measures. But for some reason the GOP wants more and more austerity here… it boggles the mind.

            A government is not a household, or a business.

          • 8
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              Scotty Starnes stray • 9 days ago

              So spending had nothing to do with the mess in Europe? As for austerity, take a gander at Germany and get back to me. Typical left-winger always trying to blame the GOP for the damage Obama and Democrats have caused.

            • 0
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
            • • 

                piniella Scotty Starnes • 9 days ago

                [So spending had nothing to do with the mess in Europe?] In Spain, it was a housing bubble, like the one we had. The same is true of Ireland and Iceland.

              • 1
              • •
              • Reply
              • •
              • Share ›
          • 

            Richard Schachner upside22 • 9 days ago

            Taxes do not distort or kill the private economy. Regan raised taxes and everything went along quite well. Young Mr. Bush cut taxes and things started going down hill. Got a reason for that?

          • 3
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • 

            piniella upside22 • 9 days ago

            [1) Taxes -- distorts and kills the private economy]

            THIS IS A LIE

          • 3
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • 

            rothbardsghost upside22 • 9 days ago

            Exactly correct Upside. Our friends on the left would do well to read less Keynes and Krugman and take a look at someone like Bastiat, who was a far more insightful economist than those two ever were. The adherence on the left to the nonsense spewed by Keynes, and reiterated by the likes of Krugman, has put them in the uncomfortable position, at least in this thread, of defending the “military industrial complex” as a jobs program. These folks never seem to get it- the idea that propping up unneeded defense factories/bases, etc., with the idea that it’s a net positive for the economy, is not correct. They miss the fact that every dollar spent by the government is in one shape or another a dollar that has been removed from the private economy which can now no longer be spent in that private economy. It’s a classic application of Bastiat’s broken window fallacy- the idea that a hoodlum breaking windows is good for the economy because somebody will ned to be hired to fix them.

          • 3 3
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              piniella rothbardsghost • 9 days ago

              [take a look at someone like Bastiat, who was a far more insightful economist than those two ever were.] Bastiat wasn’t an economist, he was a hack writer.

            • 1
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
            • 

              piniella rothbardsghost • 9 days ago

              [They miss the fact that every dollar spent by the government is in one
              shape or another a dollar that has been removed from the private economy
              which can now no longer be spent in that private economy.]

              You miss the fact that most of this money is in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.

            • 0
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
          • 

            onceparanoid upside22 • 8 days ago

            First you claim there are only 3 ways to finance government, then you claim each of them is bad. Are you really saying there is no way to finance government or am i missing something here? We have managed to get by for over 230 years so obviously there is a way. Granted, for the last 30 years or so our politicians (D&R) have done a pretty poor job.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
      • 

        upside22 Kevin Brock • 9 days ago

        If you’ll actually look at the UK’s spending, they only capped growth for one year, 2012. This year they will be spending a record amount.

        There was no real austerity in the UK at all.

      • 2 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          john upside22 • 9 days ago

          Because the one year they had Republican’t style austerity, it put them into a fiscal depression.

        • 7
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
      • 

        barbi Kevin Brock • 9 days ago

        If you think that cutting a percentage of the rate of growth of the federal government would wreak so much damage, then you’ve been watching to many doomsday movies. These “chainsaw cuts” don’t even scratch the surface.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      Doug Brockman • 9 days ago

      Start by bringing back everyone from Germany and Korea. those wars ended decades ago.

    • 13 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        KeithE4Phx Doug Brockman • 9 days ago

        Germany, maybe. Korea is not only a powder-keg waiting to go off, but the war never officially ended. That one is just a 60-year “truce.”

      • 3
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      troppo • 9 days ago

      Dont forget BO is against it, SO, the GOP has to be for it, even tho they were against it before they for it.

    • 15 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        big beast troppo • 9 days ago

        The word is that Obama plans to come out for breathing air, watch the Republicans switch to breathing methane.

        

      • 8
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        Scotty Starnes troppo • 9 days ago

        Except for the fact that BO isn’t against it and actually signed the sequestration into law. You may want to educate yourself before commenting.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      ss21 • 9 days ago

      Glad to see the Republicans starting to take a healthy position on defense spending. When you’re running trillion dollar deficits, you can’t afford everything you want, and that includes defense.

      If they could moderate their abortion views (eg. make it mainstream in the party again to have exceptions for rape and incest), quit kowtowing to the NRA, and get with the 21st century on LBGT rights, maybe they might start winning elections outside the south again.

    • 6
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      know thyself • 9 days ago

      “I’d rather we manage it in more of an intelligent fashion than just say we’re cutting it,” added Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq.

      This Republican/Tea Party House does not do anything in an intelligent fashion.
      The party of stupid is about to strike once again.

    • 6
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        Scotty Starnes know thyself • 9 days ago

        And the stupid ones keep forgetting that Obama and his party wanted these cuts and now want to stop them asap. The party of stupid is the Democrats, lead by Obama, who believe that the government has no spending problem.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      thom • 9 days ago

      I do believe the pentagons budget needs some overhaul, but i also believe it will cause an increase in the unemployment rate. There are some who say government dose not create jobs, but threw the pentagon it creates millions. so get ready for the yelling and screaming about the rise in unemployment.

    • 8 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        Jerry thom • 9 days ago

        The budget has to be cut at sometime, there is no easy time to do it. It will likely cause some short term pain. But since Obama and the Democrats refuse to do anything about the deficit at all, this seems to be the only way to do anything. Obama, unfortunately as is his custom, just wants someone else to take the blame for everything.

      • 2 3
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          John Holly Jerry • 9 days ago

          I’m just curious and I’m not being sarcastic or snide at all. Do you really believe that the president doesn’t want to do anything about the budget? I mean, really believe that or is it convenient? I ask because I see vitriol (not saying this is what you did) constantly on these sites. It’s just sad as a third party supporter. I don’t agree with either party but I’ve believed they do care, just that they have different viewpoints. Is that really so much harder to believe than that people run to run a country so they can just do nothing? Really curious.

        • 7
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            Jesse John Holly • 9 days ago

            The only cuts Obama has “proposed” are cost savings from the wind down of the wars (fake cuts) and the “Savings from Medicare based on new more efficient execution” that have yet to be had. Those are his basis for claiming that right now cuts are 2x what tax revenue increases have been. Even the CBO laughed at the assertion. What cuts has Obama put on the table that have not been quickly taken off again? Government spending is 30% higher than when Obama took office. Yet when the GDP contracted Obama blamed the decrease in defense spending even though total government spending was actually up for the quarter. Obama is not serious about cutting.

          • 1
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • 

            Scotty Starnes John Holly • 9 days ago

            Well John, what has Obama done for the past 4 years to cut the deficit? NOTHING. As far as budgets, his own party refuses to pass any. They voted down Obama’s 2011 & 2012 budget along with voting down the budgets Republicans have submitted.

            Had Obama kept his promise to “cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term,” we would continue to be in this crisis.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
        • 

          John Funk Jerry • 9 days ago

          $1.6tn in spending cuts and billions in increased revenue isn’t doing “nothing” about the deficit. In fact, you could make an argument that they’ve done too MUCH about the deficit too quickly, thus hurting the economy.

        • 2
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            Scotty Starnes John Funk • 9 days ago

            You do know deficit means they are spending more than they take it right?

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              John Funk Scotty Starnes • 7 days ago

              Yes? What part of what I said contradicts that?

              We are still running an annual deficit. We have made that deficit SMALLER via a combination of spending cuts (over a trillion USD) and in additional revenue.

              In fact, we are at the point where further deficit reduction by tax hikes or particularly by slashing spending – you know, spending that goes to the pockets of Americans – would actually run the risk of hurting our economy.

              I am well aware of what the problems with the deficit are. I don’t know if you are.

            • 0
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
    • 

      Clovis4 • 9 days ago

      Defense is the worst managed and most wasteful department in government. It is mind boggling that not one president or defense secretary has done anything to change that. And lets not forget that it is a jobs program and the majority of generals have whored themselves to the industry.

    • 4
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        5843supie Clovis4 • 9 days ago

        Good points Clovis…. the predictable move from the military to the private defense industry by veterans is glaring and more than disturbing…… and congressmen going from being elected to boards of directors for the industrial complex is scarey… and Eisenhower predicted it all over 50 years ago… “sacred cow” doesn’t even describe it… always money for bombs and seldom money for babies is a disgrace…. will it change in our lifetime…. ?

      • 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        rgdeliveryguy Clovis4 • 8 days ago

        My brother-in-law works for the major defense contractor. He had to take a mattress to work to put in his company truck because sleeping in the back was uncomfortable without it. He sleeps about 2-3 hours every night as part of the maintenance crew. Excellent benefits, fantastic retirement, all paid for by taxpayers.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      rothbardsghost • 9 days ago

      As someone who has bashed the GOP, from a libertarian perspective, for allowing the Neocons to take control and for refusing to take a hard look at the bloated defense budget when they talk about spending cuts ( not to mention the almost mindless support for foreign adventurism ), I’ll accept this as a step in the right direction, and I’ll hope it may actually reflect a a move away from the Neocons, as opposed to just being a political maneuver. ( I won’t hold my breathe on that though, at least based on the grilling of Hagel in the Senate which had the lead Neocon chicken hawks on full display, banging their war drums, with Iran in the crosshairs.)
      Seriously, there were two voices of reason on foreign policy in the 2012 GOP primaries- those would be Dr. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, and both were summarily rejected by the Neocons who hold sway in what passes for a “conservative” media. Now that his old man has ridden off into the Texas sunset, the main GOP voice of reason in congress on foreign policy is the young Rand. The party would do well to listen to him. Along with cutting spending, we need a total recalibration of our foreign policy for the 21st century, most especially our military/defense policy. We need to accept that their are fiscal limits on our ability to police the world, even if such were a good idea absent the fiscal issues, which it’s not. “Conservatives” seem to grasp that their are fiscal limits on what we can, or should, do with the “social safety net” and on domestic spending in general, but they lose their focus on financial realities when it comes to building more bombs. They also like to point out that we will eventually run out of “other people’s money” when talking about domestic spending, but, again, ignore the fact that the same applies to funding ill conceived wars. It’s also forgotten by “conservatives” that we’ll eventually run out of other people’s children to serve up as cannon fodder in service of the State’s limitless desire to engage in wars which have nothing to do with our national security.

