LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama allowing sequester because Republicans are refusing more taxes

Tuesday, March 5, 2013 | 6:00 a.m. CST

President Barack Obama has spent the last few weeks and millions of dollars explaining to America, in trips back and forth across the country, that the sequestration portion of the Budget Control Act, which he suggested, promised veto of any other plan that did not contain new taxes. He told us previously that sequestration was "never going to happen."

His problem is Republicans, desperately trying to bring fiscal responsibility to our Congress, have not caved on his demand for even more new taxes. His speeches itemize and enlarge the devastation of sequestration. Homeland Security has already released 300 criminal illegal immigrants because of fear that cuts will eliminate funds to pay for them. Unbelievable? Believe it! He insists that these heinous effects on men, women and children will occur because Republicans will not allow him to close tax loopholes on "wealthy Americans!"

Here is the truth of the matter: Obama will allow the horrible consequences of sequestration to be foisted upon innocent Americans because House Republicans will not give him more tax money to spend. Pure and simple.

Frank H. Christian is a Columbia resident.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 8:23 a.m.

What's the problem, Frank? It's cuts to spending. Wasn't that the your goal all along? Or were you just kidding about cuts to spending?

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote March 5, 2013 | 9:30 a.m.


How about a "balanced" alternative to the sequester that reduces the deficit to the same degree as the sequester (roughly $1.5 trillion/10 years) and includes the following:

1) Medicare Cuts
2) Social Security cuts
3) No change to tax rates for any bracket

Would you sign on to a plan like that?

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 9:40 a.m.

Tony B. - Your comment is somewhat twisted. Republicans imo, will allow the cuts and will not give Obama more spending money to prevent them. My adjectives to "sequestration" were to emphasize these cuts as the President has done in his fearmongering, class warfare, tactics.

You might also try to grasp the fact that Republicans know how to balance our federal budget and given the control will not belabor the old worn out "con", we must "reduce the deficit!" And that without out further spending cuts, the credit rating of the United States of America, will be reduced, again!

Tony, please tell us why you support this President and these Democrats while watching the obvious decimation they are incurring daily, with no shown intent to ever stop?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 10:03 a.m.

Stock market just hit a record high, unemployment rate is almost exactly where it was when he took office, depending on websites looked at. Some show 7.8% Jan 2009, some show 8%, some show less than 7.5% Jan of 2009, 7.9% today. Done in Iraq, where we shouldn't have been in the first place, winding down Afghanistan, Bin Laden dead, etc. Stop me when you catch my drift. Boehner and Obama had a plan worked out to cut spending and raise revenue, but Bonehead Boehner couldn't get the Me party, I mean Tea party, to go along. You got your spending cuts and want more. We can't turn the clock back to the 50's for ya, Frank. Grow up.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 10:06 a.m.

Word games from Chris Foote. I don't like Fox News "balanced" reporting of opinions. I prefer, just the factual truth rather than two speakers, given equal opportunity to lie to us.

Democrats provide us with the "balanced" approach to "reduced deficits" They state that new tax revenue must accompany any spending cuts, but I don't recall hearing one offer reason why or what will be done with the new money. Why not?

Your proposal is moot, because I have here named D' after D' state that they are not going to touch Medicare, Medicaid or , Social Security.

We have two major political parties. Only Republicans have any interest in solvency for our government. A few D's do, but they have no voice in that party.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders March 5, 2013 | 10:12 a.m.

This entire subject is a JOKE. The very day that the deadline passed, the so called "cuts" to future spending increases we surpassed by the Treasury's ONE DAY issuance of new debt ($85B).

As always, being the source of the problem, government has no solutions. So, they focus on the trivia to get the people fighting a polarized battle of MOOTNESS, all while ignoring the true problems which they can do nothing but make worse.

Every word wasted playing this game of divide and conquer only takes us yet another step further from the real problem, the criminal enterprise d.b.a. "government."

The real answer is repudiation of ALL third-party debt, but that would destroy the oligarchy. Therefore, it won't be allowed to happen, and they will bankrupt the whole of society to ensure they maintain their rule.

If only the average person didn't insist upon this criminal state, well, perhaps then we could have a healthy society. Until then, we will only have a predatory one, where theft is enshrined as the law of the land.

No wonder we live in such a violent society.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 5, 2013 | 10:34 a.m.

Frank & Richard:

Do you recall this slogan: "What if they held a war and nobody came?"

So, what if they held a sequester and, after some adjustments, the government found it could function?

Remember Reagan and the air controllers? According to the pundits we were going to have passenger aircraft crashing on our front lawns! What actually happened?

