Tag Archives: sequestration

Rebuttal of William Hartung’s blatant lies about the threat environment

Display of might

The leftist “BreakingDefense” website has recently (on Dec. 12th) published yet another utterly ridiculous leftist screed, this time by ignorant anti-defense hack William Hartung from the far-left “New America Foundation”, an organization that seeks to turn America into a socialist, militarily weak country. In that garbage screed, Hartung falsely claims that:

1) The world is much safer now than during the Cold War and there is no significant threat to America’s or her allies’ security;

2) US military superiority is uncontested and there’s no one able to contest it;

3) The US spends too much on defense and should cut it by $100 bn per year, below Cold War average levels;

4) The only threats to US security on the horizon are the politically-correct threats of man-made climate change, disease, hunger, and nuclear-armed terrorists, and potential “miscalculations” in the current territorial disputes in East Asia. Hartung falsely claims none of America’s current or future security challenges can be solved through the “traditional means of military power”;

5) The Ryan-Murray budget deal would give an additional $20 bn to the DOD every year and would effectively increase defense spending.

All of Hartung’s claims are patently false. All of them.

1) Despite his pious denials, the world is far, far more dangerous than at any point during the Cold War except the Cuban Missile Crisis over 50 years ago. It is, in fact, more dangerous than at any point since WW2, again excluding only the CMC. During the CW, the US had to deter only one hostile superpower. Today, it has to deter and keep in check TWO hostile superpowers with large nuclear arsenals – Russia and China – as well as a nuclear-armed and belligerent North Korea, soon to be joined by a nuclear-armed Iran. It also has to fight terrorist organizations, such as AQ and Hezbollah, around the world. To cut US defense spending even further (after all the previous, pre-sequestration rounds of defense cuts implemented by the Obama admin) would be suicidal. No, the US is not spending too much on defense; if anything, it is spending too little. The world is decidedly NOT safer now than during the Cold War; for all of the above reasons, it is far MORE dangerous.

2) US military superiority is mostly a thing of the past already. Russia and China both wield large, modern, and growing nuclear arsenals as well as large, modern conventional militaries. In most categories of weapons, they’ve already matched or bested the US and are now working on closing the remaining few gaps. Their Flanker fighters are superior to everything the US flies except the F-22 and upgraded F-15C/Ds. Their PAKFA, J-20, and J-31 stealth fighters will best everything on the planet except the F-22 (whose capability they will nonetheless approach). Their Sovremenny and Type 052 DDGs are better than the USN’s DDGs, their submarines are quieter than the USN’s (who also sucks at ASW), and the PLAN already has far more attack subs than the USN does. In a few years, the PLAN will have more submarines, and more ships, in total than the USN. They both also have IRBMs, a class of weapons the US does not have, and China also has a huge arsenal of GLCMs. It is now also developing a stealthy, intercontinental bomber capable of reaching the CONUS.

But most troublingly, these countries (and on a lesser scale, rogue states like the DPRK and Iran) have fielded large, multi-layered networks of anti-access/area-denial weapons and capabilities that can shutter the US military out of entire war theaters completely, by destroying US land bases, USN surface ships, US satellites, and crippling US cyber networks as well as denying access to their airspace to all but the most stealthy a/c (F-22s and B-2s, plus the future LRSB/NGB). Their air defense systems can shoot any nonstealthy aircraft from hundreds of kilometers away. This means the US will have to acquire a wholly new series of long-range strike platforms that can access even the most heavily-defended countries, hit their assets, and operate at great distances, as well as disperse, harden, and fortify its current land bases and upgrade its air and missile defenses. This cannot be done on the cheap – it will require significant and sustained investments.

So Hartung’s claim that there’s no threat to US military supremacy is also a blatant lie – like the rest of his screed.