    • 4
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        rgdeliveryguy rothbardsghost • 8 days ago

        We don’t need fully staffed bases around the world. In today’s world, we can quickly transport tens of thousands of troops to bases that should be maintained in a ready state only by a skeleton crew.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      dnaijaman • 9 days ago

      Speechless!

      Obama is for saving the Pentagon while house GOPs are for cutting it? Utterly speechless

    • 4
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      bendorion • 9 days ago

      The Party of Life would rather make War at the expense of Americans.

    • 6 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      therustyyears • 9 days ago

      These cuts were the GOP’s idea. Be careful what you wish for you might just get it. These GOP Clowns need to go back to Clown school and learn how to bluff.

    • 4 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        Scotty Starnes therustyyears • 9 days ago

        Another low-information voter. Obama and Democrats pushed for defense cuts. Do you Obama drones ever read anything or do you all believe in groupthink?

        http://www.politico.com/news/s…

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      sweet16 • 9 days ago

      The real deal is that these teabaggers and their rabid fans are so anxious to cut programs/entitlements they believe are undeservedly used by the supporters of President Obama they have labeled as “moochers” and “takers”, that they are now willing to cut defense too. They see the sequester as an excellent opportunity to hurt these Americans and further ruin the economy, so President Obama will be considered a failure. They have been convinced that hispanics, hispanic “illegal aliens”, and blacks have no desire to work and prefer to live off of the government, They ignorantly proclaim that they “don’t want to make bla people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money, but bla’s need to earn their own”. Hispanics, teabaggers say, need to stop speaking the “language of the ghetto” and assimilate into their idea of the American culture, instead of destroying it. They hate these Americans and are sick of them, and desperately insist that the teabaggers they elected force huge cuts to, or the complete elimination of these programs. They don’t want to give one more penny to these Americans they say are stealing from their children and grand-children.

      The teabaggers will not rest, they will not be happy until deep. deep cuts to entitlements/”free stuff” are realized, even if its at the expense of America’s security. Their blood-lust began on 11/03/2008, heated up on 01/20/2009, and came to a boil on 11/03/2012. They scream about spending, deficits and debt…the same deficit spending that “didn’t matter” under dubya.

    • 6 3
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        upside22 sweet16 • 9 days ago

        Marxist Democrat cognitive dissonance at its finest!!!!

      • 1 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          Tracy L Edwards upside22 • 9 days ago

          You would not a Marxist if it bit you in the azz, just more fox noise BS talking points. You have no F’ing clue what your talking about, just right wing BS. Never served, never been out of the country and have no clue on how the real world works. Just what fox noise and right talking heads tell you, just a DA teanut repub, with it’s head up it’s azz.

        • 4
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • 

          sweet16 upside22 • 9 days ago

          Truth hurts huh, upside22. Most patriotic Americans who post here, have said they were hoping that with politico’s “new improved” board, you would somehow get lost in the shuffle and we would never be heard from again. Unfortunately you are still here and have brought the parroting of your teabagger extremist leaders with you.

        • 2 1
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            PenelopeO sweet16 • 8 days ago

            no problem….he’s used the same tire label so long, it has no meaning.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
      • 

        jackieaxe sweet16 • 9 days ago

        You assume a lot. As a tea party person I say a bum is a bum is a bum. I dont care about color. If you are a bum underservingly sucking off my taxes you are a bum AND I DON LIKE YOU. And “ILLEGAL ALIEN” is a term I use for people in this country unlawfully.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      jackieaxe • 9 days ago

      As a fiscal conservative I feel its time to bring the troops home from Korea, Germany and Japan. Turn the DoD back into the Department of DEFENSE.

    • 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      big beast • 9 days ago

      While I agree with cutting the military budget, one has to remember that we do not do any basic research. All our basic research was done by military spending and this gave us a huge jump in technology in a matter of a few years.

      Military spending also gave us the computer chip that make all advance cell phone possible and let us not forget that the military spending gave us the Internet and which of us could manage without the Internet.

    • 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        upside22 big beast • 9 days ago

        Actually Bell Labs gave us the transistor. Computer chips are just lots of transistors on a larger substrate.

        Private research like Bell Labs ended when government made it too expensive to continue.

      • 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          piniella upside22 • 9 days ago

          [Private research like Bell Labs ended when government made it too expensive to continue.]

          THIS IS A LIE

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
      • 

        nicetry big beast • 9 days ago

        You are correct but NASA also provided many new innovations while working on a peaceful mission. Unfortunately, NASA is now climate change clown school…

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          big beast nicetry • 9 days ago

          You do understand that NASA is military, any spending that NASA does is military spending, they are under the Navy.

          That climate thing is all NASA driven, if they tell the real truth, most people won’t understand and will freakout, so a lie does nicely.

          If you tell most people that 80% plus of all our weather and earthquake events come from the sun, they would think you a nutcase. The sun is in the drivers seat, it collapses and expands our atmosphere and controls every single thing on earth and the other planets.

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
    • 

      Jerry • 9 days ago

      Liberals use to be for defense spending cuts, remember that. They believe everything Republicans do is about Obama. The Republicans want to cut the budget. The Democrats want to keep pretending that TRILLION DOLLAR deficits don’t matter. The only reason the liberal is now against cutting the defense budget is because the Republicans are for doing so now. So maybe they are just projecting whenever they argue that the Republicans are the party of “no” and only “hate Obama.” Maybe the truth is that liberals and Democrats just hate Republicans more than they love America.

    • 4 3
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        John Funk Jerry • 9 days ago

        Remind me, who was it that ran up that $1.4tn deficit? And which president lowered it to $1.1tn in three years? (Still unacceptably high, but an improvement).

        We’ll stop pinning the deficit on Bush when it stops being his fault.

      • 3
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          Scotty Starnes John Funk • 9 days ago

          Learn civics and tell me who was in control of both the House and Senate, and who passed those budgets in 2007 & 2008 to give us that $1.4 trillion deficit? You can only blame Bush because you want to defend Obama and his 4 straight $1 trillion deficits and looks like a 5th straight this year.

          Obama said he would “cut the deficit in half.” Half of 1.4 trillion is $700 billion…none of Obama’s budgets have come close.

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            John Funk Scotty Starnes • 7 days ago

            Except the major driving forces of that $1.4tn were A.) Bush wars, B.) Bush tax cuts, C.) Medicare Part D, D.) the economic downturn.

            Which of those were the Dem senate in 2007-2008 responsible for?

            The CBO says the 2013 deficit will be what, $860bn? Not quite $700bn but getting there.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
          • • 

              Scotty Starnes John Funk • 7 days ago

              Typical BS. The “blame Bush” for the deficit meme is so easily debunked and has been fact-checked.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

              Also the CBO said 860 billion IF sequestration cuts go into effect and we know that’s not going to happen. 5th straight year of $1 trillion deficit. This didn’t ever happen under Bush. Last Bush/Republican deficit was $459 billion in 2006. Bush/Democrat deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2008.

            • 0
            • •
            • Reply
            • •
            • Share ›
    • 

      Danny_Cavender • 9 days ago

      I think we’re at a point, with unmanned drones, drone surgical strikes; that the foot soldier, on the ground engagement of the enemy, Is not required and future battles arenas!

    • 2 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Richard Schachner • 9 days ago

      Well, seeing as how I have been hearing that one of the reasons the price of gasoline is on the rise again is because the economy has gotten better maybe if sequestration causes a blow to the economy the price of gas will go down again.

    • 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      lifeisgreat46 • 9 days ago

      Pres Obama is giving the STUPID PARTY a way out on this deal and Speaker Boehner says NO. The big bosses in Defense private world will want this deal to be off the table

    • 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Mark Grismer • 9 days ago

      Letting the sequester happen is probably the only way there is going to be cuts. It is unfortunate that it doesn’t actually contain ENOUGH cuts to balance the budget.

    • 1 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      james • 9 days ago

      ….The reason: A new breed of conservatives in the House…..

      OR!

      Or the debt is 16 trillion and Obama wants add another trillion or so a year.

      No! That cannot be it.

      Those new conservative in the House or just a bunch of nasty, RACIST Teabaggers!

    • 1 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      tom in delaware • 9 days ago

      The Sequester was Obama’s idea that ended up backfiring…..he just can’t believe that the Republicans aren’t fighting it….now his guys have to go in there and convince them they have to….too funny.

    • 1 2
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      elvischannel • 9 days ago

      Wow! The anti deficit right and the anti war left now have something they agree on. Will they now form something similar to a Hitler-Stalin Pact?

    • 0 5
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        james elvischannel • 9 days ago

        Look at far we have come.

        We have a trillion dollar deficit and those who want to reduce it are compared to Hitler and Stalin.

        Obama is good. He truly has divided America. I think they actually write the insults in a backroom at the White House and distribute them at the union halls and public employee meetings:

        Nut! Gomer! Brainwashed by Faux News! Linbaugh Robot! Stupid! Hitler! Stalin! RACIST!

      • 2 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        Jerry elvischannel • 9 days ago

        The anti-war Democrats won’t agree. They don’t believe in anything, they just hate the Republicans. They were for Pentagon budget cuts when the GOP were for more spending on the military, but now they don’t want to cut the military because the Republicans do. These liberals are the same people who say that the only reason Republicans oppose anything Obama does is because they hate him. Maybe those liberals are just projecting.

      • 2 3
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          Jon Jerry • 9 days ago

          Wow…..this is near delusional. This is the kind of thing Bobby Jindal was talking about when he said republicans have to stop being the party of dumb.

        • 7
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • 

          elvischannel Jerry • 9 days ago

          Good point! Just like when the Republicans were all for Romneycare until Obama bought into the same stuff. Then, everybody switched sides, even Romney! Both sides play this game.

        • 4
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            Jesse elvischannel • 9 days ago

            I would love to see this broad GOP consensus supporting Romneycare. Dryden (D-Or) presented a mandate proposal on healthcare 3 times since the white paper opposing Hillarycare (the one that promoted the mandate), garnering very few GOP votes. The Mandate/Romneycare were never core tenets or even widely supported by the GOP. Just because a few in a party advocate for something doesn’t make it widely supported.

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
    • 

      1marg • 9 days ago

      Eliminate FEMA Corp, obama’s youth army. We don’t need a standing PAID civilian army for obama to play with.

      Of course, that’s just a start…

    • 0 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Mitch Rapp • 9 days ago

      And lets expand unemployment so we get more dumb, uneducated voters on welfare! Yep, folks we are in the Obama Mode of governance -

      TRUST OBAMA – He is from CHICAGO

    • 0 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        souphands Mitch Rapp • 9 days ago

        You realize you can’t get unemployment benefits unless you had already been working…. right? Please pay more attention to the world around you.

      • 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        5843supie Mitch Rapp • 9 days ago

        this is real helpful mitch…. go back to sleep meathead !

      • 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        ray531 Mitch Rapp • 9 days ago

        Turn off Fox and Limbaugh , man , stop being a brainless parrot .

      • 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      Mitch Rapp • 9 days ago

      And Expand the Dept’s of Education, Energy, and all sorts of departments that do the opposite of what they were formed to do – Kids are dumber – Energy is more costly and our borders are less secured

    • 0 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Mitch Rapp • 9 days ago

      But we keep all the staff laying around to open doors for the big brass and we keep enough staff to polish the mirrors for the times Obama shows up after golf

    • 0 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Worsham Abbott • 9 days ago

      I would like to see the Defense budget cut by 80 % accompanied by the shutdown of the Dept. of Homeland Security. There is no enemy overseas that is a greater danger to our liberty than Obama. The sooner we remove the tools that can further his tyranny the safer we will be.

    • 0 1
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        PenelopeO Worsham Abbott • 9 days ago

        Did you feel that way when the Bush administration raised the profile of homeland security, or the patriot act? Or is this just more Obama bashing?

      • 2
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • 

        lifeisgreat46 Worsham Abbott • 9 days ago

        You are why the REPS ARE THE STUPID PARTY

      • 1 1
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          ryesta7971 lifeisgreat46 • 9 days ago

          I thought the liberals were the “anti-war” party? whoops….opposing war and drone strikes now won’t win favors with king Obama

        • 0 1
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
        • • 

            lifeisgreat46 ryesta7971 • 9 days ago

            Who said that Liberals are not the for a right war. Also you should no that this Liberal and many other hate that Pres Obama is using drones. He is still better than Romney and the Reps

            REPS=STUPID PARTY

          • 0
          • •
          • Reply
          • •
          • Share ›
    • 

      americandave • 8 days ago

      Why not cut Defense? it’s Obama’s wars, now. The Obamoronians figured they’d hold Defense spending hostage and get concessions for their programs out of the Repubs; but if Repubs are ready to make heavy cuts in Defense, the Obamoronians are screwed, blued, and tattoed.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Guest • 8 days ago

      Hopefully this is a shift towards sanity…
      Although it may just be a shift towards insanity and to the point that they try to actively destroy government.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Scott Regan • 8 days ago

      Maybe if we would have found away to pay for our wars we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      piniella • 9 days ago

      [if you totally eliminated the Defense Department, totally eliminated
      federal spending on education, on transportation, on parks, on
      everything that we vote on, if you eliminate all discretionary budgets,
      we’d still be running a deficit of a half-trillion dollars a year,” he
      said.]

      THIS IS A LIE

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        onceparanoid piniella • 8 days ago

        You are correct. The DoD budget pushes $700 Billion. Cutting that alone gets you to a half trillion per year deficit. ( I am certainly not advocating that we do this, just pointing out the Lie)

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      I_Am_Mitt_Romney • 9 days ago

      In tough times every one/thing should be treated equally – defense, social security, welfare, medicaid, medicare, education, etc… Defense has plenty to give. Take 2-3 times what is required by sequester.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      ephraim • 9 days ago

      A typ[cal Polilico article which ignores the fact that there are enough GOP house votes combined with Democratic votes to defeat the GOP extremists.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        Guest ephraim • 8 days ago

        The Hastet rule - unless Boehner's party will have a majority for vote it, he won't bring it to the floor because otherwise he risks becoming very unpopular.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      Billion • 9 days ago

      There need to be voices in the GOP that support cutting defense spending. I think it needs to be done because the Pentagon budget is extremely bloated, but very, very carefully. National security is the one and only issue that can't be compromised.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      onceparanoid • 9 days ago

      The Defense budget may be a sacred cow to a great many politicians, but that cow needs to be taken out and slaughtered for the good of the country's fiscal health. It has become a bloated monstrosity.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      lip11 • 9 days ago

      $500 billion over 10 years is a pittance. We should cut the military spending by $500 billion - a year! The pentagon runs the largest corporate welfare program in the world.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        There Is Only Zuul lip11 • 9 days ago

        500 billion a year for how long?

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      TSIndiana • 9 days ago

      Doesn't a decline for four straight years in the M3 (money supply) of $1T each year signal money is being taken out of the economy? Thats $13,333 for each of the 300 million (rounded) citizens that was in the economy in 2008 that is no longer circulating.
      It happened just that same way in Germany prior to ww2. The FED (rothchildren and crew) are fockers.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      bendorion • 9 days ago

      American soldiers will stop dying if we get Stupid people in Congress and POTUS to stop pretending we are responsible for every hot spot on the planet. America first, screw everyone else.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Robert B Brock • 9 days ago

      Yes, get rid of Pentagon waste. Stop trying to be everywhere, all the time. Lets stay at home, hide behind our Nuclear missiles, Ground Based Interceptors and Aegis ABMs, and let the rest of the world FALL APART while Al Quada, Hamas, Iran, and the Muslim B-hood runs amok. The perfect Leftist dream-world of future.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Michael G. • 9 days ago

      To all who are looking at defense budget cuts, I have one word for you, Benghazi. The second world I have for you is Mali. Go ahead start the cuts. But when a diplomatic mission is razed to the ground by RPG's and our bases in Turkey have been closed due to budget cuts and our only base we have close is in the United Kingdom and hours away to provide protection for the US diplomatic mission to be rescued, don't come crying with questions on what happened.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Donald R Raab • 9 days ago

      Stab in the back. We are in war. Wars. period. Wars of choice created by these rightwing crackpots. And they want to cut the funding for wars they made. Stab in the back imbecility to the extreme. Like cutting 250 million from State Department security and then screaming about benghazi. These stab in the back nuts can't have it both ways. Since they are willing to undercut the military in the midst of real wars of their creation they must ALL automatically be voted out of office. Anyone voting for them is anti american and anti patriotic to the extreme.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      ryesta7971 • 9 days ago

      "cost-cutting" to these neocons means to buy only 90 million rounds of ammunition, instead of 100 million.

      Heaven forbid the neocons pick up a dictionary and find out that defense and offense are 2 different words

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      G Mo Ney • 9 days ago

      Loathe as I am to contribute, I cry a certain partisan tear when I hear about Republicans actually eyeing defense spending as somewhere to cut. It undermines their logic gap when they normally gripe about excessive government spending, but cry 'hand off! that's jobs!' when someone suggests we should cut defense. Cuts I would choose:
      -Lay off half of the talented, hyper educated, ambitous middlemen at the Pentagon. Watch the tide of formerly latent talent usher new and productive entrepreneurship to the economy.
      -For good measure, lay off half of the top heavy brass too.
      -Forfeit expensive, made in USA subisidized, 'full spectrum' dominance. It's wastefull, because defense contractors aren't incentivised to be efficient and produce feasable things.
      That being said, such large cuts, right now, are a stupid idea. Not only in defense, but everywhere. It's the jobs, not the deficit, that matter right now. yo.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      David Raney • 9 days ago

      After watching a documentary on the Military drug involvement in South America, A billion dollar cut, and a stay out of their business is in order

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      ray531 • 9 days ago

      Cutting back on the tax dollars being dumped into the money laundering machine that is the so called defense budget ? Unthinkable ....if you're a Republicon in Congress . You are right automaticftp, , it should not be a jobs program either , how about we create jobs in technologies that benefit society , this country and maybe the world ? Year after year the USA has been spending more than Russia , China and the next ten most powerful countries in the world combined on the military . Corruption , corporate welfare , welfare for Wall Street , that's what it amounts to and it's been going on for too long ..

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      Ursus Americanus • 9 days ago

      Obama is outmaneuvering the conservatives. But the cuts in the military are generally needed. http://www.ursusamericanus.us/...

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      billstu • 9 days ago

      We have enough bombs and tactical weapons unmatched by ANYONE in the world ... wind these so called conflicts down ... secure the border ... put out the fires as the come ... and let the world move forward ...

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • 

      nicetry • 9 days ago

      Deep cuts in the defense budget will alter the politics of Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland. Power will shift to the more rural parts of the states which are reliably republican.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        tom in delaware nicetry • 9 days ago

        Big time! The shipyards of Newport News, Norfolk and Patuxent River will have to lay off 10's of thousands of workers to totally depress the southern Washington DC region.....and right next to the 5 most robust counties of the country...the ones surrounding the capitol.....it'll be like the Hunger Games.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
    • 

      suzita pagina • 9 days ago

      The left's been screeching and screaming for defense cuts for eons, though a HUGE proportion of the "hidden" costs of the defense budget have nothing to do with defense (scores of millions for breast cancer research and almost none for prostate cancer--go figure). But, hey, slashing the defense budget is what the anti-defense people want and the right wants budget cuts so, voila; goals converge. So, why did so few vote--only Republicans in opposition-- against giving so much military hardware and money to Egypt? Instead of being the world's policeman are we now simply going to arm the world?

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • • 

        piniella suzita pagina • 9 days ago

        [ So, why did so few vote--only Republicans in opposition-- against giving so much military hardware and money to Egypt?]

        That aid really doesn’t need a vote because it is a legal obligation of the Camp David Peace Accords of 1979

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
      • • 

          suzita pagina piniella • 8 days ago

          1979. And do you think the Camp David accords of that year are still in force? We also had an accord with eastern European countries to partner with anti=missile missiles as a buffer against Russia but Obama decided not to carry through on that…as recent as three years ago. Mubarek was the leader of Egypt in 79. He promised, in return, to moderate relations among other Middle Eastern nations and Israel, which, whether you liked him or not, he did. Morsi has already declared his hatred of Israel; the deal if off. But if you had to reach back that far in to the world situation to find something to back your argument, you must have missed the lovely Arab Spring which has turned everything upside down.

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›

        © 2013 POLITICO LLC

      • Hello SiDevilIam | Edit Profile | Log out

        • News & Politics
        • Tech
        • Business
        • Arts
        • Life
        • Health & Science
        • Sports
        • Double X
        • Podcasts
        • Photos
        • Video
        • Slatest
        • Blogs
        • MySlate
        92

        91

        

        
        HOME /  Moneybox :  Commentary about business and finance.

        The Next Fiscal Cliff

        Don’t celebrate yet—the next budget crisis is just two months away.

        By Matthew Yglesias|Posted Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2013, at 2:04 PM ET

        

        Fiscal cliff friends John Boehner and President Barack Obama
        Photograph by Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images.

        The fiscal cliff is dead—but the era of semi-permanent fiscal policy crisis is still with us. Indeed, if anything, the resolution of the cliff has simply served to set up a quantitatively smaller but qualitatively much more terrifying cliff two months from now. That’s when the country once again reaches a crisis over the lapsing of the Treasury Department’s authority to borrow money.

        Once upon a time, when Congress wanted to instruct the federal government to spend more money than it was going to collect in taxes, it would specifically authorize bond sales. During World War I this was deemed inconvenient, and Congress instead generically authorized the borrowing of a bunch of money to finance its appropriations. Since this number was specified in nominal dollar terms, inflation and economic growth ensured that over time we would hit this new debt ceiling under any conceivable fiscal policy. So then Congress would raise it. And we would hit it again.

        Over time, a tradition of partisan grandstanding emerged. Even though the need to borrow more is driven entirely by the nexus of tax and spending laws Congress has passed, operationally the request for a higher debt ceiling must be submitted by the Treasury secretary. That’s a golden opportunity for opposition members of Congress to castigate the incumbent administration for its irresponsibility, even though everyone knows it ultimately has to be raised. Or at least they did until 2011, when Republicans coalesced around the “Boehner rule” that every dollar of increased borrowing authority should be offset by a dollar of spending cuts. The Obama administration reacted by taking the bait and trying to entice Boehner into a “grand bargain.” It didn’t work, and instead we got the Budget Control Act and the automatic sequester cuts that became part of the fiscal cliff.

        Advertisement

        Initially, hopes were high in Washington that the cliff might be averted by—again—a grand bargain on the long-term deficit. But this week’s deal doesn’t do that. It extends somewhat more of the Bush tax cuts than Obama wanted to extend, offers no new spending cuts, and on the sequester it simply punted. Implementation was delayed two months until the beginning of March, thus creating a brand-new “cliff” of cuts to domestic and military programs that would hurt the economy and allegedly harm military preparedness.

        And while this cliff is much smaller in scale than the full cliff that was narrowly avoided on New Year’s Day, it’s much more terrifying because it will arrive in the beginning of March when we’re hitting the debt ceiling again.

        Or, rather, the Treasury Department says we already hit it earlier this week. For now, they can pay the government’s bills with a few accounting tricks rather than with more borrowing. But these “extraordinary measures” can only work for so long. Treasury won’t say exactly when the bag of tricks runs out, but past experience tells us it’s about two months. And this sets up an interesting collision, since the administration has sworn to the press, Senate Democrats, and yours truly that they have no intention of bargaining over the debt ceiling a second time.

        Their view—and it’s a correct one—is that authorizing the executive branch to pay bills that Congress has already legally required the Treasury to pay is not a “concession” to be bargained over. Even establishing the precedent that there will be bargaining over the point is dangerous since a bargain might always fail and create a disaster scenario in which there’s no way to avoid defaulting on legally valid federal obligations.

        At the same time, conservative members of Congress have no intention of ditching their Boehner rule. On the contrary, recalcitrant members were induced to allow the cliff deal to pass in part on the promise of future spending cuts to come.

        Meanwhile, Obama’s negotiation of the fiscal cliff deal has raised grave doubts about his credibility on the debt ceiling. The deal itself is fine on the merits, but it is based on the president violating what seemed like a firm commitment not to extend tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 a year. White House officials explained, among other things, that it was unlikely moderate Senate Democrats would really hold that line if we went over the cliff. So is the debt ceiling really any different? If House Republicans hold firm on the Boehner rule, are Democratic senators from Arkansas, South Dakota, Alaska, North Carolina, and other red states going to have Obama’s back on a no-bargaining stance? Will Obama be willing this time to hold a line that red state Democrats aren’t? I have my doubts, and House Republicans do, too.

        The intersection of the sequester cuts and the debt ceiling may provide a way out. Obama and the GOP could agree on a package of cuts to replace the sequester, and that legislation could also hike the debt ceiling. That would let Republicans say the debt ceiling hike was paired with spending cuts, while Obama can say he negotiated the sequester, not the debt ceiling. But that still leaves the question of what package of cuts the two sides could agree to. House Republicans have been pretty clear that they want to replace the sequester’s military cuts with cuts to anti-poverty programs, and Obama’s been very clear that he’ll agree to no such thing. Instead, he’s said any further cuts will have to be balanced by further tax increases. Back to the grand bargain in other words, even as that bargain looks no more realistic today than it did three weeks ago.

        In other words, the whole exhausting saga is going to go around and around. Welcome to the permanent fiscal emergency.

        WallStreetDaily.comBuy a link here

        

        Matthew Yglesias is Slate‘s business and economics correspondent. Before joining the magazine he worked for ThinkProgress, the Atlantic, TPM Media, and the American Prospect. His first book, Heads in the Sand, was published in 2008. His second, The Rent Is Too Damn High, was published in March.

        

        Length: 0 characters (Max: 5000)

        Live

        

        SiDevilIam

        SOTU U TOO@elcidharth.com

        1 Minute Ago

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag · Edit

        

        Kurt Mundt

        I guess we can anticipate cuts to poverty spending then. Mr. Obama tends to telegraph his moves.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Guest

        a

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        GeoR

        Man… I need to get my income over 113k ASAP so I can stop paying the stupid payroll tax.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Kegg

        Mine will probably ever lag just below the threshold…

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        MIDAMER

        LIBERAL HYPOCRISYAl Gore sells his feeble excuse of a network in December to avoid taxes? Obviously not a patriot, by the Messiah’s own definition.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        troy garrett

        yea and in other non sequitur news I was suprised that MR Yglesias was un able to talk about how we need more density in our cities.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        MIDAMER

        The Messiah needs tax revenue to avoid fiscal problems. Tax revenue from the sale of Al’s disaster is such an item. Non sequitar ? Are you stupid or just dumb ?

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        SteveH

        I’m sure you’re frequently confused midamer.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Like · Flag

        

        Chris Farley

        Since when was being tax smart an insult?You can advocate for societal changes to a system, while still maximizing your personal benefits under the system that exists.Not sure you understand what hypocrisy is. No one, not Al Gore, not any other Dem, is calling for folks to pay more taxes than they legally owe.Just because Mitt Romney was an idiot and a panderer and paid more taxes than he owed to get above 12% of his income doesn’t mean any Dem is saying anyone else should be similarly stupid/condescending.They just think some folks should owe more, and want to change the system so that it is the case.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        m

        Maybe I’m foolish and naive, but I really think there’s a good chance things will be different with this next Congress. Not that congressional Republicans will morph into responsible statesmen overnight, but I expect things will be at least a little less apocalyptic. In 2011, the GOP was plainly willing to torpedo to American economy if it would cost Obama re-election. Well, they tried, Obama’s polls suffered, but he recovered and easily won re-election anyway and he’ll be President for four more years. What will motivated Republicans to torpedo the economy this time? Will the business interests that support the GOP really encourage this dangerous game after so many of them bet big on Romney and lost? Is the GOP leadership interested in winning national elections again, or are they content with permanent loser status? Basically, do Republicans think the strategy they employed the last two years accomplished their goals?I’m optimistic, I think this deal identifies more precisely where the fault lines are in the House GOP caucus. I’d somewhat admired and pitied Boehner in the past, but I think this last debacle has also exposed his utter incompetence and inability to lead his own party. That part is unfortunate, because in spite of disagreements I think Boehner is a reasonable man and a decent statesman, but if he can’t secure a majority of House votes from his own party for a massive tax cut then Obama, Reid, and Pelosi now know which Republicans they can go to to bypass the bumbling Boehner.

