Va. shipyard latest setting for Obama sequester strategy
With just a few days left to convince Congress to avert the so-called sequester spending cuts, President Obama today travels to a part of the country where the cuts could hit the hardest: Virginia's shipyards.
Mr. Obama is visiting Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia. If the sequester goes into effect, it could have a direct and clear impact on Virginia's shipbuilding industry -- the Navy would cancel the maintenance of 11 ships in Norfolk, according to the White House, and it would delay and defer other projects in the state. Furthermore, cuts that impact Newport News Shipbuilding could reverberate across the country, since the company has a supplier base in all 50 states.
The sequester will cut around $85 billion in federal spending this year and around $1.1 trillion more over the next 10 years. The White House said Mr. Obama's trip today is an opportunity to highlight the "devastating impact" the sequester will have "if Congressional Republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester by March 1st."
Republicans have, for the most part, agreed with the White House that the indiscriminate nature of the sequester cuts will damage the economy. When it comes to the Pentagon cuts specifically, some Republicans have been even more determined than the president to avert them. A trio of Republican senators even went on a multi-state campaign last year to warn against the Defense cuts. The sticking point, however, is what to do about it.
- Where will the sequester cuts hit your community?
- Potential Navy budget cuts loom large over shipbuilders
Defense spending is, without a doubt, bearing the brunt of the sequester. Even though national defense accounts for about 20 percent of federal spending, it accounts for 50 percent of the sequester cuts. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned the cuts would trigger the "most serious readiness crisis that this country is going to confront in over a decade."
The state with the most to lose from Pentagon cuts is Virginia, where around 90,000 civilian Defense Department employees could be furloughed. The Army's base operation funding would be cut by about $146 million in Virginia, while funding for Air Force operations in Virginia would be cut by about $8 million.
One Virginia Republican is adamant that he's wanted to avoid this predicament all along.
"Sequestration cuts eclipse any other national security threat facing our nation," Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement yesterday. "Lawmakers in Washington have crossed a red line in our constitutional duty -- outlined in the first sentence of the U.S. Constitution -- to provide for the common defense. I voted against sequestration and I've warned about these cuts for 18 months."
Forbes yesterday introduced a bill to completely remove the defense cuts from the sequester and reduce the sequester by that amount. Most of the discussion in Washington, however, has focused on replacing the sequester cuts with smarter deficit reduction, rather than simply undoing them.
The Senate this week plans on voting on two competing bills to "replace" the sequester, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today -- the expectation, however, is that neither plan will have the support to pass through Congress. The Democratic plan would replace one year of the sequester with spending cuts and new tax revenues, but tax revenues is a non-starter with Republicans. Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have yet to unveil their plan, but are most likely going to focus on giving departments and agencies more flexibility over how to allocate the sequester cuts.
Today's trip to Virginia is the president's latest effort to lean on Congress to come to a deal to avert the sequester. In the past week he's delivered remarks to first responders and the nation's governors, conducted interviews with several local TV stations, and summoned Cabinet officials to pressuring lawmakers about the cuts.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 436 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 131 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1204 Comments
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado 89 Comments
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 177 Comments
They want a governmanet that takes from the people who will work and give to those that won't. Romney got nailed for telling the truth. Out of that 47%.....
Whatever a governmanet might be, your rant sure sounds like an ayn rand fictional novel, full of "makers and takers" silliness.
Time for your "meals on wheels" and meds, and a long nap, since you're obviously a danger to yourself and others with that type of thinking.
That's not what all the polls are saying today, since the vast majority of Americans will blame the republicans if the sequester tanks our economy!
More proof that fox entertainment rots your brain.
You sound like a bitter old man that always votes republican, but lives in a blue state where your vote doesn't count!
Why would you want any state to see higher unemployment and tougher times?
Scare enough people with lies about the current situation in the US, and they will all fall in line like good little robots.
The whole idea was conceived by Democrats to design a bill so onerous and expensive that it would never be considered. Than that bill was passed onto President Obama, which he signed last year. Over time there were attempts to find a solution, but all attempts repeatedly failed. The president will not stop his massive spending spree on social programs.
