HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Rogers: Group secretly wo...

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 06:11 AM

Rogers: Group secretly working on budget fix

Source: Livingston County Press

A bipartisan committee of Congress is meeting in secret to prevent members and supporters of both major parties from influencing how to avoid automatic budget cuts Jan. 1, U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, (8th MI)R-Brighton, said last week.

By law, the president Jan. 2 will be required to order the automatic cuts, a process known as sequestration, if at least $1.2 trillion in budget-deficit reduction isn't identified by Congress by that time.

Among the victims of the cuts would be the U.S. military.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 followed the failure of a congressional supercommittee to outline $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.

------------------------------------------------



Read more: http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20121001/NEWS01/210010310/Rogers-Group-secretly-working-budget-fix?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage



So the House Intelligence Committee chooses to announce his secret meetings in a candidate forum in a small town...

Hey- I think I found where those Intelligence leaks in Congress are coming from!

14 replies, 3278 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to James48 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 06:51 AM

1. I love the first sentence.

Members of Congress are meeting in secret to keep members of Congress from being involved.

Lemme guess. The Dems are represented by DLCers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 06:57 AM

2. Hey, here's a way to fix it -

How 'bout the Republicans actually do what they agreed to in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 07:04 AM

3. "Secrecy" Not Needed

 

There's no way myself or anyone should believe there will be significant cuts to the bloated
MIC budget.

this is the largest sacred cow among several sacred cows...

repugs and "democrats" (with bases and defense industries in their districts) alike will make sure significant
cuts do not happen.

"cuts" will end up being a small slice into typically planned increases-- there will be NO cuts in the actual
meat of the defense budget. in other words, it will be a pretend cut.

AS I mentioned in last night's live-blog, if sequestration comes to pass, Barack Obama will have to make do with a defence budget roughly equivalent (in real terms) to George Bush's outlay for 2007. That budget surpasses average annual military spending during the cold war. In other words, even with sequestration, America will still be in pretty good shape militarily. It will still spend as much as all of the other big militaries combined. It will still hold an immense advantage over China and the rest of Asia, where the Obama administration is focusing its resources, and Russia, which Mitt Romney thinks is America's greatest foe.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/09/defence-spending

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 08:48 AM

10. I don't see where we need a "defense" budget bigger than the 2000 level

Which was $350 billion, IIRC.

We should go lower than $350 billion. There are long-term plans to buy a trillion dollars worth of Cold-War interceptor jet airplanes that needs to be cut to about zero. There is a class of amphibious ships that the Navy cannot even get launched due to delays. It is obvious that we won't miss those ships if we never deploy them. We have not needed them yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 06:52 AM

12. EXACTLY..

 

LOL.. I see you put "defense" in quotes as I often do... are we doing it for the same reason?

I have a few probs with Bill Clinton's tenure (regardless, he was a freakin genius compared
to smirky).. but one of the things Clinton got totally right was to finally reign in defense
spending to some sort of semi-rational level.

we see what happened when a repug got in office after Clinton-- defense spending shot up
to the stratosphere again.

the fact so called "democrats" in congress and Obama don't more to lower spending is a big
problem, IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 12:36 PM

14. Who is doing activism on this?

I see criticisms like this mentioned in passing, but I don't see any big organizing effort around weapons cuts. We need an organization like MoveOn.org to keep hammering on the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 07:13 AM

4. The Secret part is which programs and entitlements are being thrown to the wolves

in order to save the bloated military/security services contractors fees, or the "renew the nuclear deterrent" projects.

Maintaining lives, family farms, genuine health care, public education, secure retirement, non-toxic environment and common sense here at home is not patriotic enough. Its only patriotic when those "who need to know" can do it behind closed doors for the "greater good".

If you cannot stand the heat get the hell out of the kitchen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 07:35 AM

5. Mi$$ RobMe said such things are better dealt with behind closed doors, yes? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 07:54 AM

6. I believe he said: Quiet rooms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 08:09 AM

7. "You know I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms..."



That was it, thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 08:26 AM

8. welcome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 08:31 AM

9. Any member of Congress that holds "secret meetings" should be defenestrated by the voters

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 10:23 AM

11. That would be a fun sight! We could see if their 1%er powers protect them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 10:05 AM

13. Indeed. More than enough all by itself. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread