Jim Himes demonstrates the same grasp on reason that his fellow Greenwich Democrats do

As God is my witness, as God is my witness they're not going to lick me. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again.

As God is my witness, as God is my witness they’re not going to lick me. I’m going to live through this and when it’s all over, I’ll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again.

The Democrats’ representative to Congress came back to town yesterday to warn his faithful of the coming sequestration apocalypse and boy was it scary:

Himes predicted Thursday night his colleagues in Washington will fail to reach a fiscal compromise by a March 1 deadline, triggering a steep and indiscriminate round of budget cuts that he said will wreak havoc on the economy, commercial aviation, the Defense Department and education.

“After two or three weeks of people waiting three hours in line at the airport, because you’ve got fewer TSA agents at the (magnetometers) and X-ray machines, as people come to understand what this means for defense contractors in northern Virginia, California and elsewhere — Connecticut frankly. As people come to feel what it means to have $83 billion in cuts in one year, the pressure will mount on the institution and a deal will get done,” Himes said, referring to the Transportation Security Administration.

Let’s examine Jimbo’s fears: The Wall Street Journal did in an editorial yesterday and its editors were more sanguine than our “investment banker” from John Corzine’s old firm:

Americans need to understand that Mr. Obama is threatening that if he doesn’t get what he wants, he’s ready to inflict maximum pain on everybody else. He won’t force government agencies to shave spending on travel and conferences and excessive pay and staffing. He won’t demand that agencies cut the lowest priority spending as any half-competent middle manager would.

It’s the old ploy to stir public support for all government spending by shutting down vital services first. Voters should scoff at the idea that a $3.6 trillion government can’t save one nickel of every dollar that agencies spend. The $85 billion in savings is a mere 2.3% of total spending. The agencies that the White House says can’t save 5% received an average increase in their budgets of 17% in the previous five years—not counting their $276 billion stimulus bonus.

[Despite Obama's - and Himes' - claim that the economy is now improving] … Mr. Obama just whacked the economy with a roughly $160 billion tax increase in 2013 that he says will do no harm, but he wants us to believe that $85 billion in spending cuts will trigger a recession. The sequester shaves the equivalent of about 0.25% of GDP when offsetting it against the extra money the feds are spending on Sandy relief.

After World War II federal spending fell from 42% of GDP to 14.8% in two years, yet the private economy and employment roared back to life. In the 1980s domestic spending fell by about two percentage points of GDP and in the 1990s it fell by more than three. Those were decades of government austerity but rapid growth in private output and wealth. Mr. Obama has taken government spending from 21% to 24% of GDP, yet we’ve had the weakest economic recovery in three generations.

• A tax increase disguised as “tax reform.” Mr. Obama isn’t proposing to substitute other spending reforms for the blunt instrument of the sequester. He is actually demanding another tax increase on top of the one he just beat out of Congress. His trick is to pretend that this is “tax reform” that would eliminate loopholes, but this is the same President who insisted on more than $30 billion in tax breaks for big business (including $12 billion for the wind industry) in the fiscal-cliff deal.

The real point is this: Himes et als are playing the “crossing guard game”, a phrase I coined when, some years ago, our Greenwich Police Chief responded to a demand for a cut in his budget by firing all the $6-an-hour school crossing guards. The national Democrats, naturally, think larger than that, but it’s the same ploy: instead of cutting out trips to Las Vegas for hundreds of employees, they focus on discharging minimum wage TSA goons (which I fully support, but never mind). Instead of eliminating FDA “diversity seminars” that define the Pilgrims as “illegal aliens” they get rid of low-paid packing plant inspectors. Instead of asking whether somewhere in some Congressman’s district their isn’t an unnecessary, unwanted-by the Pentagon weapons program and instead talk of firing 800,000 soldiers.

And so on. Politicians like Himes aren’t serious about cutting the budget because they don’t want to cut the budget – quite the opposite. So they generate scare stories and their public relations firm, the national media, goes along. Bitter clingers, hang on.

29 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

29 responses to “Jim Himes demonstrates the same grasp on reason that his fellow Greenwich Democrats do

  1. TheWizard

    Eventually, the real budget cuts will come, when printing more money no longer works.
    I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth then.
    Sooner the better, I say.

  2. Oh, I am so scared of these miniscule cuts! What the idiots in Congress are afraid of is that no one will notice the effects of the Sequester. What a joke, they must think we are all morons. It’s a 100% manufactured (by Obama) crisis. I’m bored already, next faux crisis please.

  3. Just_looking

    I completely agree, but what can be done to correct this? I mean what can really be done? A: nothing feasible. Therefore they will win and we, as a country, are screwed.

    • iAnon

      Just: conservatives across the land are asking that very question. What really can be done? I’ve yet to find anyone with an answer. Fox News has gone into a blather spin so even they aren’t getting any message out. It’s mind-numbingly depressing to listen to Obama and his henchmen. Al Sharpton has to wipe drool off his chin when talking about the president and all his successes. Chuck Todd and David Gregory add to the Obama love fest. Screwed is the understatement. And Obama is laughing his effing head off. Meanwhile, Darling Michelle is coming to NY today to begin her whirlwind tour of the talk show circuit, back on her Let’s Move bandwagon. I may get sick now.

      • TheWizard

        I think the serious answer to what can be done, at least long term, is congressional term limits. Get these lifetime entrenched career politicians that have bankrupted us out of office.
        The bad news is there hasn’t been a serious discussion over this in almost twenty years.
        Relying on those it would ouster to introduce and vote yes on the legislation is how it must be done. Yup, we’re screwed.

        • Anonymous

          Agree about term limits. Lets start with Reid, McConnell, McCain, Schumer….the list is endless. However, the younger ones don’t seem any better. Look how AWFUL Scott Brown of Massachusetts was. I say we revolt and let the people run the zoo.

  4. Al Dente

    Thank goodness there’s enough money to buy cell phones for welfare recipients!

  5. Peg

    I don’t get it, either. Doesn’t this bother ANY of the “common” leftists?

    http://moot.typepad.com/what_if/2013/02/gilded-hypocrites.html

  6. Anonymous

    Himes doing his job for the Regime propaganda machine.

    He’s f***ing the country and future generations especially, but it doesn’t matter to scum like him.

    • Cobra

      Think back to 2009-’10 when Obozo had the super majority…Himes voted as did Pelousy at least 98% of the time. He figured that, as a rookie first termer, why strain his alleged brain cells deciding how to vote when he could just look up to the omniscient queen of botched cosmetic surgery for the answers?

  7. Greenwich Old Timer

    Where is the Republican spokesman who should be articulating (and explaining in relatively simple terms) the excellent points made in the WSJ article? Where is the leadership on this issue? It makes my blood boil.

    • Peg

      There are some Republican leaders doing this, Greenwich OT. The problem is that we can’t get enough of them elected to the right positions. In addition, those on the far right social conservatives who are vocal are used by the Democrats to obliterate the “small government, fiscal responsible” message by these reasonable Republicans, so overall, we keep on losing elections.

      IMHO, the Republicans have to start being clear that the party is the party of small government, fiscal responsibility, freedom and responsibility – period. If people are social conservatives, that’s fine. But Republicans will no longer make that the centerpiece of their policies.

      If they don’t do this, I continue to predict we are royally screwed. (As are those on the left, hoisted by their own petard. They just don’t realize it!)

  8. Rivman

    Now that it is around the corner, the president takes no ownership of the sequester. Let’s blame everyone else.

    • Rick

      It has to be Prescott Bush’s fault. Obummer has blamed every other member of the family for everyhing else.

  9. George W. Crossman

    What is comical is Obama wanted the sequester. He insisted on it.

    • iAnon

      George, FYI: I wanted to leave a comment on your blog but it required more ID than I need to vote. What’s the dealio? Not only did you want my email address, it wanted me to log into something?

  10. Anonymous

    The problem with the sequester is that it is about 20 times too small.

  11. Balzac

    What if the government went to sleep, like your computer screen, and no one noticed?

    David Brooks captures Obama perfectly in today’s NY Times:
    “…the president identifies a problem. Then he declines to come up with a proposal to address the problem. Then he comes up with a vague-but-politically-convenient concept that doesn’t address the problem (let’s raise taxes on the rich). Then he goes around the country blasting the opposition for not having as politically popular a concept. Then he returns to Washington and congratulates himself for being the only serious and substantive person in town.”

    Enjoy the whole column at:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/brooks-the-dc-dubstep.html?ref=opinion

  12. Tawm

    Greenwich Old Timer — even when the Republicans make an articulate argument, it is not (accurately) reported in the mainstream media. So any message other than our Dear Leader’s isn’t propagated.
    And I am sure we WILL see some painful effects of the sequester — all part of the political theater of course — such as impossibly long TSA lines…

  13. sunbeam43

    Himes is just another toe licker!!! Embarrassing!! All of CT’s representatives……just extremely embarrassing, not to mention blindingly mentally deranged!!!!!!!!! Connecticut has lost its way, it is ruined!

  14. sunbeam43

    Texas is looking better and better!!!

  15. FF

    Sunbeam, have at it. Texas has its charms.

    Here’s my curiosity – as a liberal Democrat, I think the Defense budget is way, way bloated. I don’t think our military should be in 172 countries, as it is now, and I think spending more than the top 20 other countries on defense (that’s Russia, China, France, Britain, etc. COMBINED), is immoral, wasteful and unnecessary. So I say, let the sequester rip on Defense. So we should be in agreement on that, right?
    Except that the Republicans almost uniformly say the following about the impact of the defense cuts. Democrats too, but you can understand why.
    1) You can’t cut defense because it will cost jobs. As if the purpose of a defense budget is for jobs and keeping the economy vibrant. Like it was some kind of STIMULUS, or something like that. The Democrats don’t have the votes to avoid the sequester because the defense industry is so ingrained in the south and are responsible for a vast amount of regional jobs
    2) You can’t cut defense because the base wants a strong military.

    Of course, none of this really addresses reality, so if these dopes can’t get their act together, I say let the sequester rip. Maybe the voters will just decide that one party just has to go. Of course, I know – and most of your readership knows – where America will go, and that’s over to the Democrats.

    Republic of Texas? Make Sunbeam the President

  16. huh?

    The comments on this site are a little disturbing and fact free. Obama first fiscal year had a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit now this year is projected to be 800 billion. A 1/3 reduction and it continues to come down. The number of government jobs have dropped 1.5 million. If we cut spending any faster we would be in another recession which would affect all of us. What will reduce the deficit is jobs. Instead of railing about Obama about cutting ask where the jobs strategy is. The deficit is a distraction the the republican party members foment to get people all riled up so they can keep wealthy people’s taxes low.

    …and what is it with the name calling “dear leader”, “Pelousy:, “Regime”, “toe licker”, If you are trying to convince anybody, that probably is not the way to go. If you are staying in you echo chamber, keep it up.

    oh and the David Brooks column, he issued a correction because he got many of the facts wrong. Some of the things he was asking Obama to do–he had already done.