President’s Sequestration warnings are an Obamanation!

President Obama was for Sequestration before he was against it. Sequestration will result in federal spending cuts that Obama forced Republicans to put on the table before he would bargain with them on the debt ceiling, and now he is trying to blame the cuts on them.

According to the Washington Post Fact Check, White House national economic council director Gene Sperling proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, calling it an automatic sequester.

House Majority Leader John Boehner was “nervous” about using it as a budget tool. However, Obama said it could be used to force tax reform. It would be an enforcement mechanism even if both sides disagreed on the composition of how to get to the cuts; it would lock in the cuts.

Obama even threatened to veto any bill that came to him that didn’t include these automatic sequester cuts in 2011.

President Barack Obama, who has since changed his mind because spending cuts are actually going to happen, today used the threat of cuts to first responders, surrounding himself with an entourage of police and firemen in his latest attempt to make Congress avert the looming automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in just 10 days.


The “meat cleaver approach” of the sequester, Obama said, would “jeopardize our military readiness, it will eviscerate job creating investments in education and energy and medical research.”

Obama accused Republicans of favoring deficit reduction measures that he argued benefit the rich and hurt most Americans.

It’s “troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress just might allow a series  of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place,” Obama said. “This is not an abstraction: people will lose their jobs.”

But the president doth protest too much, methinks.

The financial data doesn’t support President Obama’s claims of pending disaster due to sequestration. First, the $1T in sequestration cuts is implemented over a period of 10 years. A cut of $85B is scheduled to begin March 1, with over $900B to be cut in the next 8 years.

That’s a cut of $85B from the annual spending of over $3500B, a 2.4% cut. However, sequestration does not result in an actual cut in government spending year over year.

The sequestration “cuts” do not reduce the amount of money the government spent last year by 2.4%, which might result in reduced employment. Sequestration will merely cut the growth in government spending that occurs each year.

What we are not being told by the president is the U.S. budget grows 6% to 8% each year. Sequestration is not a real cut in spending, just a decrease in the growth of government spending year over year.

So, some people may not be hired, but if people are laid off, then something is amiss, I fear. Besides, a reduction of $85B is only 7% of the $1.2T in the annual deficit spending of President Obama, so 93% of the annual deficit will still remain, adding over a trillion dollars each year to the already staggering national debt of $16.5T.

It’s tough for Obama, whose own deficits helped create this “crisis,” to sell financial Armageddon to the people, with devastating cuts due the first of March, when he leaves for a round of golf with Tiger Woods and Congress takes a week’s vacation.

If the president continues to borrow 40 cents of every dollar the government spends, without corresponding entitlement cuts, plus his repeated crying wolf of the pending financial disaster of sequestration; a mere cut in the growth in government spending may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.





  1. David Firestone of The New York Times put it correctly yesterday when he wrote:

    When Republicans threatened to put the government in default in 2011 unless the Democrats agreed to slash spending, they didn’t tell the public what that would really mean, for either regular discretionary spending or health-insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare. They expected Mr. Obama to specify actual cuts, hoping he would then share the blame for unpopular reductions in government services. And when he came up with the deliberately onerous sequester plan in order to prevent disaster, Republicans readily agreed rather than raise taxes a dime. (Twice, actually, if you count the failure of the “super-committee” for the same reason.)

    So it’s ridiculous for Republicans to claim the sequester is really Mr. Obama’s idea, as if a kidnapper’s relatives deserve blame for paying the ransom. (“The President’s Sequester,” as Speaker John Boehner now calls it.) Republicans love the idea of reducing spending but prefer to remain in the shadows when the cuts actually materialize. Even now, they won’t consider the Democratic alternative of balancing cuts with an equal amount of higher tax revenue from the rich and corporations…

    • Ted Biondo


      If I were in Congress, I wouldn’t be hiding in the shawdows. I would want my kids and grandkids to see that I tried to keep some of the government debt off their backs, rather then spend it all on ourselves.