        Chris Farley and Southern Reader like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        crazy mary

        I think there is an excellent chance our leaders will torpedo the economy. They just patted themselves on the back for a $600 billion ten-year deal that awarded $40 billion of tax benefits to favored industries (NASCAR, Hollywood, plug-in motorcycles, etc,) over the next two years. Not much progress against trillion-dollar deficits.Obama seems to care first, last and only about income redistribution. Popular with many people, fine with me, but still: No apparent concern about running a huge deficit, bequeathing an enormous debt to our children or generating economic growth to increase our economy and, with it, raise the taxes necessary for the great big government we seem to want.Congress (both parties) takes marching orders from a bunch of lobbyists and does all it can to avoid facing the entitlement debacle posed by the retirement of the baby boomers.I am afraid that things will have to get MUCH worse before any of these people (and, let’s face it, we) will be willing to deal with the whole mess

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Matt

        To me this seems not naive per se, just a poor and overly optimistic reading of the situation. As MY says above, even though hardcore conservatives may be feeling like they’re taking it on the chin right now, Obama has never done anything to evidence that he’s really capable of standing his ground and corralling his party to stand with him in tough spots. It seems to me it’s just in his nature to fear that kind of confrontation and fold, or at least play his hand much more weakly than his cards at the time warrant, with some sort of technocratic rationalization and feel-good story about community and compromise.Maybe if Boehner and McConnell could make a private binding deal with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama based only on their personal ideological preferences, ignoring the rest of the GOP caucus and activist constituents, the points you make would be more convincing. But it seems all but inarguable to me that a large majority of the GOP house caucus feel they’re righteous soldiers, war can be messy, Obama’s weak and will probably fold, and if he miraculously holds on then destroying the U.S. and probably world economy is worth it if they get to permanently redistribute even more power and money to the plutocracy and away from America-hating members of the reality based community or believers in community well-being, especially if the community has any dark skinned or non-right-wing-evangelical members.

        Quasit and Kurt Mundt like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        KentCDetrees

        I don’t think this country can be governed anymore, certainly not with our current constitution.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Cdub

        It might be time to start over.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Kurt Mundt

        “When in the course of Human events…”
        The Declaration of Independence sets a precedent.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Everett

        Is anybody really celebrating? More taxes and no spending controls. And another example of Obama leading from behind. Sad times but what we deserve after electing him again.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        anand

        I notice a conspicuous absence of the House GOP from your post.Since they are the big “cut spending” guys, isn’t this another example of utter and abject failure on their part?

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        chemjeff

        Yup, another illustration of my point.anand’s taxes are likely going up, our country goes deeper into debt, our spending is out of control, and anand would rather focus on Republicans’ failures.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        chemjeff

        Well of course liberals are celebrating, because to them their only operative principle of late is “Republicans suck”. So any compromise in which Republicans seem to get the worse deal is a cause for celebration, no matter how terrible the deal is.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        SteveH

        The House GOP couldn’t even come up with an offer. What do you expect?

        Chris Farley likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Bob R

        The TEA party will continue to disrupt democracy every way they can. The Democrats will have to continue to fight the good fight.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Lar5

        I doubt if there is any reasonable path for progress. A perfect example is the lack of vote for Sandy relief and aid,The tea party will set up roadblocks.
        However,what I find interesting is that the biggest recipients of welfare are the members of congress. They really live on the dole of our money. We pay their salaries,benefits,part of their healthcare,perks and pensions.They are the real welfare kings and queens. These guys made a big deal about working through the night. I did that for 60 years plus many weekends as did the people who worked with me. It’s no wonder they spend millions of dollars and half their time just running for reelection. Heaven forbid they have to go out and look for a real job. I think I deserve my social security and medicare. I paid for it and I earned it..Show me one member of congress that ever worked that long and hard. Why would they care? They have it made!

        MajorBliss and Kurt Mundt like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        KUDem

        The whole discussion about raising the FICA cap is just lost. Must be because the guys in Congress fall in that income range. Per an ealier tax policy analysis, the people in the $200-$500K actually got the best deal in this compromise, and they were “supposedly” the people beforehand most in line to get jammed.

        Chris Farley, Kurt Mundt and Lynn1775 like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Snarkqueen

        yep…here we go again. The minority in Congress better known as the Tea Party would rather destroy the country than work toward any kind of reasonable solutions.We all know that libertarianism sounds great on paper, but works very poorly in rea life in a real democracy. The latest debacle called the fiscal cliff ended democracy as it was designed by our founders and has made Congress nothing more than a bunch of power hungry men and women determined to do only what is in their personal best financial interests. They are no longer accountable to their constituents who have been herded into enclaves of folks with the same ideology by redistricting, so no fear of losing that lifeime seat in the House or Senate. They care nothing about how many people will go hungry, or homeless or without adequate health care. We simply don’t exist to them except in the abstract of speech making.Further, Congress and the White House have so diluted the checks and balances so necessary to maintain our democracy, that until and unless the poor and workiing class in this country rise up and take any and all necessary steps to eliminate their power, we will be nothng more than minimally paid slaves, without a voice or representation by our government. Thebest solution in my opinion would be to change the constitution to put in permanent term limits on all elected offcials. Nine year single terms across the boards. No more worrying about the next election, no more gerrymandering the rules to maintain or obtain more power, no more big party deals to put whomever the big money contributors say into elections.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Annoyed_Dad

        If we actually followed libertarian ideals or anything Ron Paul has said on this for the past twenty years, we wouldn’t be in this mess. No Irag, no Afghanistan, a return to some sort of standard rather than willy nilly printing of money, actual separation of powers, State’s rights, individual rights… Yeah, sounds like a horrible way to go… If liberals could just get over the whole “world will end when people take care of themselves” attitude, they’d realize that they have a lot in common with libertarians… the liberty part for one.

        Here likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Cdub

        Actually, it does sound horrible. Trust me, we have very little in common.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Randall

        Best thing the Pres can do is to start a fake war, doesn’t matter where, doesn’t matter what reason. There won’t actually be a war (a la “Wag the Dog”), but then he could use the money that Republican had no problem appropriating to do stuff we actually need in this country. By the time they find out we’ll have bridges, schools, etc. and nothing could be done about it. Sorry, we didn’t spend the money for no reason in whatever-a-stan, you’ll just have to deal with free healthcare.

        Lynn1775 and Zack like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Snarkqueen

        you do recall that the last 2 wars were not paid for with appropriations until nearly 10 years into them, right? Congress no longer pays for anything and all this talk about caring about the debt and the deficit is done to turn us against each other so they can continue to do what their financial overlords tell them to do.

        Chris Farley and Kurt Mundt like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        soc_list

        This is a very smart way to do this on the part of the white house. The hard part is done which was to force republicans to raise taxes on the rich. There is an ideological/theological resistance to this in the GOP. The best way to deal with spending cuts is to bargain for cuts at the same time as the debt ceiling occurs. Everyone wants cuts, but they will argue about which cuts and how much, but in the end there will be an agreement, and if there is an agreement there will be no debt ceiling fight – this time.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Taxmagedon

        Celebrate? Yglesias, you idiot their is nothing to celebrate!Congress will falsely claim they’ve protected 98% of Americans from tax increases, when in reality 77% of Americans will pay higher taxes….They haven’t cut a dime from spending; in fact they’ve increased spending by over $330 billion.All told, it is the American people who are the big losers from this bill.
        You are a joke for an “economics correspondent.”

        chemjeff and Dale Ogden like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        maltbyd

        Did you read anything after the headline? Even the headline said not to celebrate yet. Clearly Matt Yglesias, like you, find nothing to celebrate in this deal. Matt Yglesias may not be up to Neil Irwin’s (Washington Post) caliber, but he is no joke.

        Kurt Mundt, anand, Zack, dust truck and sylvie369 like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        rtovo

        I think he joke too he not too smert on conomy

        dust truck likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        sylvie369

        “you idiot their is nothing to celebrate! “That’s telling him.

        Kurt Mundt, anand, Zack and dust truck like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Lynn1775

        77% of Americans will pay higher taxes? Do you mean the ending of the FICA tax holiday that was intended to be temporary? Unfortunately this is what people are going to be seeing (smaller paychecks) in the next few weeks and blame Obama for “raising taxes”. Sigh.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        mmm

        This is silly. Obama should just ignore the debt ceiling, declare it unconstitutional, if necessary. Explain that Congress has passed the spending the first place, so it’s congress’ problem and that he’s going to borrow to execute the programs congress passed. Let the fight be about the budget and let congress decide it’s not going to pass certain budgets. The debt ceiling is BS and the American people can understand that.

        Chris Farley and Laurence like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Philidor

        You wrote: “Let the fight be about the budget …” There hasn’t been a budget for years. And Democrats are unlikely to make a serious effort to pass one.Republicans keep wanting to accomplish something, their mistake. So they use any action they have to take as a chance to force negotiations.The debt ceiling has symbolic value, because it allows them to talk about deficits and debt. Given their differences from Democrats, the debt ceiling is more like a teaching momnt than a chance to come to agreement.Sen McConnell recogized this when he proposed the President have the authority to raise the debt ceiling, while Congress retained the authority to complain.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        CharityB

        Ha ha, “Republicans keep wanting to accomplish something”. Right. Are you talking about “Obamacare repeal attempt 38″, or all of those,Let’s be honest — we chose a Congress filled with ideological nutcases who have realized that no one will hold them responsible for not doing their jobs. Democrats won’t pass a budget (they didn’t even before the Republican takeover of the House, and they’re even less likely to now), and Republicans use the budgeting process as a political stunt rather than an actual, you know, appropriations process (Ryan budget, anyone?)

        Laurence and Worx2749 like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        maltbyd

        I am pretty sure that President’s are not allowed to meaningfully declare laws unconstitutional.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        m

        Obama could claim constitutional authority (not totally without merit) to declare all US debt valid and secure and see if Congress really wants to sue to executive over the right to let the nation default on Congress’s debts. That might at least force the Supreme Court to decide if Congress has the authority to drive the nation into financial suicide.

        Parrying Diddlers likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Chris Farley

        He doesn’t even have to make it a Constitutional issue….Congress will have passed 2 laws that directly controvene themselves. The President can’t follow Law A (the CR appropriations bill) and Law B (the debt cieling limit) at the same time. Therefore the Executive will have to break the law.In such cases where 2 laws conflict (which happen surprisingly often), the Courts have always given big deference to the Executive as long as the response was in good faith. Obama can do basically whatever he wants consistent with the CR at that point. This works up until the current CR expires, and then we go back to a government shutdown for no appropriations, which also has precedent. GOP also knows how much the American public loves it when they play that game too.If Obama wants a bigger and more long term solution, he can push the 14th amendment or “trillion dollar coin” solutions… but they aren’t even necessary since we have a valid spending law in place.I also don’t think the GOP wants to give Obama such unilateral decision making power, so we’ll get a debt cieling raise… its likely to be short and full of whining and teethgnashing… but they will pass it.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Like · Flag

        

        GG1000

        At least next time I’ll know to buy low and sell when they bounce after the agreement.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Kegg

        Since the debt ceiling has technically been hit now, and since there are two months to go for the next hurdle, I propose the following: no member of Congress, nor any member of his or her staff, shall get paid until this thing is solved. No vacation or sick days, either.

        Laurence, david wilcox, attyinny and Bob Kustofawitshz like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Island Time

        Tempting, but that would just mean even more millionaires in Congress. For most of them, the salary is chump change. The staffers would get hit hard, but they are the only ones in the place who do any real work. Let’s do something a bit more basic: all members of Congress, once the debt ceiling has been exceeded, will be required to wear a shocking pink dunce hat of at least thirty inches in height to any and all public events. Truth in advertising….

        Chris Farley and sylvie369 like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        redcorn

        Mmmmmyeah. What else have they got to do?

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Bob

        It’s funny how some columnists write articles as though Congressmen/Senators might actually approve significant budget cuts that might take affect during their projected tenure in the House or Senate.Cut one dollar from defense and one side says the terrorists will be parachuting into our cities tomorrow. Cut one dollar from entitlements and the other side asks why you want to kill children and old people.I don’t see it happening. Oh, there might be some token program studying the sex lives of three-toed sloths that gets reduced a little, but really, we’ll have a repeat of last night’s soap opera, then have a bipartisan agreement to do nothing until after the next election. Well, I guess it’s nice there’s ONE thing they can agree on.

        GuestDC, Laurence, Gumby, maltbyd, Worx2749 and 2 more like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        A.A.J.

        I don’t think it’s exhausting… or much of a problem, really. People should stop stressing so much. The story has been told, over and over again. Obama will agree to a few spending cuts if the GOP agrees to a few tax increases. The GOP declines and both parties kick the can down the road until it becomes election season.
        Ho hum.
        Unless we solve the redistricting problem, it shall be ever so.

        GuestDC and Lynn1775 like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        nategatorc

        What we need is our politicians and journalists to be honest with the American people and stop using meaningless words like “spending” or revenue. Looking at the budget, and which parts will explode in the future (which is the real problem, not present deficits which are more a reflection of the bad economy) we have only a few options if we want to reduce the debt. We can, probably only through a combination:1. Cut Medicare and Social Security payments to beneficiaries.
        2. Raise taxes
        3. Cut the military.
        4. Nationalize health care and, especially, allow single market bargaining with the medical industry and expand the number of doctors.
        5. Expand immigration massively to change the ratio of workers-to-retirees.Those are our only options. We can’t grow our way out of it, in part because it’s very hard to possibly impossible go over 4% annual growth with an economy our size on a regular basis. So if anyone tries to sell some magic solution like cutting off welfare queens (we gutted welfare during Clinton) or “premium support” (still an effective cut) instead of one of the 5 above, they are lying.Or we can say screw it. Countries go bankrupt, stiff their creditors, and survive. Do we honestly believe that future generations of the USA are going to pay off a 400% debt to GDP and make their lives miserable in the process? Of course not! We’ve had a rich tradition in this country of bankruptcy and homestead protections. Our grandchildren will probably follow in our tradition of fiscal irresponsibility.And there is something to the saying if you owe some, the bank owns you, but if you owe a lot, you own the bank.

        Laurence and maltbyd like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        chipmunky

        “5. Expand immigration massively to change the ratio of workers-to-retirees.”Fabulous idea. It’s already massively hard for young people, even college graduates, to find work. Let’s let in a few more million of them and make the struggle even tougher. Great plan.

        George likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Mancur Ol$on

        It’s unlikely low-skill immigrants are going to compete for jobs with recent college graduates. Of course, there are some more skilled immigrants who may compete with college workers. However, on the whole, and over time, more liberal immigration laws would be a net economic benefit to the nation as a whole.

        maltbyd likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        TheDude

        There is no way Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling. If I were Obama, I would not only not negotiate this, I would schedule a vacation to be out of the country when the debt ceiling deadline was due to expire. That might be seen as politically unpopular, but it’s not like he has to worry about running for another election. It’d be bad a$$.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        A.A.J.

        It would be rather silly. He can more easily condemn the GOP while remaining in the country and being seen as available for work. Not to mention the Senate Democrats would be on the defensive without him. And finally, he has other work to do, you know? This is really just Congress requiring hand holding. It’s not his real job.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        commenter8

        Quoting J.J. Goldberg at forward.com:[...] Eisenhower inherited a top marginal income tax rate of 92% from his predecessor Harry Truman when he entered the White House in 1953. He quickly lowered it to 91%, where it stayed until Lyndon Johnson lowered it again to 77% in 1964 and then 70% in 1965.During his eight years in the White House, Eisenhower managed to reduce the federal deficit by 75% — down to a quarter of the size he inherited — while building the Interstate Highway System and launching America’s space program. GDP growth averaged 3% per year. Unemployment averaged just under 5.5%.Reagan, entering office in 1981, inherited Johnson’s 70% top marginal income tax rate and immediately lowered it to 50%, then to 38.5% and finally to 28%. His theory was that high taxes stifle economic growth, while lowering taxes unleashes growth and creates jobs. It was a great national experiment, and the result was conclusive: It didn’t work. Growth averaged 3.4% per year during Reagan’s presidency, hardly better than Eisenhower’s, while unemployment averaged a shocking 7.43%, far worse than Eisenhower’s and hardly better than the much-maligned Obama record. [...]So the next time you listen to a presidential debate, remember that nobody up there is taking the Democratic side. The debate we’re having today is between a robust Reaganism and a faint, timid echo of Eisenhower Republicanism. In fact, when you get down to it, the Democrats can’t even bring themselves to take Eisenhower’s side with any conviction. We’re all touting variations on a flimflam theory that’s been tried and proven a colossal failure.

        GuestDC, redcorn and commenter8 like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        commenter8

        At the 91% tax rate, the amount wealthy taxpayers actually paid was 46% to 49%. That’s a huge improvement from the current system, where the tax rate is under 40% and Mitt Romney actually pays less than 15%!

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Philidor

        You do remember the recession Reagen inherited? The one caused by dealing with stagflation? And the strength of the recovery that followed? And that the 1980′s recovery was the last not produced by a bubble?You can argue reasonably that Reagen’s policies were not the cause. I’d agree to an extent because government doesn’t make decisions for the private sector. But you can’t realistically argue that Reagen’s terms were a time of economic failure.

        CharityB and Bob Kustofawitshz like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        commenter8

        1) Eisenhower’s term included “a sharp recession in 1958-59″.2) What Goldberg is arguing is not that Reagan’s term was an economic failure (that’s a strawman), but rather that Reagan’s theory that allowing the rich to escape taxation would result in more jobs and growth than taxing the rich at high rates was a failure. That theory failed spectacularly, as Eisenhower’s term illustrates. In addition, under Reagan “the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.” Reagan falsely claimed that the result of not taxing the rich would be spectacular economic growth, but what his policies actually created was truly spectacular growth in the level of public debt!

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Philidor

        The recovery during Reagen’s tenure was so strong that it was said to “prove” that his policies were the secret to growth. That’s not failure.To a degree, the policies and the recovery only co-incided. But that’s not saying the economy under Reagen proved the failure of any ideas.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        commenter8

        How To Cut Spending: End Corporate Welfare!!!As Rex Nutting of Marketwatch noted in his 12/18/2012 article “Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts?”, “$2.6 trillion could be saved [...] It’s possible to achieve all the budget savings we need for the next 10 years simply by cutting the fat out of discretionary spending programs and tax expenditures [removing all of the corporate welfare] without raising tax rates on the wealthy or cutting the safety net at all.”Oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, certainly don’t need $4 billion a year in subsidies, and even the oil company CEOs admit they don’t need it!Why are cuts to Social Security and Medicare even being discussed while literally billions in corporate welfare are constantly spilling out of the Treasury?White House petition to End Corporate Welfare: http://wh.gov/Qa6f   

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Alex

        “Take the text of any of the seven debt ceiling bills Congress passed while my predecessor was in office, change the dates, pass it, and send it to my desk. That’s all I’m gonna sign. A clean bill or nothing.”–Obama, in my dreams

        Kegg likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        A Reasonable Man

        Permanent crisis mode. Prediction: They will raise the debt limit and punt on an serious reform one way or the other.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        D R

        Current strategy by Congress to avoid any ownership, blame, so they can keep their office – keep kicking the budget can down the road. Hopefully it will stick to the other party.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        JohnMyroro

        There should be no negotiation at all. Treasury has duly informed the Congress that the debt ceiling has been reached. The President has no further responsibility in this. Congress can act or not. If Congress refuses to raise it, then that is their decision. Let the chips fall. We’ll have another election in a year and ten months. We can let them know what we think of their decision. Maybe the chaos and hardship resulting from letting angry children go to Congress will finally help put some grown-ups back in charge.

