President Obama suggested the concept of “sequester” in late 2011. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending.

Obama Sounds a False Alarm Over Sequestration

Even if the cuts come to pass, Obama's job is to make the executive branch of the federal government work.

Andrew Napolitano | February 28, 2013 REASON

In an effort to remove the hot-potato issue of excessive government spending from the 2012 presidential campaign, and calling the bluff of congressional Republicans who always seem to favor domestic spending cuts but increased military spending, President Obama suggested the concept of "sequester" in late 2011.

His idea was to reduce the rate of increased spending by 2 percent across the board—on domestic and military spending. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. They did so either because they lacked the political fortitude and the political will to designate specifically the unconstitutional and pork barrel federal spending projects to be cut, or because they thought that with the debt of the federal government then approaching $15 trillion (it is now $16.6 trillion and growing), any reductions in spending money the government doesn't have are preferred to no reductions. So, instead of enacting a budget, and instead of recognizing that much of its spending is simply not authorized by the Constitution, Congress enacted the so-called sequester legislation, and the president signed it into law.

The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Congress does not feel bound to obey the laws it has written; hence it has disregarded the legal requirement of a budget. Without a budget, the president has great leeway as to how to allocate funds within each department of the executive branch of the federal government.

Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending. The reductions amount to about two cents for every planned dollar of increased spending for every federal department.

The question remains: What part of each federal department (Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, etc.) will suffer these reduced increases? Here is where this sequester experiment gets dicey.

The president—who once championed the idea of sequesters and even threatened to veto any congressional effort to dismantle them—now has decided he can't live without that additional 2 percent to spend. So, he has gone about the country trying to scare the daylights out of people: Prisoners will be released from federal prisons, soldiers won't have enough bullets in their weapons, we will need to endure five-hour waiting lines at the airports, Social Security checks will be late, and similar nonsense.

If the fears Obama predicts do come to pass, we will have only him to blame. Remember, the sequesters only cut planned increases in spending. Suppose the president planned to hire 100 more soldiers for the Army and agents for the TSA and air traffic controllers for the FAA. Is the president required to hire only 98 of them? Well, under the law, he has a choice. He can hire all 100 and cut back elsewhere, or he can make do on 98 percent of what he has determined are the government's additional needs. But he cannot just intentionally release prisoners or weaken the military or inflict maddening delays on the flying public in order to make his fearful warnings come to pass.

His job is to uphold the Constitution, to make the executive branch of the federal government work. The president has taken an oath to "faithfully execute" his office. The words of the oath are prescribed in the Constitution. The word "faithfully" requires him to enforce the laws whether or not he agrees with them. It also requires him to enforce the laws in such a manner that they make sense—so that the federal government basically performs the services we have grown to expect of it.

I know, we have grown to expect more of the federal government than the Founders dreamed, and far more than we can possibly pay for, and infinitely more than the Constitution authorizes. But that's the good thing about these sequesters: They will force the president to prioritize.

If he prioritizes so that we stay free and safe, so that the government does what we basically have paid it to do, he'll be doing his job and saving us a tiny bit of cash. But if the president enforces the laws so that they hurt rather than work well just so he can say "I told you so" rather than "I'll work with you," then he will be inviting his own political misery or even his own impeachment. And we will have sunk deeper into the abyss of fear, division and red ink that already engulfs us.

Britain’s third party UKIP stuns the Conservatives by moving to second place in a UK by-election. The same thing can apply in the US by getting the Republicans out of the way to take on the Democrats.

Eastleigh by-election: Ukip inflicts major setback on David Cameron

The UK Independence Party has inflicted a major political setback on David Cameron by beating the Conservatives into third place in the Eastleigh by-election.

By James Kirkup, and Rowena Mason TELEGRAPH

6:54AM GMT 01 Mar 2013

Ukip came second in Eastleigh as the Liberal Democrats hung onto the seat despite recent allegations of a sex scandal involving a senior party figure.

Being defeated by both their coalition partners and Ukip will add to the growing doubts that the Conservatives can win the next general election.

Eastleigh is one of the Conservatives’ target seats and the party has flooded the seat with MPs over the last weeks, hoping to seize a constituency won by the Lib Dems in 2010.