      Also, you didn’t have any comment on the size of these so-called cuts as a percentage of the government spending, with Obama at the wailing wall crying wolf. If thay can’t absorb a 2.4% cut, with the growth in spending each year, then that’s what is wrong with having the government be our sugar daddy. Too bad for them.

      • Ted Biondo

        The president got his tax increase on the wealthy last month with the debt ceiling increase of $2T more dollars on the backs of future generations and now he’s back for more.

        Instead of the sequester, the president needs to negotiate some cuts which will balance the budget within 10 years, if Reid leading the Senate would come up with a budget for once in four years.

        If Obama wants to keep the all his public union supporters, where should the cuts then be made? The House has already passed two bills to replace the sequester, with spending cuts and tax reforms.

        Where was the president – out playing golf, vacationing or using the only thing he knows how to do – reading from his teleprompter on his continuous campaign trail railing against the Republicans.

        Where is Obama’s “across the aisle” promises to get things done, instead of his radical rhetoric?

  2. One other thing: When the House voted on sequestration, 218 Republicans supported it, but no Democrats did.

    Check it out:


  3. President Obama cautioned Tuesday that if the $85 billion in immediate cuts — known as the sequester — occur, the full range of government would feel the effects, according to the Boston Globe. He said the consequences would be felt across the economy and urged the GOP controlled House to halt the automatic cuts.

    Back on November 21, 2012, as seen in the video below, Obama promised to veto any effort to undo the cuts.

    “Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No,” Obama said from the White House briefing room then. “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.”

  4. The president first proposed the sequester in 2011.

    Fact check:

    In the debate, Obama said he didn’t propose sequestration, Congress did. (We asked the White House for comment, but didn’t hear back.)

    To determine the question of ownership, we turned to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.

    Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House. But the intention was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect. [By the way, that’s how I remember it also: it was a “threat” that if the White House didn’t get is way it would sequester DOD funding.]

    Woodward summarizes the thoughts of the Obama team: “There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense.” Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t want to see their favorite domestic programs cut.

  5. JRM_CommonSense

    It is truely interesting when even Newt Gingrich states that the Republican Party leadership and the consultants they are using have postioned the Republican Party to be some 10 years behind the Democrats in their ability to develop and present viable Presidential candidates or being able to win the White House. The methods being used to deal with budget and financial issues and needs seems to support this postion 100%.

  6. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h690
    S. 365 (112th): Budget Control Act of 2011 (On Passage of the Bill)

    House Vote #690 [primary source: house.gov]
    Aug 01, 2011 (112th Congress)
    174 R, 95 D

  7. And this again is where Cunninghame is wrong again – as sure as the sun will rise in the east – Cunningham is wrong again. The sequestar came about as a method for Obama to get the debt ceiling raised so he could keep running up their trillion dollar deficits. As a matter of fact Patti-Poo, Obama has threatened to veto any bill that would try and overturn the sequestar. Now that his sequestar chickens have come home to roost – as Malcom X and the Rev Wright would say – Obama wants to blame Republicans for any downside that may happen.

    $85 billion in cuts of $3.5 Trillion in spending and Chicken Little Obama says the world is going to fall apart. This will hit the bureaucrats in DC the hardest and that should fit in with Obama’s plan of punishing the rich since these DC bureaucrats live in some of the richest counties in the country.

    And the GOP House has passed spending cuts that would take the place of Obama’s sequestar and that is sitting in Harry Reid’s inbox right nexy to the 2010 Budget. Ball is your court democrats.

  8. Why did Obama sign it then? I think that makes it HIS. He can’t own some of the stuff he signs and not others.

  9. As Politico stated today – Obama’s strategy is shame.


    And a $85 billion cut in spending will not cause a recession in a $16 Trillion economy.

    In addition to the two bills the House has passed and are sitting in Harry Reid’s onbox, the House should pass a bill that give Obama transfer authority between gov’t accounts.

  10. Why is applesauce begging for people to identify themselves? He (hopefully) could never slander them as in the past so what would be his gain? Honest, factual conversation from both sides? lol

  11. Juice,

    I do use my real name, he banned me as he got sick of getting his butt kicked in debate when I proved he was a liar

  12. kevind1986

    PC closes his sandbox to anyone that dares to combat his (almost) daily mis-directions with facts. He absolutely HATES facts. They just don’t fit his business plan. LOVE the virtual split screen of Obama insisting that the sequester will NOT be stopped with the current “this must not happen”. And lefty pundits eat it up. Because thinking for themselves is impossible with all of the tingles happening in their “legs”.

  13. Terry, I posted a snippet your earlier post (February 20, 2013 at 2:30 pm) with link to here on Applesauce. Haha

  14. Yeah, Patti-Poo (emphasis on the “Poo”) is a real piece of work. He kicked me off his site for not backing down from my post, stating that the Obama regime has harmed more people than all our domestic terrorists, combined. He must “tingle” even more than Chris Matthews, whenever Obama speaks.

  15. On a related note, the Obama Regime’s Justice Dept. is setting the stage for another round of sub-prime mortgages…

    The new standard prohibits any practices that result in discrimination “regardless of whether there was intent to discriminate.”

    Texas Bank Forced to Payback Thousands of Latino Customers Following Discrimination Allegations

    Read more at:

  16. Welfare, in any and every form possible, is Obama’s plan. In his opinion, the blacks worked for the whites in the 19th century and dammit they are gonna return the favor now! If you don’t believe that just look at the facts the last 4 years. And he isn’t near done. He has nothing to lose now. Do you really think he cares what people think? He doesn’t say anything about inner-city guns or crime, just ban guns from the honest white dudes and give the gangster a fair chance at robbing someone.

  17. SNuss,

    he kicked me out of his sandbox because he accused me of being unemployed and I told him he was wrong. But he had proof – I had posted for three straight days during 9 -5 work hours, so he concluded I was unemployed. And you wonder why he couldn’t finish college.

  18. One more thing about the anonymity on the internet – a Illinois legislature has proposed a bill calling that people use their real names. Guess which party this genius was from?

  19. On an unrelated issue, why are the “what you’re saying” and some other posts only allowing you to answer on Facebook? I don’t plan to get a Facebook account, just to post here.

    • Ted Biondo

      Who are you responding to Snuss? Are you talking about the paper and the questions they are asking on Facebook that appear in the printed version of the paper?. They may just be trying to reach another audience also, who may not subscribe to the paper?! I don’t know. I have started sharing my posts on Facebook and I tweet to the followers and respond to separate questions there. The RRStar might be doing the same.

  20. I friended Pat on facebook, he defriended me after a day after I started kicking his butt in that forum.

    Someone let me know if he gets a Twitter account!!!

  21. Ted, I just put this out to see if someone has an answer. I e-mailed the RR Star, but didn’t get an answer.

    In the “what you’re saying” posts in the Insight section, when you try to post a comment, you are sent to a Facebook sign-in, with no other option. Some of the “Opinions” blogs are doing the same thing.

    • Ted Biondo

      Yes, I didn’t know that Snuss. I plan on staying right here, even though I’m also on Facebook and I tweet, too.

  22. That’s funny Terry. I see the comments have fallen off sharply since the policy change at other blogs and letters to editor.

  23. Well, I gave in, and established a Facebook account. I limited it as much as possible. I’ll see how it works, and if I get tired of it, I’ll shut it down.

    I wonder if I should try to “friend” Patti-Poo? 😉

  24. SNuss,

    Have some fun and friend Patti-Poo and see how long it is before he unfriends when you start to show the illogic of his liberal positions.

  25. Wilson

    “Sequester will cost 170 million Americans their jobs”

    That is more than all currently employed, but what a boost to the economy.
    Quoting Pelosi;”For our economy, every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of $1.60 in economic growth.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *