The Glade 4.0

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/



The Obama administration denied an appeal for flexibility in lessening the sequester's effects, with an email this week appearing to show officials in Washington that because they already had promised the cuts would be devastating, they now have to follow through on that.

In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked "if there was any latitude" in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.

He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that 'APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.' So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

"This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the Sequester cuts for political gain," said Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas Republican.

Mr. Brown, the official who sent the email and who is eastern regional director for wildlife services at APHIS, didn't immediately return a call Tuesday afternoon seeking comment.

APHIS is an agency within the Agriculture Department, and on Tuesday department Secretary Tom Vilsack was challenged on the email at a House committee hearing by Rep. Kristi Noem, who said she hoped the department wouldn't tie agencies' hands.

Mr. Vilsack said he hadn't seen the email, but said agencies are supposed to be trying to find ways to manage the impact of the cuts.

"If we have flexibility, we're going to try to use it to make sure we use sequester in the most equitable and least disruptive way," the secretary testified. "There are some circumstances, and we've talked a lot about the meat inspection, where we do not have that flexibility because there are so few accounts."

The administration earlier had warned that supplies of beef, pork and poultry could drop this year because slaughterhouse inspectors will have to be furloughed, and under federal law meat can't be processed without inspectors present.

Ms. Noem told Mr. Vilsack the email made it sound like the administration was sacrificing flexibility in order to justify dire predictions.

"I'm hopeful that isn't an agenda that's been put forward," the South Dakota Republican congresswoman told Mr. Vilsack.

The $85 billion in sequesters began Friday, and have hit most of the federal government, where employees will face furloughs.

But even amid the cuts, APHIS is still hiring new employees and interns.

Since Sunday the agency has posted 24 help-wanted ads including 22 student internships, one ad seeking a clerk in a New York office, and one ad seeking three "insect production workers" to grow bollworms in Phoenix.

What concessions has the wh made in your opinion? Honestly curious. The house has given tax increases when they wanted none, but I dont feel the white house has done the same

The bottom line on American budgetary politics right now is that Republicans won’t agree to further tax increases and so there’s no deal to be had. This is not a controversial perspective in D.C.: It’s what Hill Republicans have told me, it’s what the White House has told me, it what Hill Democrats have told me. The various camps disagree on whether Republicans are right to refuse a deal that includes further tax increases, but they all agree that that’s the key fact holding up a compromise to replace the sequester.

But it’s unpopular for Republicans to simply say they won’t agree to any compromise and there’s no deal to be had — particularly since taxing the wealthy is more popular than cutting entitlements, and so their position is less popular than Obama’s. That’s made it important for Republicans to prove that it’s the president who is somehow holding up a deal.

This had led to a lot of Republicans fanning out to explain what the president should be offering if he was serious about making a deal. Then, when it turns out that the president did offer those items, there’s more furious hand-waving about how no, actually, this is what the president needs to offer to make a deal. Then, when it turns out he’s offered most of that, too, the hand-waving stops and the truth comes out: Republicans won’t make a deal that includes further taxes, they just want to get the White House to implement their agenda in return for nothing. Luckily for them, most of the time, the conversation doesn’t get that far, and the initial comments that the president needs to “get serious” on entitlements is met with sage nods.

Meanwhile, the White House has signed off on close to $3 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years.

From: FN-WHO-Visitors Office

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:04 PM

To: FN-WHO-Visitors Office

Subject: ***Important White House Tours Update***

ATTN Interested Parties,


Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours.

We very much regret having to take this action, particularly during the popular Spring touring season. For updates regarding this situation, please contact the White House Visitors Office 24 Hour Hotline at [phone number].

Sincerely,

White House Visitors Office

The bottom line on American budgetary politics right now is that Republicans won’t agree to further tax increases and so there’s no deal to be had.

Claiming "well they came from tax cuts that were gonna expire anyhow!" is disingenuous since the Republicans wanted NO tax increase of ANY kind.

I think it would be wise for Obama not to make any golf outings campaign trips travel plans unless absolutely necessary.

It's not disingenuous at all. The status quo absent a deal was a larger tax increase, so the deal gave Republicans something they wanted and cost them nothing. If my lease automatically increases my rent by 5% next year, and I tell my landlord I want NO increase at all, and he agrees to be nice and only raise my rent by 3%, in what world did I give something up? I was at -5% to start, and I ended up at -3%. I improved my position by 2%. It's the landlord who gave something up; he started at +5% and ended up at +3%, so he worsened his position by 2%.

So does Louis Gomer, who tried to get a rider passed to that affect. However it was thought to be petty and didn't make it out of committee #toolazytosource.

It's not disingenuous at all. The status quo absent a deal was a larger tax increase, so the deal gave Republicans something they wanted and cost them nothing. If my lease automatically increases my rent by 5% next year, and I tell my landlord I want NO increase at all, and he agrees to be nice and only raise my rent by 3%, in what world did I give something up? I was at -5% to start, and I ended up at -3%. I improved my position by 2%. It's the landlord who gave something up; he started at +5% and ended up at +3%, so he worsened his position by 2%.

I'd still like to know what "spending cuts" you reference RD.

You know what you lost? 3%. Because you weren't at -5% to start, because apartments are a competitive market.

I am Sen Schmuck from WV. I am an R. I want 0% tax increases, and ideally I really want a tax cut to win me votes. I know that cuts in rates aren't likely. So I can stonewall at 0% and lose, literally, nothing.

Well, for starters, there's the $900 billion of specific cuts in the Budget Control Act and the additional $1.2 trillion of across-the-board cuts via sequestration, both of which I believe I noted upthread. (And by the way, if you don't think reducing the planned growth of spending counts as cuts, that's fine, but then you likewise can't use that planned growth in spending when estimating the future mountain of deficit/debt as a justification for cuts.)

The problem with that is I'm locked into a lease so the market in apartments is irrelevant and unless I can negotiate a new deal, my BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) is -5%. I ended up at -3%. So I'm 2% better off than I would have been without the deal.

No, you can't stonewall at 0%, because without a deal, the result in an automatic tax increase. Just like I was locked into a lease in the example above, the Rs are locked into a tax increase unless they can negotiate a new deal. If the automatic increase is, say, 10%, stonewalling means you end up with that 10% increase. Alternatively, if there's a deal on the table to reduce that increase to only 5%, then taking the deal improves your position. Now, you can choose to stonewall and then go on TV to demagogue the issue and proclaim your dedication to principle, and blah, blah, blah, and thus maybe "win" in the sense of gaining personal political advantage, but in policy terms, you lost and your constituents got stuck with a higher tax bill than they otherwise would have.

Well, for starters, there's the $900 billion of specific cuts in the Budget Control Act and the additional $1.2 trillion of across-the-board cuts via sequestration, both of which I believe I noted upthread. (And by the way, if you don't think reducing the planned growth of spending counts as cuts, that's fine, but then you likewise can't use that planned growth in spending when estimating the future mountain of deficit/debt as a justification for cuts.)

Sorry, RD, I thought you were talking about cuts in addition to the BCA and its provision for sequestration. I never imagined you believed reductions in increased future spending in exchange for a like amount of straight up increased spending would count as "cuts".

The BCA was passed so that BO could raise the debt ceiling. In exchange for a reduction of the increase in future spending of $917B, BO got $900B in increased spending through an increase in the debt ceiling. The $1.2T reduction of the increased future spending that is "sequestration" was offset by another increase of the debt ceiling by, you guessed it, $1.2T. What BO did, in effect, by signing the BCA was say, "I'll agree not to spend $2.117T over the next ten years in exchange for the ability to spend $2.1T now."

It's not as if the current $16.666 trillion isn't enough incentive.

that is beyond the fact that even if you count these decreases in spending increases as "cuts", $917 + $1200 = $2.117T. Where's the other $883B in "cuts"?