3) How much money the US has spent on defense in decades past is completely irrelevant to how much money should it be spending on defense right now. The only way to determine the right amount is to ask: “What exact capabilities (and thus weapons) do we need, at what level of sophistication, and at what quantity, and how much will it cost to recruit, house, feed, equip, train, maintain, care for, and compensate such a military?” Only this way can the right amount of defense spending be determined.

Raw figures and exclamations, like “oh my gosh, we’re spending $480 bn to $500 bn per year on defense, can’t we provide for our security with that amount?” and “oh my gosh, we’re spending more than during the Cold War on defense!” are utterly irrelevant and childish. Not to mention that the dollar is worth far, far less today than during the Cold War, and that as a share of the federal budget and of GDP, the US now spends LESS on defense than at any point since FY1940.

Hartung, whose goal is to totally gut America’s defense, OTOH, wants to arbitrarily cut US defense spending deeply so that it will be woefully inadequate.

4) Despite Hartung’s blatant lies that the world’s current security threats cannot be solved by military means, nothing could be further from the truth. Today, the biggest threats to America’s and its allies’ security are: an ascendant and aggressive China, a resurgent and aggressive Russia, a nuclear-armed NK preying on its southern neighbor and the US itself, an Iran speedily developing nuclear weapons and BMs, and terrorist groups of global reach like Hezbollah and AQ. These threats cannot be defeated by ANYTHING other than military means – because the ONLY thing these potential aggressors understand and respect is military strength. It’s the only thing that can deter and if necessary (Hezbollah, AQ) defeat them.

5) Contrary to Hartung’s blatant lies, the Ryan-Murray budget deal would not add a penny to the defense budget. It would only slightly reduce the amount of sequestration-required budget cuts the DOD would have to make in FY2014 and FY2015: by roughly $20 bn this FY and $9 bn the next, out of over $50 bn in cuts mandated by the sequester for every FY going forward thru FY2022. After FY2015, the sequester would return in full force.

Even before sequestration, the DOD had already cut almost a TRILLION dollars out of its budget: in over $330 bn in cuts resulting from the killing of over 50 crucial weapon programs by Sec. Gates, $178 bn in his later “efficiencies”, and $487 bn under the first tranche of BCA-mandated (pre-sequester) budget cuts. Sequestration is only the newest series of defense budget cuts being implemented by the Obama administration, which targeted defense for deep cuts as soon as it took office. Any claim that Ryan and Murray want to add any amount of money to the defense budget is a flat-out lie.

6) The Stimson Center’s proposals are useless, because they would “achieve” $25 bn in “savings” only by deeply cutting the military’s MUSCLE – America’s military CAPABILITIES, not the fat. Specifically, the Army would see even deeper cuts than those proposed by Obama, and the Navy’s planned SSBN replacement fleet would get cut from the barely-adequate planned number of 12 to just 10 boats. This is the defense policy of a madhouse.

7) Hartung shows his true colors when he calls on Congress not to spare the DOD at all from the sequester… but does not object to Congress reducing the scheduled sequester cuts to nondefense (domestic) discretionary programs, the vast majority of which are unconstitutional. This proves, once again, that Hartung’s goal is NOT to save taxpayers money, but to gut America’s defense.

And for that, he should be damnated forever as the traitor he is.

Shame on Hartung for lying so blatantly, but above all, shame on BD and its editors, Colin Clark and Sydney Freedberg, for publishing his litany of blatant lies and thus giving him yet another avenue to lie to the public, as if he didn’t have enough. Shame on you, Messrs. Clark and Freedberg!

Jabberwonky ObamaCare Failure is the Story – October 6th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, October 6th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: What happens when the media collectively ignores a story because the president wants them to? You end up with a week full of headlines about the crazy things the government has been doing over the shutdown – not to be confused with the craziness over Sequestration. Could it be that the president doesn’t want anyone paying attention to how badly ObamaCare is failing? We’ll talk about that, and undoubtedly about music and being mean to stupid people (liberals) on social media with Shelli Eaton (@shelli_eaton) from “The Army You Have”.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

$300 Million for Detroit: Arbitrary Sequestration Continues



Sequestration
It seems that there is some $300 million in the federal budget for the bankrupt city of Detroit, despite what Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said. But there are no funds to conduct White House tours. Or to continue National Park services.