The real problem is that Frank Christian, Richard Saunders, Ellis Smith, and some others who post here are just like poor old Ronnie Raygun: we all failed to matriculate at Harvard. :)

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 10:55 a.m.

tb - The stock market is up (thankfully), because B. Bernanke and fed are printing money hand over fist for that specific purpose. We are told that if his plan works we'll see no inflation. If not?

Do you know what this length and depth of unemployment now entails? We are building a sub-culture of unemployables. Our kids, not able to find part time jobs are growing up lacking training in the work ethic, ripe for Obama's food stamp, welfare programs. This, according to Karl Rove last night (named the source), has become the longest recovery from recession in the recorded history of U.S.

You really are adrift. Born or educated, after 1960 (my guess). Have never known or been taught, life without liberalism, thus, accept and defend the misery foisted upon you. If Russian, would you be one calling for another Stalin? I assume you are grown,so can only hope that you somehow, Wise Up!

(Report Comment)
Bri T March 5, 2013 | 11:38 a.m.

Must be a slow news day if Frank's ramblings made the front page of the Missourian website.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote March 5, 2013 | 11:38 a.m.


The President has put forth a balanced plan that cuts/saves $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and includes the following:

1) Cuts to Medicare
2) Cuts to Social Security
3) No change in tax rates for any bracket.

From here:

It seems to me that you and your fellow right-wingers are ill informed with respect to what the President has offered in place of the sequester. (For example, the Missourian's own conservative columnist recently criticized the President's plan for not proposing cuts to entitlements!) Obama's plan specifically cuts entitlements and does not raise tax rates. Moreover, the House plan is pitifully small in comparison: $238 billion over 10 years, numbers from the House GOP:
A logical assessment would be that this is not really an argument over the deficit (ostensibly you prefer the House plan to the President's). I think the problem is with political parties. If policy ideas weren't tethered to one team or the other we could judge them solely on the merits. In turn, you wouldn't be in the unenviable position of trying to explain how the $0.23 trillion deficit reduction plan will better address our debt problems than the $1.5 trillion deficit reduction plan!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. March 5, 2013 | 11:43 a.m.

Visited the Missourian for the first time in months and the same bickering that was happening back then is still happening now.

Good to know a few things never change.

Now off to read the real news.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 12:25 p.m.

Ah, the old days, when taxes were high and unemployment was low, the GI Bill (government)was helping the average Joe. Check out tax rates from the 50's, please. Didn't kill us then, won't now. Where were you when Bush was running up the debt? Right, you complained then, too, didn't you?

You are correct about 1 thing and 1 thing only. I was educated during the 60's. You know, back when microwaves were an accident and computers hadn't been invented. DVD's, flat screen TV'S, cell phones, etc. If only we could stay stuck back there. Actually the good part of that is, you could bloviate about your opinions, ands folks wouldn't have to listen to you.

If only everyone in the country were as lucky as you, never having borrowed money, never used the GI Bill, never got a helping hand from anyone. Utopia, huh?

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 12:55 p.m.

Rich C. - "Now off to read the real news."

Waiting to catch Jon Stewart. Right?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle March 5, 2013 | 12:56 p.m.

It does seem quite paradoxical, doesn't it? To scream "WE NEED SPENDING CUTS!" for 4 years, but now that the spending cuts are here, they will create "horrible consequences"?

Or is the word "hypocritical" more appropriate than "paradoxical" here?

Seriously... the DOW has just hit an all-time high. The wealthy "Job Creators" are getting more compensation for their job creating work than ever before! Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Real budget cuts (albeit small) are actually happening. Federal budget deficits are shrinking rapidly. The US just surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer.

Isn't this exactly what the Republicans want? Won't this restore confidence in America? Bring back the jobs and investments?

Why has the sentiment about what budet cuts will do so suddenly reversed?

(don't bother, that's a rhetorical question)

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 1:20 p.m.

Derrick, you said it, man. Why don't they just say what they mean? They are against anything Obama wants, good or bad. If he suddenly became pro-life, Republicans would become right-to-lifers. To them, as Ronnie said, "facts are a pesky thing." Frank wants to go back to the 50's where everyone knew their place and all was right with the world. But not the high taxes. Noooo, we can't have that.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 1:24 p.m.

Said that wrong. They would be pro-choice.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 2:50 p.m.

Christopher - Your posts are always for the purpose of making a more and more socialistic government seem reasonalble. For free people interested only in the best place for family and honest work for an honest living it cannot. You know this and never include "the people", except as required for the health and growth of government. This President and these Democrats are interested in one thing, the extraction of as much wealth from governmental taxes as is humanly possible (legally, intentionally omitted), until they are stopped. Everything they have done in last 7 years can be shown to be the case.

"the president sought to prove his reasonableness: that he was willing to piss off Democrats by making unspecified changes to Medicare." "a letter penned by Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and Mark Takano, D-Calif., and endorsed by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, that reads: "We will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need."

