Gridlock: No budging at the budget-cuts deadline

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gridlocked once more, President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders refused to budge in their budget standoff Friday as $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts bore down on individual Americans and the nation's still-recovering economy. "None of this is necessary," said the president after a sterile White House meeting that portended a long standoff.
Even before Obama formally ordered the cuts required by midnight, their impact was felt thousands of miles away. In Seattle, the King County Housing Authority announced it had stopped issuing housing vouchers under a federal program that benefits "elderly or disabled households, veterans, and families with children."
The president met with top lawmakers for less than an hour at the White House, then sought repeatedly to fix the blame on Republicans for the broad spending reductions and any damage that they inflict. "They've allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit," he said, renewing his demand for a comprehensive deficit-cutting deal that includes higher taxes.
Republicans said they wanted deficit cuts, too, but not tax increases. "The president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters, a reference to a $600 billion increase on higher wage earners that cleared Congress on the first day of the year. Now, he said after the meeting, it is time take on "the spending problem here in Washington."
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was equally emphatic. " I will not be part of any back-room deal, and I will absolutely not agree to increase taxes," he vowed in a written statement.
At the same time they clashed, Obama and Republicans appeared determined to contain their disagreement.
Boehner said the House will pass legislation next week to extend routine funding for government agencies beyond the current March 27 expiration. "I'm hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time," he said, referring to the new cuts by their Washington-speak name.
Obama said he, too, wanted to keep the two issues separate.
White House officials declined to say precisely when the president would formally order the cuts. Under the law, he had until midnight. Barring a quick deal in the next week or so to call them off, the impact eventually is likely to be felt in all reaches of the country.
The Pentagon will absorb half of the $85 billion required to be sliced through the end of the budget year on Sept 30, exposing civilian workers to furloughs and defense contractors to possible cancellations.
The administration also has warned of long lines at airports as security personnel are furloughed, of teacher layoffs in some classrooms and adverse impacts on maintenance at the nation's parks.
The announcement by the housing agency in Seattle was an early indication of what is likely to hit as the cuts take effect. It said it was taking the action "to cope with the impending reduction in federal funding," adding that it normally issues 45 to 50 vouchers per month.
After days of dire warnings by administration officials, the president told reporters the effects of the cuts would be felt only gradually.
"The longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy - a slow grind that will intensify with each passing day," he said. Much of the budget savings will come through unpaid furloughs for government workers, and those won't begin taking effect until next month.
Obama declined to say if he bore any of the responsibility for the coming cuts, and expressed bemusement at any suggestion he had the ability to force Republicans to agree with him.
"I am not a dictator. I'm the president," he said. "So, ultimately, if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say we need to go to catch a plane, I can't have Secret Service block the doorway, right?" He also declared he couldn't perform a "Jedi mind meld" to sway opponents, mixing Star Wars and Star Trek as he reached for a science fiction metaphor.
Neither the president nor Republicans claimed to like what was about to happen. Obama called the cuts "dumb," and GOP lawmakers have long said they were his idea in the first place.
Ironically, they derive from a budget dispute they were supposed to help resolve back in the fall of 2011. At the time, a congressional Supercommittee was charged with identifying at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings over a decade as part of an attempt to avoid a first-ever government default. The president and Republicans agreed to create a fallback of that much in across-the-board cuts, designed to be so unpalatable that it would virtually assure the panel struck a deal.
The Supercommittee dissolved in disagreement, though. And while Obama and Republicans agreed to a two-month delay last January, there was no bipartisan negotiation in recent days to prevent the first installment of the cuts from taking effect.
It isn't clear how long they will last.
Of particular concern to lawmakers in both parties is a lack of flexibility in the allocation of cuts due to take effect over the next few months. That problem will ease beginning with the new budget year on Oct. 1, when Congress and the White House will be able to negotiate changes in the way the reductions are made.
For his part, Obama suggested he was content to leave them in place until Republicans change their minds about raising taxes by closing loopholes.
"If Congress comes to its senses a week from now, a month from now, three months from now, then there's a lot of open running room there for us to grow our economy much more quickly and to advance the agenda of the American people dramatically," he said.
"So this is a temporary stop on what I believe is the long-term, outstanding prospect for American growth and greatness."
But Republicans say they are on solid political ground. At a retreat in January in Williamsburg, Va., GOP House members reversed course and decided to approve a debt limit increase without demanding cuts. They also agreed not to provoke a government shutdown, another traditional pressure point, as leverage to force Obama and Democrats to accept savings in benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Obama has said repeatedly he's willing to include benefit programs in deficit-cutting legislation - as long as more tax revenue is part of the deal.
"I am prepared to do hard things and to push my Democratic friends to do hard things," he said at the White House on Friday.
Republicans speak dismissively of such pledges, saying that in earlier negotiations, the president has never been willing to close a deal with the type of changes he often says he will accept.
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Jim Kuhnhenn and Darlene Superville contributed to this story.
Even before Obama formally ordered the cuts required by midnight, their impact was felt thousands of miles away. In Seattle, the King County Housing Authority announced it had stopped issuing housing vouchers under a federal program that benefits "elderly or disabled households, veterans, and families with children."
The president met with top lawmakers for less than an hour at the White House, then sought repeatedly to fix the blame on Republicans for the broad spending reductions and any damage that they inflict. "They've allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit," he said, renewing his demand for a comprehensive deficit-cutting deal that includes higher taxes.
Republicans said they wanted deficit cuts, too, but not tax increases. "The president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters, a reference to a $600 billion increase on higher wage earners that cleared Congress on the first day of the year. Now, he said after the meeting, it is time take on "the spending problem here in Washington."
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was equally emphatic. " I will not be part of any back-room deal, and I will absolutely not agree to increase taxes," he vowed in a written statement.
At the same time they clashed, Obama and Republicans appeared determined to contain their disagreement.
Boehner said the House will pass legislation next week to extend routine funding for government agencies beyond the current March 27 expiration. "I'm hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time," he said, referring to the new cuts by their Washington-speak name.
Obama said he, too, wanted to keep the two issues separate.
White House officials declined to say precisely when the president would formally order the cuts. Under the law, he had until midnight. Barring a quick deal in the next week or so to call them off, the impact eventually is likely to be felt in all reaches of the country.
The Pentagon will absorb half of the $85 billion required to be sliced through the end of the budget year on Sept 30, exposing civilian workers to furloughs and defense contractors to possible cancellations.
The administration also has warned of long lines at airports as security personnel are furloughed, of teacher layoffs in some classrooms and adverse impacts on maintenance at the nation's parks.
The announcement by the housing agency in Seattle was an early indication of what is likely to hit as the cuts take effect. It said it was taking the action "to cope with the impending reduction in federal funding," adding that it normally issues 45 to 50 vouchers per month.
After days of dire warnings by administration officials, the president told reporters the effects of the cuts would be felt only gradually.
"The longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy - a slow grind that will intensify with each passing day," he said. Much of the budget savings will come through unpaid furloughs for government workers, and those won't begin taking effect until next month.
Obama declined to say if he bore any of the responsibility for the coming cuts, and expressed bemusement at any suggestion he had the ability to force Republicans to agree with him.
"I am not a dictator. I'm the president," he said. "So, ultimately, if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say we need to go to catch a plane, I can't have Secret Service block the doorway, right?" He also declared he couldn't perform a "Jedi mind meld" to sway opponents, mixing Star Wars and Star Trek as he reached for a science fiction metaphor.
Neither the president nor Republicans claimed to like what was about to happen. Obama called the cuts "dumb," and GOP lawmakers have long said they were his idea in the first place.
Ironically, they derive from a budget dispute they were supposed to help resolve back in the fall of 2011. At the time, a congressional Supercommittee was charged with identifying at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings over a decade as part of an attempt to avoid a first-ever government default. The president and Republicans agreed to create a fallback of that much in across-the-board cuts, designed to be so unpalatable that it would virtually assure the panel struck a deal.
The Supercommittee dissolved in disagreement, though. And while Obama and Republicans agreed to a two-month delay last January, there was no bipartisan negotiation in recent days to prevent the first installment of the cuts from taking effect.
It isn't clear how long they will last.
Of particular concern to lawmakers in both parties is a lack of flexibility in the allocation of cuts due to take effect over the next few months. That problem will ease beginning with the new budget year on Oct. 1, when Congress and the White House will be able to negotiate changes in the way the reductions are made.
For his part, Obama suggested he was content to leave them in place until Republicans change their minds about raising taxes by closing loopholes.
"If Congress comes to its senses a week from now, a month from now, three months from now, then there's a lot of open running room there for us to grow our economy much more quickly and to advance the agenda of the American people dramatically," he said.
"So this is a temporary stop on what I believe is the long-term, outstanding prospect for American growth and greatness."
But Republicans say they are on solid political ground. At a retreat in January in Williamsburg, Va., GOP House members reversed course and decided to approve a debt limit increase without demanding cuts. They also agreed not to provoke a government shutdown, another traditional pressure point, as leverage to force Obama and Democrats to accept savings in benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Obama has said repeatedly he's willing to include benefit programs in deficit-cutting legislation - as long as more tax revenue is part of the deal.
"I am prepared to do hard things and to push my Democratic friends to do hard things," he said at the White House on Friday.
Republicans speak dismissively of such pledges, saying that in earlier negotiations, the president has never been willing to close a deal with the type of changes he often says he will accept.
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Jim Kuhnhenn and Darlene Superville contributed to this story.
Why is Medicare so costly??
HCA also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intended to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies..
Gee who could have done this??? On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.
Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced NOW Governor of Florida Rick Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO. But before he ran like the rat that he is
He was paid a settlement of $9.88 million, and left with 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million, mostly from government investment. In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.
In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history...REALLY???
In 2006, Bain capital together with Merrill Lynch and the Frist family (which had founded the company) completed a $31.6 billion acquisition of the hospital company...
Gee thanks Mitt...
Oh and the bush folks said you don't have to pay it back in 2004...
BOTH THE REP=AND THE DEM ARE HAVING A POWER STRUGGLE SO THAT,S WHY THEY WONT COMPROMISE RIGHT NOW =WHAT WE NEED IS A INDEPENDENT FOR PRESIDENT THAT WAY BOTH THE REP=AND DEM WILL BOTH VOTE SO WE CAN GET SOMETHING DONE
Shame on Obama for demanding that it all goes his way! I do believe that he has no comprehension of what the word compromise means!
@Freedom1267 You mean like when Mitch McConnell said nothing this President trys will get passed??
If this post is redundant, my apologies but the most incredulous thing to occur in the past few days is that 1) Obama announced a $60 million aid package to the Syrian rebels then 2) DHS, Janet Napolitano, authorizing the release of 2,000 ICE detainees. I guess this is Obama's ignoramus way to draw attention to his agenda.. There are plans to release 5,000 more detainees soon.
@GeauxOSU Obama is in good company. Saddam did the same thing before we went into Iraq.
I am really having a hard time believing that across the whole government budget of $3.6 trillion, that $85 billion in cuts cannot be found. I mean, it is only 2.36%. Kill any pork projects and it probably would cover it.
@Saltire CUT GOVERNMENT PAY CHECK,S BY 30% and that would get it done=most of are tax money is used for government pay check,s
@Sherry L CampbellWhy would you want to do that to single-mother working as an Administrative Assistant, GS-5, earning $30,000 per year? As it is, sequestration results in a 20% pay cut through furloughs. Also, since Social Security is a government pay check, are you espousing that all Social Security recipients be reduced by 30%?
Finally, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Or, are you just trolling with a remark like that?
@Saltire Can save 1.5 billion cutting ATF. It would be a good start. Cutting foreign aid would also save a lot of money.
Pssssst, President Obama... The election is over. You can stop campaigning.Â
Now would be a really good time for you to spend some time actually... I dunno.... leading?
Politics usually means two sides working towards the middle. Not grandstanding in order to overturn control of the House in 18 months. Just raising taxes on 'the wealthy' isn't going to do it. There are going to have to be cuts too. And it's entirely likely that many of those cuts are not going to be popular among some demographic groups that you're counting on for the mid-terms.Â
That's the job you ran for. Making hard decisions that may or may not be popular. Now get yer hiney back to Washington and get to work.Â
You think its bad now, just wait. Remember the sermon from Obamas  reverend Wright:  " The chickens are coming home to roost.  God bless America?  No not God Bless, but God D@@@ America!  So no doubt they feel they are only doing their idea of Gods will by punishing us while apologizing to the adoring world and "fundamentally transforming America".  Â
Trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. We owe. Our children will owe. And their children will owe. And there is Armageddon over cutting billions in expenses?And that's what this incompetent president wanted two years ago???
I do have some opinions, but reading the previous posts here, some of them have already been aired. I guess that I'm just along for the ride, pretty much like the rest of us are.
Unemployment is nearly 8% and underemployment is much higher. A gallon of gas is nearly $4 and so is a gallon of milk. A loaf of cheap bread is just under $2, if you like better bread you will pay twice that amount. Ground beef is about $1.50 per pound and meat prices go up from there. Mortgages are still underwater so families who own modest homes cannot use their equity to maintain the home or send a child to college. Let's not talk about tuition.
All of these things are tied to an uncontrolled economy. I cannot make all ends meet without a budget to control what resources I have, regardless of source.
I realize that a family and a government are not the same thing and that running a family is not the same as running a government. Still, there must be common ground and a budget seems to me to be one of them. There is no budget, therefore there is no control of spending.
Harry Reid is opposed to budgets, he once questioned the need for one. Is there any wonder the Senate is so lame.
You can find the most good looking, the most experienced, the most educated, and the most expensive prostitute in the world, and you still won't get as good of a screwing as you are getting by obozo and the democraps.
Even the most ardent Liberal Democrat would have to agree that there are countless unnecessary grants, overblown budgets, unneeded weapons development programs, studies of squirrel or some other half rat habits that we really don't need right now that can be cut from the budget. And that it's just not reasonable to instantly jump on the children, teachers, firemen and cops bandwagon. I don't mind cutting the military fat, but we better line up the extra school and government administrators positions right along side of the chopping block.
This all boils down to the fact that the law professor isnt a leader, plain and simple.
@Great now what! ......nope. He's a community organizer from CHICAGO !!
@Great now what! He's a great spender.
Obama and ilk are holding out for the 47%. The Republicans are holding out for the rest.
@TimBurr Heads up! After April 15th you guys will need to start using a different percentage, and it will likely be lower that 47.
@TimBurr That makes no sense, because it only adds up to 48% by your math.  Obama's holding out for 47% of us flakes out here and the Republicans are holding out for the 1% who make up the wealthiest.
@Sundowner........damn those rich ! Not the millions of people who are sucking the taxpayers dry with SSI, section 8, food stamps and welfare and disability payments that have become a way of life.
@TreeWizard That's how I read it.  Whatever.
@Sundowner @TreeWizard He just called you a liar and delusional Sundowner.
@TreeWizard I was trying to stay quiet -- I figured he didn't realize you were just quoting me!  *snicker*
@Rob C 503Â Can you read?
@Rob C 503Â Â Oops -- one more thing!! Â LOL!! Â During that same 10-year period, the premiums for Medicare Part B coverage have increased from approximately $60/month to now $105/month. Â I'm bad at math, but I think that's a 75%% increase to go along with the 25%% increase in benefits. Â In fairness, the Repubs were kind enough to NOT increase premiums during the 2 years no one got a cost-of-living raise.
@TreeWizard .....keep laughing with your made up percentages and dillusions.
.
@Rob C 503 @Khre'Riov Ael i-Mhiessan t'Rllaillieu I have one more thing to say.  In the past 10 years, the cost-of-living increases for those receiving Social Security total 25.6%....have your expenses in the past 10 years increased more than 2.56% a year??  Because gas, heating, food and everything else costs the same for those people as it does you.  And by the way, in that same 10-year period during 2 of those years, there were no COLA increases at all (as in 0.0%) -- the two years after the Republicans took over control of the House.  Yep -- I'll never place my check mark next to anyone with an "R" behind their name.
@TreeWizard @Sundowner @Rob C 503 Rob, I have to take a bit of exception as well. SS is taken out of our checks for retirement, its not a entitlement program. I'm pretty tired of reading that statement out of folks. Out of that they have to pay medicare and prescription drug coverage. For years those programs are paid into out of paychecks.Â
Our government years ago.. Oh, look at all that excess money laying there no one might need down the road, and they took it, then years later where do they take money and leave IOU's? SS..  Â
Sure there are people scamming it, so are the medical supplier company's and others. They need to seriously crack down on them yes, but the government needs to keep their hands out of it also! The program they started for us with our money, they scam.
I might also point out, seeing as how my husband retired 3 years ago, that he worked two years over his retirement age as well. This is a man who worked all his life and sometimes as high as 80 hours a week.  I don't believe he should have to feel bad about getting his SS check. He more then earned his. And there are a lot of people who have.Â
@Rob C 503Â BTW, we don't qualify for SSI or an EBT card or anything else. Â My husband was injured shortly after he turned 30 and has no choice but to have Medicare coverage at the rate of $104.90/month deducted from his check -- , but since I'm employed (2 jobs, 1 with excellent benefits) he's covered under me. Â As an aside, my health insurance coverage through my employer has improved dramatically in the past 2 years while the premium has increased less than 2%. Â
@Sundowner @TreeWizard Good Comment. No one likes a leech.
@TreeWizard Yes.
@Sundowner @Rob C 503 "Laughing here, buddy. You're probably right, because the ones who want to eat, cheese or not, don't want to elect people who'll let them starve to death. Estimates have placed the number of flakes who abuse the whole "living off the government cheese" programs at somewhere between 8%-12%. So I'm all for increased funding necessary to beef up investigating and prosecuting those who are obtaining benefits via fraud. I trust you feel similarly. But that leaves around 90% of those receiving benefits as the poor and hungry, and I'm not willing to vote for anyone who wants to cut their benefits and what little quality of life they have. That makes me a compassionate, caring person -- or as you call it, a bleeding-heart leftie socialist libtard. " that one?
