Politics at work over sequestration cuts

This transcript is automatically generated

President believes it is essential that we avoid these cuts.

It is bad policy the speaker himself says it is bad policy that will go into effect in those Americans will lose their jobs because Republicans made a choice for that to happen.

The president's part of -- there's a question the White House recommended that frankly back in August 2011.

And so now we're feeling the effects but -- -- don't -- Save the present so it -- play is not it's both present congress and basically the president and the speakers who put together this deal.

President.

Could have stopped at the House of Representatives has passed not one but two bills that would have stopped it.

Senate has -- not think.

His democratic senator Max Baucus in the middle there.

White House probably saying that wasn't too helpful in the talking points at today as they are continuing -- talk as we -- nine days out from the sequester setting him.

As we look at the big picture here.

The sequester in the big picture as you look at the budget overall.

Three point six trillion dollar budget and where -- sequester is 85 billion dollars.

Four this year 2.4 percent to we've heard what the sequester would likely do.

It is still a cut in -- spending growth the government would still grow.

But you've heard the president and you've heard Republicans talk about what could possibly happen.

But here's a quote from the Washington Post about Democrats talking about this.

Quote Democrats no longer see the sequester as sufficient to force Republicans to cave on new revenues rather.

They increasingly see the looming government shutdown deadline of march 27 as the real means for them to force a GOP surrender.

In other words.

They're ready to fight another day.

Let's bring in our panel Tucker Carlson editor of the daily caller dot com AB Stoddard associate editor of the hill.

And syndicated columnist Charles program okay -- what's your take.

Well I really hope that's.

Douglas Holtz -- and other.

Experts.

Are right that there's not going to be.

Considerable hit to consumer demand.

From the sequester but I'm not feeling faithful about that.

I think that the president's eleventh hour urgency about the sequester as as disingenuous.

As the Republican side in peace with it.

Republicans have passed two bills replace a -- they've been telling us since July 2011 the sky was going to fall.

And it is not the amount of the overall budget that we're talking about it is the way.

45 billion dollars in defense cuts.

Go to go to less are going to be cut out of less than half of defense because so much is protected it is the way that these cuts happen a 100000.

The civilian employees -- today received an email saying you know you're gonna have to look at upward and nearly 20% pay cut.

And in some families that's gonna think -- with two government workers with the domestic and defense spending we're looking at two parents -- losing considerable pay this year.

They will not be going to the beach on the eastern seaboard this summer they might not go to grandma's and Michigan.

I hope this is going to go well.

But if things get tough for the shipyard back home in the pizzeria closes and so does the barbershop congressman are -- -- hear about this.

After that that budget fight of march probably insulate.

May or early June and then you're gonna have a long hot summer and I don't know that we can sit here and say.

That this is going to be fine I know the Republicans are held in -- -- in this through.

They say it's a fight they absolutely can't back away from -- -- make or break fight for them and they will not back down that's the only cuts they can pocket.

So it is going through and by the way there is no plan between march want to march 27 for -- to be replace Republicans don't have a plan.

And filed for in the capitol building so.

I think it sounds awful and I hope I'm wrong.

Tucker as far as that defense.

National security issue and you know we're talking about civilian employees here and in the OMB.

They have a report out about the ability to.

On national security issues and here's what the report says.

While the Department of Defense would be able to shift funds to ensure war fighting critical military readiness capabilities.

Were not degraded.

Saying that those things in other words.

Moving aircraft carriers right would be okay.

Sequestration would result in a reduction in readiness of many non deployed units delays and investments in new equipment and facilities.

Cutbacks and equipment repairs declines in military research and development efforts and reductions in based services for military -- its side.

Yeah I mean this is clearly not the most efficient way to cut government on the other hand it would result in actual cuts were five years past one of the worst recession any of our lifetimes.

And government is only -- meanwhile the rest of the country -- cut back how many businesses have paired 2%.

Of their of their operating budget over the past -- here's -- has everybody test so just put this in some perspective it's not.

Cataclysmic I think the politics of that are pretty clear I agree with AB.

But the president's disingenuous he's not looking for a deal.

He's looking for a fight this is about the 2014.

Elections this is about the belief on the part of some of the west that they can win they can take back the house.

-- divide Republicans by doing this.

I also finally agree that it's it is inevitable that we're gonna.

We should illustration.

For sure could somebody explain to me why congress why the president just doesn't say tomorrow fine transfer authority.

Pentagon -- -- transfer authority you can do priorities -- take out of the conference is really don't have to go to the stupid conference to do.

XYZ.

Save the personnel don't have.

The child care problems don't have the XYZ problem have transfer authority for these agencies and don't.

Make it an issue why doesn't why don't they -- build more.

And that is precisely why this is the most ridiculously hyped Armageddon since the Mayan calendar.

You can do it not be in fact it -- -- it's made it looks worst in the mine disaster look.

This as you say can be peace -- in the day in an hour.

By allowing a transfer of funds it's incredibly soluble easily soluble.

And the president is the one who want to propose that he -- of course because he is looking for a fight.

And -- solution.

And secondly look at this in perspective.

In terms of the gross domestic product of our economy.

This is three.

One hundreds.

The it's simply it's a third of 1%.

Of our domestic economy.

On the domestic side well overall it's -- would have cents on the dollar.

And overall on the non to defend side.

It's a penny and a half on the dollar of reductions here we are -- the -- of sixteen trillion.

And the argument today is that if we can't.

A penny and I have fun non defense spending.

And -- -- -- going to be the end of the world if so -- we are hopelessly in debt we're gonna end up where I want -- -- -- this I -- --

Watch Live

Politics at work over sequestration cuts

Details

Clips

Latest Politics

NSA, the Constitution and Rand Paul's divide with the GOP

Foiled terror justifies NSA snooping?

Is Obama a reluctant president?

Why did Elbert Guillory become a Republican?

Future of national security, foreign policy uncertain

Federal phone program misusing money

Invoking race in the abortion debate

Looking ahead at potential for Hillary Clinton in 2016

Feds: NSA surveillance helped thwart NYSE bombing

NSA director makes case for data collection

Boehner calls Senate's current immigration plan 'laughable'

Bachmann: Tea Party more energized than 'ever' before

Transcript

Recommended