At last count, the letter was signed by 22 Democratic members of Congress, the latest being Ed Markey," Coud the fact that these are spending every nickle that comes to Washington from SS and Medicare "payroll" taxes and don't intend to quit?

You insist upon comparing "deficit reduction" plans for sequestration. The Republicans when given the control intend to balance the budget, again! That plan is laying in the U.S. Senate wishing, I bet, someone would look at it.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 5, 2013 | 3:12 p.m.

The house is afire and burning down; meanwhile, the "firemen" stand at the curb, hotly debating who should water the front lawn and how much water should be used.

It's both funny and sad.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 3:46 p.m.

T. Black - Fogle gives you a post almost totally opposite of the obvious, actual truth of this matter(not unusual for Fogle) and you gobble it up! Are you this desperate for someone in agreement? "They are against anything Obama wants, good or bad."

I wrote this earlier: Liberals "should forget, "I'm against it because it's associated with Obama". They have milked this absolute falsehood dry. Most Americans are against the health care reform, record unemployment and debt. The restriction preventing production of our own good sources of energy, when we could be energy independent if he would get this central government out of the way. The promotion of unwanted unions across the country. These are a few of the reasons Americans oppose the Obama Administration, not his birth, color, or anything else about him.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 3:52 p.m.

Yeah, Frank, that worked so well last time republicans, or regressives as I like to call them, were in charge. Oh, they balanced the budget, as long as you leave the wars, etc,out. You ask why I follow progressives ideas, why do you insist on staying with the same old tired politics and backwards thinking? Next thing ya know, the'll be wanting to give women the right to vote, if this keeps up!!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote March 5, 2013 | 3:52 p.m.

For the most part, you guys controlled all three branches of government from Jan. 2001 - Jan. 2007 (in June 2001, the Senate switched back to the Dems when Jeffords became an independent. The election of Talent allowed the Repubs to regain control at the end of 2002).
I never saw a balanced budget during the 2001-2007 Republican domination of government.
In fact, you guys passed a rather substantial unfunded expansion of medicare, coupled with a roughly $300 billion/year reduction in revenues. How did that effect the deficit...
Money quote: "The goal of reining in long-term deficits and debt would be much easier to achieve if it were not for the policies set in motion during the Bush years. That era’s tax cuts — most of which policymakers extended in this year’s American Taxpayer Relief Act, with President Obama’s support — and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the debt that we will owe, under current policies, by 2019."

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 4:01 p.m.

Frank, prove Derrick wrong. FACTS is what we want, not conjecture.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 5, 2013 | 4:03 p.m.

Prove Christopher wrong, too, while you are at it. Remeber, Wikipedia isn't always right, and Fox News has been proven to lie time and time again. Pesky facts, Frank, pesky facts.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 5:41 p.m.

tb - "Frank, prove Derrick wrong." No, but you and DF can combine intellect and try to prove me wrong.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 5, 2013 | 6:52 p.m.

C. Foote - Down memory lane now. You never saw a balanced budget from 1968 (Congress controlled by D's with occasional R' President, until 1997 Balanced Budget Act. written and passed by R' Congress, signed reluctantly by Clinton. I grow weary from this repetition. we have covered all this time and again.

Is "substantial unfunded expansion of medicare" the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, that has been on the Democrat agenda since time began? Tho liberals condemn W. Bush for promoting and signing it, when should we expect one to try the repeal?

"I never saw a balanced budget during the 2001-2007 Republican domination of government." You never saw a successful terrorist attack, killing thousands of Americans in their home town before 2001 either!

Your cbpp report states with authority,
"Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits". We have discussed Bush Policies to death. What caused the Economic Downturn? We know the "Bush policies" created reductions to $1.84 per galloon of gasoline for those unfortunates not able to travel with the liberal sources of energy, Wind and Sun. We know his tax cuts brought more revenue to government and an unemployment rate of 4.7%. Would be glad to discuss reason for Economic Downturn in another post.

You have again, presented a post only concerned with health of federal government, an employee of the American people. Why not give we American people, a deserved break?

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller March 6, 2013 | 9:46 a.m.

Excelllent Job Frank--you nudged the "chattering class" to trot out the same emotion driven histrionics that has marked their responses for as long as I have been a subscriber. I am reminded of President Reagan's response to his Chief of Staff who had just voiced the fear that the Democrats were threatening to shut the government down: "let them go ahead and do it and see if anyone notices" was the Reaganm reply.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black March 6, 2013 | 10:35 a.m.

And Karl trots out the regressive talking points.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 6, 2013 | 11:20 a.m.


"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

[Another Rock-and-Roll lyric.]

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 6, 2013 | 1:32 p.m.

Col. J.K. - Thank you for a very nice compliment, talking points and all. Too bad Mr. Black ain't got any.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.