        MC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        MC

        Or, if Obama doesn’t want to needlessly wreck the economy and/or full faith and credit of the country, mint a couple of platinum coins and move on.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Philidor

        The post below discusses the federal budget. Here’s a description of where the money goes in more detail. As the article observes, current budgets are unusual because of the recession. I’ll add, medical spending is due to increase rapidly and very substantially.Anyway, quoting for reference:Defense and international security assistance: In 2011, 20 percent of the budget, or $718 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities.Another 20 percent of the budget, or $731 billion, paid for Social Security…Three health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) – together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2011, or $769 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $486 billion, went to Medicare …About 13 percent of the federal budget in 2011, or $466 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

        In 2011, these interest payments claimed $230 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.

        As the graph shows, the remaining fifth of federal spending goes to support a wide variety of other public services. These include providing health care and other benefits to veterans and retirement benefits to retired federal employees, assuring safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, and investing in education, scientific and medical research, and basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and airports. A very small slice of this remaining 19 percent – about 1 percent of the total budget – goes to non-security programs that operate internationally, including programs that provide humanitarian aid.

        http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1…

        GuestDC and Ld like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Philidor

        That final one-fifth of the budget is the most likely to face substantial cutting.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Conan776

        So basically we get rid of veteran’s benefits?

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Joel

        They’re a bunch of takers!

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Like · Flag

        

        Philidor

        If no individual suffers from reducing an expenditure, it’s more vulnerable.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Like · Flag

        

        Bob Kustofawitshz

        Correct. Unfortunately, the source of the problem lies in the first three fifths. Together they make up the untouchable “third rail of politics.” Until the American people, and their elected representatives, develop the political will to fix this (by reducing defense spending and making modest reforms to entitlement programs, or alternatively, by *everyone* paying much higher taxes) the unsustainable growth in these parts of our budget will continue.

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        sylvie369

        In less than 20 years the first four-fifths of the budget will exceed revenues, which means you could cut the remaining one-fifth to zero and still drop into debt.You cannot balance the budget with just cuts to discretionary spending. It’s impossible.

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Muppet10

        I’m reminded of the hitman in “Gone in Sixty Seconds” who asks Nicolas Cage “Where would you like it, sir? The head or the chest?”For all the GOP talk about cutting spending, etc, etc, etc let’s look at where most of the money goes- Entitlements (social security, medicare, etc)
        - Defense
        - InterestThe interest you really can’t do much about unless you want to default and let the fun really start. Then again, most of the debt is owed not to the Chinese, but social security.That leaves you with entitlements and defense. Since nobody wants to cheese off the elderly (ain’t it ironic the greatest generation is going to possibly bankrupt us?) and the GOP hasn’t met a weapons system it doesn’t like (how’s that F-35 workin’ out for ya?) you really can’t say the GOP is truly, truly serious about spending and deficit reduction. When I’ve asked friends who are GOP voters and go off about government waste I ask them which they would cut. Just like the GOP leadership, they mumble and tell me Obama is a socialist.That leads me to believe that the real agenda of the Republicans is to reduce taxes for themselves and all of their running buddies and keep their uppity wives and daughters in the kitchen. You just keep yammering about how you’re the “real” Americans…people are figuring out what the deal is.

        GuestDC and Arkady like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Joel

        You forgot PBS, NPR, and Planned Parenthood. Cutting those programs would give us a surplus.

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Muppet10

        I always forget about Big “Che” Bird

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Thomas Rathko

        The Greatest Generation is slowly disappearing. Its the Baby Boomers who are aging into these entitlement programs that are going to break the bank.

        George likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        JLF

        Yeah, Thomas, but the “crisis” is today, just one year into the Baby Boomer generation receiving Social Security benefits. How did things get to this pretty pass so quickly if the responsibility for the deficits in Social Security is the responsibility of the Boomers?

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        View more items

        

        Philidor

        The coming cliff is mainly about spending.Republicans can let the sequester happen. Then there are domestic spending cuts which Democrats haven’t spoken about much, but which they wouldn’t appreciate. The military sequester woulkd be bad policy from the Republican view, but defense jobs have been spread so throoughly throughout the country that Democrats would suffer from their effects. And people involved in defense tend to believe that Republicans are more favorable to them then Democrats.There will be Democrats anxious to have an agreement. They can’t rely on political pressure from blaming Republicans. Republicans have realized that without a budget debate only crises require their agreement. And they might be able to win this crisis.

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Joel

        What is the purpose of the ceiling today? It doesn’t do any good. Either they vote to raise the ceiling or the global economy collapses.Congress already authorized the spending. Let’s just get rid of the stupid thing.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        jimmyb

        “Congress already authorized the spending.”Congress — i.e. the House and the Senate — have not once sent this President a budget to be signed. That includes the first two years of his first term, where Democrats controlled Congress. The Republican House passed a few budgets after the Republicans took over, but the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in years. And before you blame Republican use of the filibuster, please remember that the budget process only requires 51 votes and cannot be filibustered.That’s what interests me the most from the “let’s get rid of the debt ceiling!” crowd. If you aren’t going to have an annual debate about the budget, then at least the debt ceiling acts as a way to force a debate about the overall debt every 18-24 months.If you’re going to propose getting rid of the debt ceiling, at least have the decency to then also propose that Congress should be required to pass a budget every year (oh wait…they already are required to do that). Maybe we need to stop Treasury from cutting checks until the budget is passed?

        Bob Kustofawitshz likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        JLF

        Jimmyb, you need to read the Constitution and not rely upon sound bites coming over the radio. The federal government cannot spend a dime without congressional authorization. The infamous “continuing resolutions” you’ve ignored while lamenting the lack of a “budget” are just such authorizations. Even the most deranged lunatics in Congress aren’t about to fail to pass one of those things; even their checks couldn’t be cashed.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        jimmyb

        “The infamous “continuing resolutions” you’ve ignored while lamenting the lack of a “budget” are just such authorizations.”Title 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires that Congress pass a budget each year. The fact that the party you support has found a way around this process to their electoral benefit (budget votes tend to fuel opposition candidates in primary/election season) is no excuse to celebrate derelicition of duty.This also ignores one of the functions that a comprehensive budget serves: here’s the total amount of money we’re taking in, and here’s what we’re spending on everything to go with it. This is why the only meaningful debates we ever have on spending are now related to the debt ceiling. And that’s why I objected to the OP’s proposal about getting rid of the debt ceiling: because it’s the only time spending comes up in conversation anymore since the Senate stopped passing budgets.

        Bob Kustofawitshz likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Like · Flag

        

        mollusk

        Constitutionally we cannot default. So what would actually happen if Congress didn’t vote to raise the debt ceiling? Interesting question, but Constitutional crisis as a way of governing is not a great way to go. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”It would be interesting to hear how Scalia would parse that to get what he wanted.

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        karmapatrol

        Replacement cupholders for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs. Medicare (or future version of it) .. let me guess which will win.

        GuestDC and Arkady like this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Conan776

        What if Obama is playing chess such that he’ll completely cave in again to the GOP come March in the hopes of so alienating his base that he gets Congressional majorities back in 2014?

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Matt Watterson

        But how would alienating his base help him get Congressional majorities?

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Conan776

        So then Democrats can run against him.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        JS Esq.

        House is gerrymandered to such a point that Dems winning it back is nearly impossible between now and the next redistricting (2020). Most Republican seats are safe seats (not necessarily for the incumbent, but for the party). Only a very small handful can be put into play in a general election, though a lot of “moderate” Republicans might lose their seats in the primaries to even more crazy extremists.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Like · Flag

        

        Declan Davies

        I’m curious — why did Obama accept a deal that completely contradicts the advice of his Bipartisan commission? It’s opposite of what was recommended (Lower marginal rates, spending cuts.)

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Conan776

        Well, the commission started with the assumption that the Bush tax cuts completely expired, and recommended lower rates from there. Of course, we need to look into cutting spending once the economy recovers. (Although, possibly by then, President Santorum will be declaring holy war on Iran, and we’ll forget all about saving for a rainy day again, because deficits only matter when there is a Democrat in the White House.)Of course, Obama seems to have gotten that Reagonomics doesn’t work, that you grow an economy from the middle out, not the top down, which is why he ignored the bad advice from S-B about cutting rates for the rich.http://www.salon.com/2012/12/05/simpson_bowles_is_…

        GuestDC likes this.

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Declan Davies

        If the Bush tax cuts were a terrible idea — and devastating for economy — why are the Democrats satisfied with keeping them now for the majority of tax payers?
        Were the Bush tax cuts a bad idea or a good idea?Is the thinking that, by preserving tax cuts for the “middle class,” the economy will grow?

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        

        Chris Shepley

        OMG, all those kids getting their free school lunches. How will they ever learn to get a job if they don’t starve during elementary school. Those takers. Maybe we should just repeal our child-labor laws too? They should be going to work for that food. Not getting measly hand-outs that actually put more money into the economy than they take out of it (each $1 of SNAP benefits causes $1.50 in economic activity).

        Last Month

         from slate.com

        · Reply · Like · Flag

        Council on Foreign Relations

        • Issue Guide: 2013 State of the Union Address

        Follow Us On  

        Analysis Brief

        Print Email Share Cite

        Issue Guide: 2013 State of the Union Address

        Author: Jeanne Park, Deputy Director
        February 12, 2013

        President Barack Obama will deliver his fourth State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on February 12. While the president alluded to key legislative priorities in his domestic policy-heavy second inaugural address, he’s expected to provide “details and blueprints”(WaPo) for his second-term agenda on Tuesday night. The following materials offer a guide to understanding issues high on the president’s priorities list.

