How The Infernal Machine Turns....

[B-Man]

A Presidency Without… Guts

 

So the secondhand tale of House Speaker John Boehner’s assessment that President Obama “can’t make a decision. He’s got balls made out of marshmallows” … has a certain precedent, as Exurban Jon reminds me:

 

“If Hillary gave him [Obama] one of her balls, they’d both have two,” Democratic strategist James Carville told the Christian Science Monitor at a breakfast on Thursday morning.

 

The editorial board of the Washington Post uses nicer language, but reaches the same conclusion:

… why is Mr. Obama not leading the way to a solution? From the start, and increasingly in his second term, Mr. Obama has presented entitlement reform as something he would do grudgingly, as a favor to the opposition, when he should be explaining to the American people — and to his party — why it is an urgent national need. Obama priorities such as health and energy research, preschool education and job training: Those come from the discretionary budget.

 

 

Why?

 

Because it would mean telling his party and his supporters things they don’t want to hear. And he doesn’t have the, er… stomach for it.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 27, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Ed Sec. Arne Duncan keeps the sequester lies coming...until, y'know, he's busted and can't lie any more.

 

One has to wonder what kind of political hit the left will take for freaking out the world about nothing.

 

http://www.washingto...42df_story.html

 

 

Teacher pink slips claim by Duncan not backed by evidence

 

The descriptions of the post-sequester landscape that have been coming out of the Obama Administration have been alarming, specific--and, in at least some cases, hyped.

 

“There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can’t come back this fall,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Sundayon CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

 

When he was pressed in a White House briefing Wednesday to come up with an example, Duncan named a single county in West Virginia and acknowledged, “whether it’s all sequester-related, I don’t know.”

 

And, as it turns out, it isn’t.

 

Officials in Kanawha County, West Virginia say that the “transfer notices” sent to at least 104 educators had more to do with a separate matter that involves a change in the way West Virginia allocates federal dollars designated for poor children.

[B-Man]

Woodward: Obama's Decision Not To Deploy Carrier "A Kind Of Madness"

 

Bob Woodward blasted President Obama on Wednesday morning for deciding to recall an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf because of impending budget cuts, calling the decision "a kind of madness."

 

 

Woodward: Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time. "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/27/woodward_obamas_decision_not_to_deploy_carrier_a_kind_of_madness.html

[OCinBuffalo]

That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time. "

I would agrue that this is a kind of madness we've never seen, in this country.

Edited February 27, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

Woodward: Obama's Decision Not To Deploy Carrier "A Kind Of Madness"

 

Bob Woodward blasted President Obama on Wednesday morning for deciding to recall an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf because of impending budget cuts, calling the decision "a kind of madness."

 

 

Woodward: Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time. "

 

 

 

 

http://www.realclear...of_madness.html

 

Now Woodward appears on CNN to tell Wolf Blitzer that a "very senior" WH person called him today to let him know he's going to "regret doing this."

 

http://www.businessi...politics-2013-2

 

I'm starting to get the sense that the WH is going to wake up on Monday and have to explain to the world why airplanes aren't falling out of the sky.

Edited February 28, 2013 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

Woodward: Obama's Decision Not To Deploy Carrier "A Kind Of Madness"

 

Bob Woodward blasted President Obama on Wednesday morning for deciding to recall an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf because of impending budget cuts, calling the decision "a kind of madness."

 

 

Woodward: Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time. "

 

 

 

 

http://www.realclear...of_madness.html

 

I'm not sure that's Obama's call anyway. It could be, given the status of aircraft carriers (basically, as strategic/diplomatic assets). But for a routine deployment, it could just as easily be from the JCS, Secretary of the Navy, or the CNO.

[3rdnlng]

I'm not sure that's Obama's call anyway. It could be, given the status of aircraft carriers (basically, as strategic/diplomatic assets). But for a routine deployment, it could just as easily be from the JCS, Secretary of the Navy, or the CNO.

 

Of course it's his call. Do you actually think they would change its deployment when it was known it was to be sent there and not get approval from the WH?

[B-Man]

Of course it's his call. Do you actually think they would change its deployment when it was known it was to be sent there and not get approval from the WH?