By cutting out White House tours, the Secret Service is saving $18,000 per week. If the money for Detroit was spent instead on tours, there would be 16,666 weeks, 320.5 years of tours that could be restored. The National Park Service endured $153.4 million in budget cuts due to sequestration, just over half what is being given to Detroit. As a result, government officials worry that these cuts will hurt towns and cities across the country, since the park system generates $30 billion in economic activity and supports 252,000 jobs.

And half of the cuts mandated by sequestration will fall upon the defense of this nation. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (an Obama appointee), sequestration cuts will mean:

  • The smallest ground force since before World War II
  • The smallest Navy since before World War I
  • The smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force
  • Termination of the Joint Strike Fighter and next generation bomber
  • Delay of the next generation ballistic missile submarine, as well as cuts to our existing sub fleet
  • Cancellation of the littoral combat ship
  • Elimination of all modernization of ground combat vehicles and Army helicopters
  • Undermine our ability to meet our national security objectives
  • Generate significant operational risks and delay response time to crises, conflicts, and disasters
  • Severely limit our ability to be forward deployed
  • Severely reduce force training and threaten overall operational readiness
  • and, most importantly, undermine our ability to meet our national security objectives

What was Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s response to sequestration that he proposed? He called it dumb and arbitrary, and blamed Republicans.

Perusing the OMB “Preliminary Estimates of Sequestrable and Exempt Budgetary Resources and Reduction in Sequestrable Budgetary Resources by OMB Account – FY 2013″ shows that Obama’s favorite programs, such as childhood nutrition, student aid, unemployment assistance, and renewable energy, have been largely (and arbitrarily) exempted from sequester cuts.

Obama was correct – sequestration is arbitrary. What does and doesn’t get sequestered is entirely and arbitrarily up to him. It’s interesting to note that ALL Detroit mayors since 1962 have been Democrats. It now appears as if Detroit is one of his favorite programs.

Nancy Pelosi, a political hack if ever there was one, assured us this past weekend that “The cupboard is bare. There’s no more cuts to make.” Well Nancy, I hope you are embarrassed because $300 million was “found” that could have been cut.

Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Despite Sequestration, Pentagon Finds $31,000 For Portrait

31k portrait



31k portrait
Sequestration? What sequestration?

Sequestration, which was enacted in 2012 after Congress failed to agree on a budget compromise, will cut some $1 trillion from the defense budget over the coming decade. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), said, “Sequestration was set up to be so stupid that no group of rational people would ever let it happen. Yet it’s happening.” Congress, defense contractors, Defense Department employees, and military experts, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, warned on Tuesday, July 22, 2013, that an additional $52 billion in defense cuts scheduled for October 2013, will completely devastate the U.S. military. Sequestration has already caused all military branches to ground warplanes, cut training, reduce operations, furlough employees, and severely reduce troop levels. Current Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said that the $52 billion reduction will cause the Air Force to ground one-third of its fighter and bomber squadrons.

Tom Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and a military expert, says:

“There’s no way the world is going to stay the same if the U.S. plays a lesser role in the world. It will be less secure, less prosperous, and less free.”

Yet, despite the budget cuts caused by sequestration, the Pentagon somehow found enough money to pay for a portrait of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. I guess that illustrates just where the priorities lie. Defending this country: NO! Portrait: YES!

The $31,000 for Panetta’s portrait is, admittedly, a “drop in the bucket” in the Pentagon’s overall FY2014 budget (which is, BTW, 17% of Obama’s proposed FY2014 budget, behind Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor [33%], and Medicare and Health [25%]). The portrait cost is only 4.8E-6% of the entire military budget. But the attitude, the symbology, springing for a portrait now, is rather unseemly.

Let’s see. A life size picture portrait costs less than $150. And a fancy frame, from an exclusive frame shop, goes for less than $150. So, for about $300, we could achieve similar results. In fact, the portrait that accompanies this article, gotten for no cost, could do. But, noooooooooooo, the Pentagon has to spend $31,000 on an oil portrait.

We’re broke, continue to borrow, can’t even support our military. Yet Obama, Kerry, et al., continue to give away millions of dollars we don’t have in foreign aid. Now, the Pentagon finds money for a portrait. Talk about a slap in the face! Talk about bad timing!

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Sequestration delivers biggest budget surplus on record refuting dems claims

waste_of_money

The Federal government posted the largest budget surplus on record for the month of June thanks to budget cuts and mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie paying back a portion of the bailouts.

June’s federal balance sheet leaned $117 Billion to the positive thanks mainly to the cuts that came from sequestration – a clear win for the Conservatives in Congress who have been pushing for cuts to pigish government spending. A smaller portion, just $59 Billion came from a payback by government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

While news outlets point to an improving economy, which there is little proof of, the spending cuts are the main source of the budget surplus.

While the surplus is looked upon as a great positive, it is far too small to affect the gigantic public debt incurred by decades of over-spending and failure to manage the nation’s finances.

Obamacare will likely deplete such small deficits if it is ever allowed to go into effect.

It is being reported that the surplus will stave off the upcoming debt ceiling battle. While this may come to pass, lunar national parks, a bloated farm bill and other spending are likely to spend future surpluses before they can truly balance the budget.

The wide-breadth spending cuts brought about by sequestration are the main reason for the surplus, but leave it to the media  to mention that as nothing more than a foot note. Here’s the very last sentence of a CNBC article on the subject:

Across-the-board budget cuts began March, which also contributed to the surplus.

Yeah… spending cuts causing a surplus… who’d a thunk it?

Defense Issues Weekly – May 28th

defile_AR0002

NOTE: From this edition forward, Defense Issues Weekly will appear on weekdays. This week, it will appear on Tuesday, and afterwards, it will appear on Mondays.

US on course to gut its military…

With sequestration in effect and no prospect of it being cancelled, the DOD will have to cut an additional $550 bn from its budget over the next decade on top of all the defense cuts already implemented or mandated. Accordingly, the DOD is now devising three budgetary plans for three different contingencies.

The first assumes that only $100 bn per decade in cuts is implemented, i.e. that Congress accepts Barack Obama’s budget proposal. The second assumes $300 bn, and the third $500 bn in cuts over the next decade.

Under the first scenario, the Army would take the biggest hits, mostly in force structure. Under the second and third, all services would have to make deep cuts in their size, modernization programs, and mission readiness alike. DOD officials have privately conceded to DefenseNews.com that should the full $500 bn cuts of the sequester hit the Department, the military would be severely weakened and would not be able to defeat a major adversary, let alone a peer competitor (such as China or Russia).

$500 bn in additional budgetary cuts would also mean the military won’t get the promised and badly needed equipment and munitions to prevail in theaters where access is denied by the enemy with anti-access/area-denial weapons and where the free use of the airspace, the sea, cyberspace, and outer space is in danger. This means no new bombers, cruise missiles, carrier-capable drones, or other crucial weapons needed to prevail in such environments – which are becoming more common every day.

DefenseNews.com reports that:

“If the second option — the $300 billion cut — were put in place, the cuts would be levied against all the services.

The third option assumes full sequestration, or $500 billion over the decade. Sources with insight into the SCMR say this option would wreak the most havoc on the military and force the cancellation or scaling back of several major acquisition efforts.

These sources also said the magnitude of the cut could prevent the military from being able to fight a major war against a near peer competitor.”

Also, by the end of May, four Washington think-tanks – the CSBA, the CNAS, the AEI, and the CSIS – intend to present their own plans on how to cut defense spending by the amount required by sequestration. These presentations will attempt to lull the public into thinking that such deep defense cuts can be done safely, without jeopardizing national security or any key mission of the military.

While 62% of all Americans oppose further defense cuts and believe the defense budget is either “about right” or inadequate, and even though the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats oppose sequestration, there is little prospect of the issue being resolved. The two sides vehemently disagree on how to solve the problem, with Republicans opposing any new tax hikes and Democrats advocating a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. Both sides have firmly entrenched in their positions and neither side is willing to blink first.

Also, both parties are being held hostage by extremists on both sides of the spectrum who oppose any compromise and believe sequestration is sacred and should stay on the books.

Already prior to sequestration, the military had to make significant cuts, from cancelling programs to retiring hundreds of aircraft, multiple surface combatants and amphibious ships, and 80,000 troops. These cuts would have to be several orders of magnitude deeper if sequestration were to stay on the books.

At present, the US Navy has only 284 commissioned ships – the fewest since 1915 and able to supply only 59% of combatant commanders’ requirements – while the Air Force is flying the oldest and smallest fleet of aircraft in its entire history, with average aircraft age at over 24 years. Moreover, most USAF bombers, tankers, airlifters, and fighters are much older.

The Marines are poised to decline to 182,000 troops, the fewest since the 1950s, even without sequestration, but with sequestration, the USMC would shrink to only 150,000 troops, the fewest since the late 1940s. The US nuclear arsenal, at just 5,000 warheads, is over 75% smaller than 20 years ago.

…and so is France

defile_AR0002

The French government is also in the process of deeply cutting the country’s military, further weakening it after deep cuts implemented by President Sarkozy (2007-2012) (photographed above).

After the newest cuts – outlined in the White Paper on Defense released on April 29th – are fully implemented, the French Army will have only 7 brigades and only 200 tanks. Its fleet of lighter combat vehicles, helicopters, and other platforms also faces significant cuts.

The French Navy will not get the second aircraft carrier that President Sarkozy promised in 2007 nor a fourth amphibious assault ship of the Mistral class. After the 2 ageing air-defense frigates (destroyers) of the Cassard class are retired without replacement, the Navy will have only 2 destroyers for air defense. The frigate fleet will also shrink, from 18 to 15, while second-rate frigates will be reclassified as first-rate ones. It will shrink further as ageing vessels leave service, because only 8 new frigates (FREMM class) will be built – not the 11 planned just a few years ago, or the 17 originally planned.

The planned air-defense frigate type (FREDA) will not be built.

Yet, the deepest cuts will fall on the already-overstretched French Air Force, the world’s oldest. It currently has only 226 combat aircraft (Rafale, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1), but will have to cut that to a paltry 180 per the newest defense cuts. The entire French military will have only 225 combat aircraft (mostly Rafales and Mirage 2000s; the remaining Mirage F1s will be retired). This is another steep cut in combat power for an Air Force already deeply cut since 2000 (when it had 382 combat aircraft) and 2006 (when it had 330). The previous President, Nicolas Sarkozy, allowed the French Air Force and Navy combined to have only 300 combat aircraft.

The Air Force’s tanker fleet will also shrink, from 14 to 12. Thus, the FAF will see the fleets of its two most important aircraft types – multirole fighters and tankers – shrink at the very time when these aircraft types are playing the lead roles in France’s wars, from Afghanistan to Libya to Mali, where France doesn’t have any local airbases and has had to fly combat missions (performed by the very multirole fighters the government wants to cut, of course) from metropolitan France through Algerian airspace with aerial refueling on the way.

Likewise, the order for A400M airlifters has been cut from 70 to 50.

France’s Malian operation has revealed a shortage of tankers and airlifters, which France has had to ask the US and Britain for, but the French government remains stubborn in cutting the Air Force.

For overseas operations, France will be able to contribute only 15,000 troops in total, backed up by one amphibious assault ship and a dozen fighters. This means that, as retired French generals have admitted, France will be able to conduct only small-scale operations overseas, and in coalition expeditionary operations, it won’t be able to offer more than a symbolic contribution.