In January when the "Fiscal Cliff" was a burning item, Obama wanted more tax revenue from the wealthy. He did win higher taxation from the wealthy, but he got a bit less than he wanted. So when Boehner asked the president what do I get in spending cuts Obama replied, "You get nothing." Clearly, Obama will again kick The Sequester issue down the road -- just as he still has not created a budget since he took office that EVEN Democrats will approve.
So now the president is campaigning for a solution. Recently he tried to enlist help from state Governors. As bad as The Sequester is, the president deliberately makes it seem far, far worse on purpose. This has become a rather pathetic scare tactic for Americans, who are largely unaware of budgetary matters.
Obama is still spending more than 5 times the yearly rate G. W. Bush spent. It was Bush who had been the previous high-spending president beating Clinton by nearly 2 times the spending. But Bush had to deal with the 911 attack, 2 wars, the prescription drug plan for seniors, paying the lion share of bank bailouts, plus a large down payment on AIG and about 50% the cost for the 2 US auto bailouts all on the Bush budget.
When first in office, Obama launched massive spending programs somewhat like that done during the Great Depression, but his were wasteful. Again, he immediately began spending at FIVE TIMES the rate Bush spent. Every new job in his first year cost taxpayers at least $125,000 per new job created. Shovel ready projects were not ready, as Obama's interest was instead focused on ObamaCare. Instead of really addressing the economy, the main effort was and still is monstrously expensive ObamaCare, bigger government, more corporate regulations, saddling US corporations with the highest tax rate in the developed world, granting excessive students loans and Pell Grants with no monitoring, repeated bailout of poor people trying to keep their homes, and ramping up a large cadre of other social programs being grossly abused today -- such as free Obama phones with a free calling plan. All this lavish monetary attention won enough votes for Obama's reelection by a margin of only 6% of the popular vote -- offering no real reelection mandate. (The Electoral Collage shows a distortion by narrowly winning big population states via massive get out the vote efforts.)
With nearly half of America still on food stamps and a fantastic reelection organization, it was no wonder that Obama narrowly won his second term, with Organizing for America pushing very hard to obtain the poor votes. Sadly American buying power has declined under Obama.
So is America really facing Armageddon? Totally ridiculous! Cuts under Sequestration are actually tiny at $44 billion relative to the total Federal Budget outlay of $3.6 trillion to government meaning Obama's has to only take a 1.25% cut to end the sequestration. These numbers are from the Congressional Budget Office projecting GDP at $15.8 trillion for the 2013 budget year. Again, in net it means Obama must take a little more than a 1% cut in the congressional budget to end The Sequester.
But this president will cut nothing. He needs to spend, spend and spend some more on his socialistic game plan.
Obama also has executive privilege to actually eliminate The Sequester and to continue his full spending, so he may instead choose to denigrate the GOP yet again in the unfolding blame game. We shall see.
= = = = =
And the president hates the rich, but why? Taxing the rich offers no real solution. If the top 1% were taxed at 100% on all their income they could only fund the US government for 8 days. Yet this 1% group of taxpayers now supplies 37% of the US individual income tax bill. The top 2% could fund the government for 9.8 days now paying 45% of the entire tax bill. Our ENTIRE individual tax payments could only fund the government for JUST 22 days! Utterly shocking! This means that the middle class must soon pay much more in individual taxes. Today the lower 50% of our population pays less than 3% of the total tax bill, with the very bottom 13% being totally on the dole. Rather soon all of these rates must be adjusted to be more aggressive to cover Obama's spending especially when ObamaCare is fully funded. But none of this will happen. Obama will build huge deficits until he leaves office.
That's not what all the polls are saying today, since the vast majority of Americans will blame the republicans if the sequester tanks our economy!
I can hardley wait.
Bill Clinton did and we had a surplus.
You are ignorant
GOP is crying loud and clear. Lets sugar coat this Sequester!
President disagrees with the GOP = Not leading!
GOP disagrees with the President = leading
LOL
They navy can't cancel upkeep and maintenance on their ships, because you have to do these things. They may have a few less sailors on board though.
think the Seguester is no big deal.Obama knows there are faces behind , that small number, 2 1/2%. It not just floating around in a vaccuum.
Let government fail they say.
It's not my mortgage, car note, tuition, food bill, not my wife or husband.
not my town, my company, my...........