 

I could go either way on Tom's point.

 

In a normal world it would be brought to the POTUS for some type of clearance.

 

But the Joint Chiefs are certainly aware of the lack of leadership in the 'executive' branch.....maybe they did decide on their own.

 

Didn't the White House just spend the whole afternoon instructing the media that the President was not even aware of the pending release of illegal aliens until he read it in the paper ?

 

 

 

.

Edited February 28, 2013 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

I could go either way on Tom's point.

 

In a normal world it would be brought to the POTUS for some type of clearance.

 

But the Joint Chiefs are certainly aware of the lack of leadership in the 'executive' branch.....maybe they did decide on their own.

 

Didn't the White House just spend the whole afternoon instructing the media that the President was not even aware of the pending release of illegal aliens until he read it in the paper ?

 

 

 

.

 

Do you believe that? Also, that the DHS knew nothing of it? In either case, illegals or the Harry S. Truman, Obama is derelict in his duty if the WH isn't approving or disapproving. Furthermore, Obama is so political I can't imagine the WH not having a say.

[IDBillzFan]

Politico article breaks down the Woodward story, including an interview with Woodward, who seems to see the WH for what it truly is...the home of a thin-skinned whiner who has no real understanding of how to be a president.

 

What a mess.

 

http://www.politico....8212_Page2.html

 

Watching and now having interviewed Woodward, it is easy to see why White House officials get worked about him. He clearly is skeptical of Obama’s approach to the job. “I’m not sure he fully understands the power he has,” Woodward said. “He sees that the power is the public megaphone going around to these campaign-like events, which is real, but the audience he needs to deal with is on this issue of the sequester and these budget issues is John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.”

 

Woodward also said that based on his reporting for the book, Obama deserves more of the blame for scuttling the grand bargain of 2011 that would have put sequestration to rest long ago. “He changed the deal and it blew up,” Woodward said. “I mean, you look at the facts, and even by the White House accounts by his aides, he was making a last-minute change.”

 

Woodward thinks there is still a grand bargain to be had between Obama and Boehner, with tax reform as a huge component. “Sit down and work through this,” he said. “I can see exactly how you come up with a deal that would dispose of lots of things.” Woodward, who helped bring down one presidency and has written instant history on every one since, added: “Color me a little baffled. I don’t understand this White House. Do you?”

[IDBillzFan]

And now this: the director of CDC says that, due to budget cuts, he can't predict when the next outbreak will take over the US.

 

Run for your lives!!!!!

 

http://www.washingto...42df_story.html

 

And some of the scariest scenarios — say, concerns that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which stands to lose more than $300 million, will not have the resources it needs to spot and contain the next deadly disease outbreak — are by their nature impossible to quantify

 

The threats aren’t decreasing,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden. “I can’t predict when an outbreak is going to happen.”

[DC Tom]

Of course it's his call. Do you actually think they would change its deployment when it was known it was to be sent there and not get approval from the WH?

 

Uh...yeah. Regular deployments of fleet units to theater commands - which this was - aren't decided in the White House. The President doesn't move military units around a map. At MOST, the Secretary of Defense presented him the set of measures DoD was going to take to reduce expenditures, of which the HST's deployment was only part, and he said "Okay."

 

But DoD may not even have had to do that much - the two-carrier policy in the Gulf was a policy decision made at the Secretary of Defense level, and allocation of military forces to UCCs is decided at the Joint Chiefs and CNO level. So it's entirely possible.

[DC Tom]

And now this: the director of CDC says that, due to budget cuts, he can't predict when the next outbreak will take over the US.

 

Run for your lives!!!!!

 

http://www.washingto...42df_story.html

 

[/color][/color]

 

Actually, the Director of CDC might have cause to be worried. $300M in cuts is only about 5% of CDC's total budget, but when you strip out the programs mandated by directly by law (HIV and TB work, vaccine programs, "Johanna's law," a bunch of other stuff), and consider only the discretionary spending, it starts looking like they have to cut closer to 15-20% of operational costs.

 

That's actually the big immediate impact of the sequestration - by its nature, it has to fall on operational budgets (since FY13 contract and acquisition work is already funded), which are a relatively small portion of the overall federal budget, the impact's much greater. If this were happening closer to fiscal year end, agencies would probably just be looking at contracts to kill (mine would be on the chopping block, almost certainly). And that's probably what'll happen in September if Congress doesn't get their **** together...agencies will adjust their budgets to recover operational funding to normal levels at the expense of acquisitions and support contracts (which will suck for me personally...but overall wouldn't be a bad thing).

[3rdnlng]

Uh...yeah. Regular deployments of fleet units to theater commands - which this was - aren't decided in the White House. The President doesn't move military units around a map. At MOST, the Secretary of Defense presented him the set of measures DoD was going to take to reduce expenditures, of which the HST's deployment was only part, and he said "Okay."

 

But DoD may not even have had to do that much - the two-carrier policy in the Gulf was a policy decision made at the Secretary of Defense level, and allocation of military forces to UCCs is decided at the Joint Chiefs and CNO level. So it's entirely possible.

 

We don't really have a disagreement here. I never said or believe that Obama would propose deployments. Seeing how the WH works (everything is political) I would find it hard to believe that the pulling back of the deployment didn't have Obama's explicit approval. It's just like I find it hard to believe that ICE's release of "prisoners" didn't have DHS's approval and also the WH's approval.

[B-Man]

MICHAEL WALSH ON THE SEQUESTER: Apocalypse Not.

 

 

 

Sequester This! President Obama’s Colossal Media Blunder.

 

 

.

[B-Man]

Organizing for Action, the purported "issues advocacy" social welfare organization established in January, sent out a campaign-style email on Wednesday to an extensive email list of Obama supporters developed by its predecessor organization, the Obama for America presidential campaign committee, attacking congressional Republicans.

 

The email pushes the boundaries of the standard that defines allowable communications that can be sent out by "issues advocacy" social welfare non-profit groups organized under Section 501©4 of the Internal Revenue code. In effect, Wednesday's OFA email constitutes one of the first campaign ads of the 2014 mid-term Congressional elections, sent by a partisan Democratic organization billing itself as a social welfare group.

In the email, Stephanie Cutter, who served as the Deputy Campaign Manager in the 2012 Obama for America presidential campaign, attacked "congressional Republicans" four different times in the email. The message was sent to an email list of 17 million Obama supporters that was developed over several years using millions of dollars of political contributions to Obama for America.

{snip}

It remains to be seen whether there are grounds for Republicans to mount a legal challenge to this effort by the Obama campaign team operating under the framework of Organizing for Action.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/27/OFA-Sends-Campaign-Email-to-Obama-Supporters-Attack-Congressional-Republicans-on-Sequester

[B-Large]

In a normal country, the politicians would try some new moves. For example, if they agreed to further means test Medicare they could save a lot of money. Democrats would be hitting the rich. Republicans would be reforming entitlements.

 

 

Its what I have remarked on for a long while now with regards to Medicare and SS... let Rich people lean on their own retirements and pay for their own healthcare in the insurance market or self-pay.... in the long-run the costs of the programs would go down significantly even if short-term those Rich people get screwed a bit foregoing what they paid in... those programs might finally become what they were ntended to be, safety net programs intended to help the truly needy...

 

Its no different than Vouchers for school. What if achievement went up and public education costs a ton less at he same time? Democrats get their "for the good of the kids" speech and R's get their reductions in cost...

[B-Man]

Obama’s losing? Help!

 

I’m worried that Obama is losing the sequester fight. Polls show voters agree with him, but don’t seem to care much about the whole alleged spending cut apocalypse. Meanwhile the White House’s amped-up application of Firemen First principles is so clumsy it’s backfiring. Even a slanted NBC/WSJ poll–offering voters the alluring option of “working together” to avoid the sequester cuts–showed 46% effectively saying, “Screw ‘working together’! Give us the cuts.”

 

.

[Wacka]

Watching Comedy Central tonight and Idiocracy was on (not by coincidence I think). Seeing the crap on the news recently, I think that will be a documentary by the end of the year.