        
        ^{President Obama delivers his 2012 State of the Union address. (Photo: Saul Loeb/Courtesy Reuters)}
        

        Immigration Reform

        The Economics of Immigration Reform
        By adding market forces to the equation, immigration reform offers new promise for the U.S. economy that we cannot afford to ignore, write Brookings fellows Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney.

        Foreign Policy: Think Again: Immigration
        After Republicans’ election-year drubbing, the United States has a historic opportunity to fix its broken immigration system. And the arguments against reform simply don’t hold up anymore, writes CFR’s Shannon O’Neill.

        Renewing America Blog: Five Years Later, Five Big Challenges
        It’s been more than five years since the last congressional effort at comprehensive immigration reform dissolved in acrimony. CFR’s Edward Alden identifies five big issues that need to be handled successfully this time around.

        Essential Document: President Obama’s Remarks on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
        President Obama delivered these remarks on immigration reform in Las Vegas on January 29, 2013, the day after a bipartisan group of senators released their framework for immigration reform.

        Essential Document: Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
        A bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators proposed a framework for immigration reform on January 28, 2013, which includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

        
        ^{A graduation ceremony for DREAM Act students. (Photo: Jonathan Alcorn/Courtesy Reuters)}

        CFR Video: Immigration Reform: Three Things to Know
        In this CFR video, Edward Alden offers three reasons why the time may be ripe for a U.S. immigration overhaul.

        CFR Backgrounder: The U.S. Immigration Debate
        Ongoing arguments over U.S. immigration policy play out against concerns about curbing illegal immigration, changing demographics, and maintaining the country’s global competitive edge.

        Financial Times: U.S. Immigration Reform Will Happen–At Last
        The 2012 presidential election had many consequences, but few may be as profound as its impact on the likelihood of immigration reform, writes CFR President Richard N. Haass.

        CFR Task Force Report: U.S. Immigration Policy
        A bipartisan group of leaders in the fields of immigration policy, homeland security, education, labor, business, academia, and human rights urges Congress and the Obama administration to move ahead with immigration reform legislation that achieves three critical goals.

        Fiscal Policy

        New Yorker: U.S. Fiscal Policy Is Upside Down
        Rather than tackling the long-term rise in entitlement spending, which does present a potentially serious threat to the country’s prosperity, policymakers are intent on making short-term spending cuts across the board, for which there is little or no rationale, writes John Cassidy.

        Essential Document: CBO: The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2013 to 2023
        A report issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the budget deficit will drop below $1 trillion for the first time in President Obama’s tenure in office.

        Now It’s Time for Sequester Anxiety
        The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates approximately one million lost jobs if a full sequester occurs as scheduled on March 1.

        Politico: House GOP Thinks Unthinkable on Defense Cuts
        A new breed of conservatives in the House cares so much about cutting spending they’re willing to shave the budget for bullets and bombs, writes Darren Samuelsohn.

        CFR Blog: Macro and Markets: The Sequester and the Closing Window for a Fiscal Bargain
        The window for a fiscal bargain that deals with our long-term fiscal challenge is closing; the upcoming sequester battle provides one last opportunity to make such a deal, writes CFR’s Robert Kahn.

        Slate: The Next Fiscal Cliff
        While this upcoming cliff is much smaller in scale than the full cliff that was narrowly avoided on New Year’s Day, it’s much more terrifying because it will arrive in the beginning of March when we’re hitting the debt ceiling again, writes Matthew Yglesias.

        CFR Backgrounders: U.S. Fiscal Policy
        Read CFR.org’s backgrounders on the fiscal cliff, the U.S. debt ceiling, and corporate tax reform.

        Energy and Environment

        CFR Report: Oil Taxes and Fiscal Reform
        Under the right conditions, using an oil tax in a deficit reduction package can increase economic output, reduce unemployment, and cut U.S. oil consumption, write CFR’s Daniel Ahn and Michael Levi.

        Politico: Obama’s Climate Team Appears Primed for Action
        The president’s top climate appointees and the outside advisers best positioned to shape his agenda are business leaders, environmental lobbyists, and bureaucrats who have spent years wrestling with the minutiae of regulations, writes Darren Goode.

        National Geographic: Ten Ways Obama Could Fight Climate Change
        What could the president reasonably do to deliver his vow to respond to the threat of climate change? Experts in climate research, energy innovation, and oceanography offer their suggestions.

        CFR Blog: Energy, Security, and Climate: Unexpected Headlines for Obama’s Second Term
        Odds are high that many of the biggest headlines and decisions about energy policy will be about things that we aren’t even thinking about today, writes CFR’s Michael Levi.

        New York Times: Obama’s Second-Term Options on the Environment
        As President Obama prepares to embark on his second term, it’s worth exploring what he can do to foster progress on environmental issues and the nation’s, and world’s, energy and climate challenges, writes Andrew Revkin.

        National Journal: The Education of Steven Chu
        The departure of Energy Secretary Steven Chu highlights the political struggle President Obama has faced in trying to enact even a portion of the sweeping clean-energy and climate change agenda he envisioned when he ran for the White House in 2008, writes Coral Davenport.

        CFR Interactive: Oil Dependence and U.S. Foreign Policy
        This CFR Interactive looks at the history of U.S. oil dependence and foreign policy, from the days of the first market, to the crisis of 1970s, to the struggle to balance energy security with environmental concerns.

        CFR Interactive: Global Governance Monitor: Climate Change
        The Global Governance Monitor tool shows how the international community is doing in addressing the daunting threat of climate change.

        Nuclear Proliferation

        WSJ: Obama’s Nuclear Fantasy
        The president is setting the stage for a world with more nukes in the wrong hands, writes Bret Stephens.

        Reuters: Obama’s Aims to Reduce Nuclear Threat
        Obama has rightly seized this nuclear arms-control opportunity. His plan should help future presidents and Congresses evaluate the wisdom of such a possible step, write Michael O’Hanlon and Steven Pifer.

        CFR Blog: Asia Unbound: How to Respond to North Korea’s Defiance
        Pyongyang’s latest nuclear test shows the ineffectiveness of international sanctions in altering its behavior. The UN Security Council now must stifle the North’s missile capabilities, says CFR’s Scott Snyder.

        Project Syndicate: The Second Nuclear Age
        A new set of rules for diplomacy, military strategy, and arms control is needed to stabilize an emerging nuclear order, writes Paul Bracken.

        CFR Task Force Report: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
        This report focuses on near-term policies to reduce nuclear weapons to the lowest possible level consistent with maintaining a credible deterrent, while also ensuring that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is safe, secure, and reliable for as long as it is needed.

        Global Economy

        
        ^{Demonstrators in Madrid. (Photo: Susana Vera/Courtesy Reuters)}

        Foreign Policy: Getting Down to Business
        In his second first 100 days, Obama has an unprecedented opportunity to right a fragile global economy and change the way Americans–and the world–think about Washington, writes PIMCO’s Mohamed El-Erian.

        WSJ: Who Says the Euro Crisis Is Over?
        Even if the euro survives, the crisis isn’t over until the periphery starts growing and people start finding jobs, Uri Dadush writes.

        Foreign Policy: Save Greece, Save Europe
        Only Europe can lead the way out of this crisis, but in his second term, President Obama needs to help save Europe from itself, writes former Greek prime minister George Papandreou.

        CFR Video: World Economic Outlook: January 23, 2013
        CFR’s Sebastian Mallaby and experts analyze the current state of the global economic system.

        Gun Control

        CFR Backgrounder: U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons
        Why do mass shootings, such as the December 2012 incident at a Connecticut elementary school, occur more frequently in the United States than other major democracies? This Backgrounder examines select countries.

        Foreign Policy

        IHT: A First Step With Iran
        Although the nuclear dispute between Iran and the United States is often portrayed as a disagreement over technical issues, it is important to break the psychological barriers to deal-making, writes CFR’s Ray Takeyh.

        CFR Blog: Asia Unbound: Presidential Inbox
        With a new foreign policy team coming together in Washington, CFR’s Elizabeth Economy, Scott Snyder, Sheila Smith, Joshua Kurlantzik, and Yanzhong Huang offer advice on advancing U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

        The United States and South Asia After Afghanistan
        The report, written by Asia Society Bernard Schwartz Fellow Alexander Evans, finds that a unique opportunity exists for the Obama administration to forge a more strategic, integrated, and successful policy toward South Asia.

        CFR Interview: Talking to Cuba
        The argument for sustained U.S. diplomatic engagement with Havana has never been more compelling, says CFR’s Julia Sweig.

        Chicago Tribune: Will Obama End Perpetual War?
        Obama will deserve credit if he ends the U.S. war in Afghanistan as he did the U.S. war in Iraq. But it’s just as important to avoid plunging into another one, and on that prospect, it’s hard to be optimistic, writes Steve Chapman.

        Economist: Crises, Opportunities, and Duties (Audio Slideshow)
        The president will be faced with many challenges during his second term, though he may prefer to see America play the role of indispensable catalyst, rather than indispensable nation, say the editors.

        CFR Backgrounder: South China Sea Tensions
        As the United States pivots to Asia, disputes over territories in the South China Sea have escalated tensions and threatened regional stability.

        Foreign Affairs: Rebooting Republican Foreign Policy
        Republicans need to start taking foreign policy more seriously, thinking hard about the thorny task of managing a superpower and not leaving it as a plaything for right-wing interest groups. Failure to do so quickly could be catastrophic, ceding this ground to Democrats for the a generation at least, argues Daniel Drezner.

        Member Login

        © Copyright 2012, Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved

        …and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com