Congress does not appear close to reaching a deal that would head off $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, $600 billion of which would strike the Pentagon over the next 10 years, bringing total reductions to more than $1 trillion.
For now, that prospect is the proverbial elephant in the roomHey Rowan, you Doofus! That’s a fake elephant you’re pointing at! The Democrats are holding the leash to the real one.
|Not the Real Elephant In the Room. Source|
The BIG ELEPHANT in the room: Democrats are playing sick games (away from scrutiny) with the National Defense to achieve their tawdry and socialistic political ends.Since Rowan fails to Grok the very piece he wrote, let’s translate it for him.
- Military ordered by the POTUS (D) via the SecDef (D) to not plan for sequestration to prevent ANY possibility, however faint, of a feasible plan to come forward. Not only that, the order prevents any chance of an ILLUSION of a feasible plan to come forward. Why?
- The SecDef(D) has “warned of a “hollow” force if the automatic cuts occur”, and has said there is no alternative long-range budget” . The Services also see “dire consequences of sequestration, which would require deeper troop cuts and missions left undone.” So everyone is agreed that sequestration is a ‘bad’ thing. Or is it if you are a (D)?
- The House of Representatives (Controlled by the Rs), the only entity that can actually authorize USG (and therefore DoD) spending is offering a budget that would ‘avoid’ sequestration.
- The SecDef (D) asserts “that he cannot accept the current Republican 2013 budget that avoids sequestration”. If, as he has asserted, sequestration will result in a “hollow force” if it occurs, then why CAN'T he “accept” the current 2013 House (controlled by R but still ‘House’) budget?
“I’m grateful to the House for recognizing the importance of stopping sequestration,” he said. “But by taking these funds from the poor, middle-class Americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our American constituencies, the guaranteed results will be confrontation, gridlock and a greater likelihood of sequester....
The key is to work together. Each side can stake out its political position. I understand that. But the fact is that nothimg will happen without compromise from both sides"
We finally get to the real story:
|Hoping Nobody Notices As Long as the Press Covers For Him? Source: Michael Ramirez/IBD|
The difference between a SecDef and a SecDef(D).The SecDef(D) is willing to obey his Master and knowingly GUT the National Defense under the pretense of caring about the “poor, middle-class Americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our American constituencies” while (and since 2009) the rest of the entire Obama Democratic machine has been working at gutting the economic engine that supports us all.
I ALMOST can’t tell which is more disturbing.On the one hand we have The ‘Homicidal Democrat Uber Alles Clown Posse’ itself. On the other we have the fact that what made it all possible was the Republican Suckers getting PWND on the 2011 budget.
Ehhh,who am I kidding. Being Evil is worse than Stupid, even if by a nose. I call it for the Clown Posse. (But I still REALLY want to get rid of the Suckers).
Attention potential commenters: I added the Useful Idiot tag for anyone who might want to chime in and defend the sequestration lunacy or the train wreck created by Obama and his ilk.