Russia exports A2/AD arms worldwide

Russia has stepped up its exports of anti-access/area-denial weapons – such as air defense systems and anti-ship missiles – worldwide, particularly to nations unfriendly to the US, as the US ponders how to counter such weapons while its own defense budget is shrinking rapidly.

Russia has recently decided – despite US and Israeli protests – to sell advanced S-300 air defense systems and Yakhont anti-ship cruise missiles and launchers to Syria, whose government is battling a Sunni Islamic insurgency and fears a Western or Israeli intervention.

The sale follows Moscow’s earlier decision, though not yet inked in a firm contract, to supply 24 Su-35 multirole fighters (with a combat radius of 1,000 nm and thrust-vectoring-capable engines), supersonic TVC engines for China’s domestically-produced fighters, S-400 (SA-21) air defense systems (with a range of 400 kms), and the Tu-22M bomber production line (China plans to build 36 of these aircraft) to Beijing, which has already built a massive, impressive network of A2/AD weapons, mostly supplied by Russia and threatening America’s ability to project power in the Western Pacific.

Russia has also sold S-300 air defense (SAM) systems, Kilo class submarines, and Su-30MKV multirole fighters to Venezuela and has been sued by Iran in international courts to deliver the S-300 systems it had promised to Tehran.

The S-300 and S-400 systems are more capable than the PATRIOT and render the airspace protected by them firmly closed to nonstealthy aircraft and missiles, as do upgraded legacy Soviet air defense systems such as the SA-6 and SA-11/17.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130519/DEFREG02/305190007/DoD-Examines-3-Budget-Cut-Scenarios

CBS Charlie Rose: The Republicans Have a Point???

cbs this morning

cbs this morning

CBS political director John Dickerson was interviewed by Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning about the impact of sequestration cuts. Watch for Rose’s shocked expression when he realizes that Dickerson is saying the Republicans have a point about allowing departments to have flexibility where they make these cuts (about 50 seconds).

This just tosses the Democrats’ argument that we need to raise taxes. Darn those Republicans for saying we can be smart about where spending cuts can be most effective and have least impact on citizens.

Come to think of it, this is how most of us actually manage to live within our own budgets.

Congress moves to act on flight delays before recess

CapitolWashDC

The House of Representatives is moving quickly today to finalize a Senate-passed plan that will ease air traffic delays.

Congress goes into recess at the end of this week and politicians fearful of leaving constituents dealing with flight delays and cancellations for another week has put pressure on them to act.

Business travelers and vacationers have been taking the brunt of the Obama administration proposed sequester since FAA furloughs started last Sunday.

In a self-condemning statement, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, ” Ultimately, this is no more than a temporary Band-Aid that fails to address the overarching threat to our economy posed by the sequester’s mindless across-the-board cuts.”

Delays have averaged 30 to 75 minutes at hubs in Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

FAA Furloughs start – Time for privatization of traffic controllers?

Air_traffic_control

Obama’s sequestration rule has kicked-in and funding cuts are hitting the Federal Aviation Administration

As a way to force Republicans’ hand in the debt ceiling debate, President Obama elected to use the tactic known as sequestration. Over the weekend, the spending cuts forced by that move hit the Department of Transportation and most-obviously the FAA.

Sunday flights were largely unimpeded with only a few delays at major airports as the FAA removed one day of work per employee over each two week pay period. As the summer travel season heats up, things will only get tougher.

Is this shortcoming another indication that the federal government is not the best entity to run air traffic controllers?

In 1970, the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system was updated only once controllers staged a sick-out to get the attention of Congress. Efficiency is not the focus of government-run entities and streamlining is only done when huge amounts of public attention force legislator’s hands.

Many argue that something so large and integrated could only be run by government. All those towers and controllers have to be able to inter-operate seamlessly. Others make the case that the government doesn’t do anything efficiently and that inefficiencies are more to blame for the delays that travelers will experience in coming months.

Under the Constitution, Congress certainly has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Moving people from state to state for a fee certainly fits. So shouldn’t Congress regulate instead of run the nation’s air towers?

Landing/take-off fees paid by airlines to airports would fund the wages of controllers. Congress would certainly create regulations to make sure that towers were run to the minimum they see fit. Airport managers seeking the most value for their dollar will seek out the best controllers and best technology.

The Obama administration has used everything from White House visits to air traffic control as pawns in a political game of chicken. Perhaps it’s time to swerve. Opponents to ever-climbing federal spending don’t have to give in, they just need to start pointing the gamesmanship as a reason to privatize an even larger portion of the American economy.

Obama Sings with Timberlake

obamatimberlake

Grade school students still cannot visit the White House because the tours remain cancelled due to Sequestration. However, there seems to be enough money for PBS to film a Blues concert there for the President and presumably, a group of his closest friends. At least Justin Timberlake should be pleased, since he managed to get the President to sing along with him during a rendition of the Otis Redding classic, “Sittin’ at the Dock of the Bay.”

Obama pivots to spanish language television after failures on budget, guns, healthcare

Obama failures

President Obama failureThe President is scheduled for sit-down interviews with Spanish language television networks Telemundo and Univision in an attempt to refocus American’s attention from his failures on the budget and gun control and the growing negative view Americans have on Obamacare.

President Obama is likely to focus on immigration reform – something that is much more likely to yield bi-partisan support than most of the items he focused on during his two terms. The White House is confident that growing numbers of Hispanic voters, many who watch Spanish language television, will help to pressure Congress into passing an immigration reform bill.

Obama has publicly supported legislation that would seek a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Obama had spent most of the first part of 2013 trying to paint sequestration as a doomsday device put in-play by Republicans despite press reports and noted journalist Bob Woodward’s expose demonstrating that the White House pushed for sequestration. Recently, the White House cancelled tours of “The People’s House” and threatened the East Lawn Easter Egg Hunt pointing to sequestration as the cause – all while Joe Biden had been taking weekend trips back home, the Obama’s continued to vacation like Hollywood elites, and the Vice President blew over a half-million on a hotel stay in Paris.

The Administration’s attempts to show that budget cuts are painful failed miserably. Sequestration didn’t actually cut the budget, it only reduced the size of recent increases in federal spending of tax payer dollars. With only minuscule cutbacks coming from sequestration, no real change to services or the economy are palpable. Obama’s credibility has taken a tremendous hit as his fiscal cliff turns into a non-event.

The President had also spent the last few months pushing for an outright Federal gun ban. Limitations on shotguns, pistols and incorrectly-labelled “assault weapons” were desired by the Commander-in-Chief – until now. With Harry Reid not wanting to lose his seat as Senate Majority Leader, he was forced to pull the gun ban from the gun bill – instead focusing on background checks and enforcement. Sen. Reid did not want to force Democrats from rural states to have to vote on a gun ban bill which would just about guarantee lost Democrat Senate seats and a Republican Majority Leader come 2014.

This month, even more negative impacts of Obamacare have been brought to the attention of Americans. More doctors are retiring early, fewer are seeking medical careers, the costs of the legislation are skyrocketing, healthcare claims costs will rise 32% on average and more than 80% in some states.

Obamacare, gun control and the budget – all important and highly-visible issues with voters. All issues the President would have liked to have define his Presidency. All of them not headed in directions in Obama’s favor. But not all of them the most important.

According to a March 26th Gallup poll, the economy, federal spending and healthcare are the top three issues with American voters. Obama is now pivoting away from federal spending, trying to pretend Obamacare isn’t really as bad as recent press says it is and has been failing on the economy overall since taking office.

Obama approval ratingServing in his second term, President Obama presides over a nation more divided than any time since the 1960’s.  Racial tensions, class warfare, and an economy taking much longer than expected to recover have left America with a melting pot in shambles. Hoping to prevent a two-term legacy of outright failure, Obama is seeking to use Spanish language television to get at least one thing accomplished that may be looked upon favorably in history’s eyes.

FAA to Close 149 Airport Towers

glendale airport

glendale airportBlame it on the sequestration.

The FAA announced today that 149 smaller airport towers would close beginning in April. Originally another 40 towers had been slated for closure but will remain open, either because them shutting them would not be in the national interest or because money was found in a federal cost-sharing program to keep them open.

According to the FAA, airports will remain open. Many of these control towers already operated on limited hours due to the airport size. Pilots will have to coordinate takeoffs and landings themselves via radio and visual contact, as they have do now at night when the tower isn’t open.

The FAA has to cut $600 million under the automatic budget cuts that took effect March 1. Other savings will come from furloughing FAA employees and other actions.

Four airports in Arizona are included in the closure list including two within the suburban Phoenix area.

For more information watch the CNN report below:

Judge Jeanine Calls Out ICE for Release of Criminal Illegals

judge jeanine

In her opening statement last weekend, Judge Jeanine Pirro lit into the Obama administration, including the Department of Homeland Security and ICE for releasing illegal immigrants. Saying they were only releasing non-violent illegals and blaming it on the sequestration the administration further backed away from any responsibility by putting the decisions on the shoulders of ‘career ICE employees’.

Judge Jeanine comes prepared with facts to back up her comments. This clip is well worth watching and sharing with the naive who believe everything said by presidential spokesman, Jay Carney.

 

Even NBC Sees Sequestration Bias

nbc news

You know it’s bad when even the left leaning NBC Nightly News spends time criticizing this administration’s choice of cuts in this new era of Sequestration.

Should we cut soldiers tuition assistance or maybe the president’s golf and family vacations?

Are there non-essential workers at DHS or must 2500 border agents be furloughed?

Can the TSA cancel conferences and new hires or will we be faced with reduced staff at airport check points?

Does it seem to you these cuts are being made where they can cause the most disruption?

You can also watch this video on YouTube.

Sequestration. What Sequestration?

whatseq

whatseqSequestration became the law of the land on Friday, March 1, 2013. Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, on Saturday, March 2, blamed Republicans for $85 billion in automatic budget cuts in both domestic and defense programs over the next seven months. I guess newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry failed to get the budget cuts memo. On March 3, despite the sequestration, Kerry gave $250 million to Egypt, ostensibly as immediate “economic assistance.” Kerry insisted Egypt would need to make some economic and political reforms before he releases the next batch of U.S. funding. The total amount could go as high as $1 billion if the reform is deemed successful. Is there any doubt that the reform will be deemed successful? Can anyone say, “Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure?” That, by the way, is in addition to the $450 million Obama gave to Egypt last year.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Kerry announced that the Obama administration will give $60 million to the Syrian rebels.

As John Hawkins wrote:

“If we have 250 million dollars to give to Egypt – TO EGYPT – how can Barack Obama be so duplicitous, so irresponsible, so despicable as to lay off teachers, release illegal aliens, and generally punish people as part of a ridiculous political stunt?”

Yes, that is the same John Kerry who served in Viet Nam, who is of “Ginghis Kahn” fame, who threw his Navy medals over a White House fence, and who “saved” Boston harbor in 2004, promising “No retreat, no surrender.”

And, yes, that is the same Egypt that elected Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsi, who called for all Jews to be destroyed, called Obama a liar, called Israelis “the descendants of apes and pigs,” called Jews “blood suckers,” is in support of the Iranian-backed Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and said that “Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are ‘a waste of time and opportunities…’.” Egypt was a former ally, and, despite having the largest military in the Middle East, was given sixteen F-16s and 200 M-1 main battle tanks. As a condition for receiving the jets and tanks, Egypt has promised not to use the advanced weapons to attack Israel. Again, “Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.”

Can Obama pick ‘em, or what?

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site.

« Older Entries