@Rob C 503Â Please read my comment to kramr above (I think it's above...I'm tired!), because I don't feel like re-writing my thoughts about those who abuse the system. Â There's a horrendous amount of fraud from all kinds of "entitlement" programs -- much of the reason is because funding is lacking to investigate and prosecute those who cheat. Â Not all that different than fraud against private health insurance providers, auto insurance providers, every possible type of business. Â Let's face it, there are tons of crooks out there. Â But the answer isn't to cut benefits to those who need it, the answer is to catch the people who are stealing it. Â Â
@Sundowner ........okay, you've justified your family's need to have the government support that they need and deserve. Are you going to sit there and tell me that the rampant fraud in those systems doesn't exist?.???? And therefore denies the truly needy families and whose payments could possibly be increased if there wasn't the entitlement mentality of doing nothing.
@Rob C 503Â I'm going to stop you dead in your tracks with SSI. Â Do you comprehend what SSI is and how much the monthly check is? Â The maximum for a single person (very tight restrictions on who qualifies) is $710/month....ever try living on that? Â From the Social Security website, "We pay monthly benefits to people with limited income and resources who are disabled, blind, or age 65 or older. Blind or disabled children may also get SSI." Â So yeah, those are definitely people sucking the taxpayers dry, aren't they? Â Shame on them for being poor...but actually, shame on you for wanting to make them even more poor. Â As for Social Security Disability, my husband sustained a life-altering (and for the 8 weeks he was hospitalized, near life-ending) brain injury due to an on-the-job drilling accident....he's been permanently totally disabled for over 20 years. Â Dang -- another one of those worthless low-lifes sucking the taxpayers dry. Â His monthly disability check is about 1/6th what he was earning, but he doesn't even deserve that, right? Â People like you are very disappointing to many of us.
They took down the Jedi mind meld headline.  That one made me laugh, how about calling it an Oregon State Duck Mister Obama?Â
@jpdx00 LOL! I have had more then one good laugh over this .. read what George Takei said about it and the posts underneath.. https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei
Obama proposed the idea of the sequester, but it was Republicans who wrote the final version.
Fully shared responsibility.
Here is what it will take to solve the budget problems:
1) Make all government contracts fixed price (no "cost overruns"). Take responsibility for your incompetent bids!
2) Do away with all business taxes, but require that every penny of profit be reported on a W2 somewhere, and all losses are just that: losses.
2a) Establish an 18%flat tax on all income, regardless of source. No exclusions or deductions.
3) Means test all federal payouts to individuals (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
4) Terminate all subsidies.
The government now runs an 11% surplus. This would allow the national debt to be paid in 8 years.
@ShallowEnder  """"""The government now runs an 11% surplus. This would allow the national debt to be paid in 8 years.""""""
I gotta call BS on this......   How can  $2Trillion  (16T /8yrs)  possibly  be only 11% of the budget
""""""2) Do away with all business taxes, but require that every penny of profit be reported on a W2 somewhere ."""""""
Thats just an asinine statement.... Who's W2 would it be reported on??? Â stockholders? Â executives?
How could you possibly tax individuals who would NOT receive the  actual profits
@ShallowEnder
1) Great.
2) Great for accountants and tax attorneys. All our business will be operating in the "red".
2a) Don't forget credits. But also, now that unearned income is taxed at 20%, you've given Mitt a tax cut while giving the family of four making $40,000 a tax hike.
3) Except for SS and Medicare, everything else in that category is means tested.
4) Big hairy mess. Might be right on, but not simple.
11% surplus? $16 trillion in 8 years? Seems like the rosy view, especially considering the hit you are doling out to the middle class.
Whatever...let it shut down for a few days.  That is the only way these fools will get motivation to work out a plan.
Life will go on...the sun will rise (behind all the clouds)...
Hey...what the hell happened to our Sunny and 64 forecast?
@oh4FSÂ It's 67 degrees and sunny where I live. Â You should cross over the hill once in a while!
Yes I should....but...alas....I have to be at work...bummer. Enjoy the sunshine.
I wonder if those ears whistle in the wind?
@Beergod OMG how cool!  I was wondering the same thing about the guy who's really running the country now. I was wondering if HIS gobble-gobble neck whistles in the wind.  Amazing we were thinking along the same lines, eh?  http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mitch-mcconnell-09081-1.jpeg
@Sundowner @Beergod I think old Mitch looks like Beaker off of Sesame Street myself.
@Sundowner @Beergod lol, Mitch looks like a turtle to me.
@TreeWizard @Sundowner @Beergod "These crayons taste like purple" - Tardy the Turtle