But the final results, announced after 2am this morning, showed that the Lib Dems had held on and that Ukip had inflicted a huge symbolic blow to the Conservatives.

Maria Hutchings, the Conservative candidate got 10,559 votes, or 25.4 per cent.

Labour’s John O’Farrell came a distant fourth with 4,088 votes, unchanged from the last general election.

Ukip saw a remarkable rise in support over just a few weeks of campaigning in Eastleigh. It only got four per cent of the Eastleigh vote at the last general election.

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said the Eastleigh results showed that British politics is changing and voters are rejecting all the main parties.

“What happened here in Eastleigh was not a freak result. Something is changing,” Mr Farage said.

"People are sick and tired of having three social democrat parties that are frankly indistinguishable from each other."

During the Eastleigh campaign, the party has focussed on the cost and power of the EU, as well as warning of possible mass immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

Mr Farage predicted that the EU’s role in immigration policy will be “the absolute key” issue in British politics over the coming years.

Despite the by-election being called after the resignation of Chris Huhne, the disgraced Liberal Democrat Cabinet minister – and the sexual harassment scandal facing the party – Nick Clegg’s party still managed to win the contest.

Senior Lib Dems said the result showed their party remains highly resilient, and raised doubts about the Tories’ long-term prospects.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, said the Tories won't have a "sniff" of a majority in 2015 if they cannot take seats like Eastleigh.

He added: "If the Tories can't beat us in a seat they have to gain to win a majority, after the week we've had, that is outstanding for the Liberal Democrats."

The defeat will leave the Conservatives facing their biggest crisis of confidence since Mr Cameron failed to win an overall majority at the general election, and heighten the recent speculation over his leadership.

Grant Shapps, the Conservative Party chairman, insisted last night that the result was not a "crisis" for Mr Cameron and warned against reading too much into “a single by-election.”

However, he admitted the party needs to raise its game.

He told the BBC: “What we need to do is redouble our efforts, so that by the next general election we have a story to tell which is all about... how the Conservative Party is leading the charge to put us in the right place on the issues that really matter."

Mr Shapps’ own plans show the party needs to win seats such as Eastleigh to form a majority in 2015. The last time the Conservatives won an outright majority, at the 1992 general election.

Conservative strategists had hoped the Prime Minister's pledge to hold a referendum on Britain's EU membership would defeat the electoral threat from Ukip.

However, Ukip's unexpected success will put the Prime Minister under pressure to set out further plans for the repatriation of powers from the EU.

He is also likely to face calls to tighten immigration controls and deal with the rising cost of living, as Ukip claimed their supporters are punishing the Coalition for being detached from the lives of ordinary voters.

Tory MPs were last night equally concerned they failed to gain any ground against the Lib Dems even though Nick Clegg has been criticised for his handling of a sexual harassment scandal in his party.

Mike Thornton, the Liberal Democrat candidate, said he was "absolutely exhilarated" to have won as he arrived at the count.

The result defies national opinion polls which have shown the Liberal Democrats have just eight percent support.

Last night, Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat minister, also said the big story from the by-election is "the resilience of the Lib Dems.”

The Conservatives may now be open to criticism over its choice of candidate, Maria Hutchings, who has made a series of gaffes over the last few weeks. Early in the campaign, she was condemned for suggesting she would send her "gifted" son to a private school as local state schools were not good enough to help him become a surgeon.

In the run-up to the vote, senior Tories tried to play down the party's chances of gaining a seat mid-way through a parliament at a time of economic turmoil. A Conservative government has not won a by-election since 1982, during the Falklands War.

The Eastleigh result could strain Coalition tensions as Mr Cameron will now be under pressure to move the party to the right to attract Ukip voters.

During the campaign, Tory ministers gave several interviews pledging more hardline immigration policies but it was not enough to avert the Ukip challenge.

The surge comes ahead of key local elections in May, which the Conservatives now fear could lead to an influx of Ukip councillors. This could help Ukip build a local base ahead of the 2015 general election.

After over a thousand days of detention without trial, the US Army has finally given a first glimpse into the proceedings against Bradley Manning. The Pentagon gave in to the pressure of numerous Freedom of Information Act demands and published documents related to the case. The 25-year-old army private faces numerous charges, including 'aiding the enemy' - for allegedly leaking thousands of diplomatic cables to Wikileaks.

 Obama’s War On Whistleblowers “Goes To Eleven”

January 30, 2013 | Filed under Barack Obama | Posted by Doug Johnson Wizbang

The Washington Post notes that the Obama administration is squeezing current and former federal officials to find out who talked to The New York Post about Stuxnet.

Federal investigators looking into disclosures of classified information about a cyberoperation that targeted Iran’s nuclear program have increased pressure on current and former senior government officials suspected of involvement, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry, which was started by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last June, is examining leaks about a computer virus developed jointly by the United States and Israel that damaged nuclear centrifuges at Iran’s primary uranium enrichment plant. The U.S. code name for the operation was Olympic Games, but the wider world knew the mysterious computer worm as Stuxnet.

Prosecutors are pursuing “everybody — at pretty high levels, too,” said one person familiar with the investigation. “There are many people who’ve been contacted from different agencies.”

The FBI and prosecutors have interviewed several current and former senior government officials in connection with the disclosures, sometimes confronting them with evidence of contact with journalists, according to people familiar with the probe. Investigators, they said, have conducted extensive analysis of the e-mail accounts and phone records of current and former government officials in a search for links to journalists.

At the time I was of the opinion that it was someone from the Obama administration (as opposed to a former Bush official) who couldn’t contain their enthusiasm to tell someone about the really cool thing they’d done. Maybe that’s the case, maybe it’s not, but what is true is that the Obama folks are big believers in leaking information to the press, as even progressives such as Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian note:

Like all of the Obama leak prosecutions – see here – none of those revelations resulted in any tangible harm, yet all revealed vital information about what our government was doing in secret. As long-time DC lawyer Abbe Lowell, who represents indicted whistleblower Stephen Kim, put it: what makes the Obama DOJ’s prosecutions historically unique is that they “don’t distinguish between bad people – people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money – and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions”. Not only doesn’t it draw this distinction, but it is focused almost entirely on those who leak in order to expose wrongdoing and bring about transparency and accountability.

That is the primary impact of all of this. A Bloomberg report last October on this intimidation campaign summarized the objections this way: “the president’s crackdown chills dissent, curtails a free press and betrays Obama’s initial promise to ‘usher in a new era of open government.’”

The Obama administration does not dislike leaks of classified information. To the contrary, it is a prolific exploiter of exactly those types of leaks – when they can be used to propagandize the citizenry to glorify the president’s image as a tough guy, advance his political goals or produce a multi-million-dollar Hollywood film about his greatest conquest. Leaks are only objectionable when they undercut that propaganda by exposing government deceit, corruption and illegality.

…This Obama whistleblower war has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with punishing those who harm the country with espionage or treason.

It has everything to do with destroying those who expose high-level government wrongdoing. It is particularly devoted to preserving the government’s ability to abuse its power in secret by intimidating and deterring future acts of whistleblowing and impeding investigative journalism. This Obama whistleblower war continues to escalate because it triggers no objections from Republicans (who always adore government secrecy) or Democrats (who always adore what Obama does), but most of all because it triggers so few objections from media outlets, which – at least in theory – suffer the most from what is being done.

Obama’s lapdog media are well-trained and properly muzzled – they wouldn’t think of complaining or asking hard questions. Don’t take my word for that, ask 60 Minute’ Steve Croft.

Will the press ever turn on Obama?

UTICA, N.Y. (WKTV) - With just days to go before the automatic spending cuts kick in if the sequestration takes effect, Americans are still favoring President Obama over Congress. A new poll by the PEW Research Center says close to half of Americans blaming Congress for the automatic cuts and less than a third blaming the President, however pollster and political analyst John Zogby says that could start to change if the sequester goes into effect.

"You know normally, traditionally the guy at the top is to blame for what's good or what's bad but right now Congress is losing its battle in public opinion," said Zogby.

"'A' it's always easy to blame Congress and 'B' they don't have the bully pulpit that one President can have." 

Zogby says President Obama is still enjoying a majority vote but that can change if the cuts go into effect long enough.

"You know you're not going to feel them Monday morning, but you're going to feel them eventually," said Zogby. "And if there's a proactive battle over the next wave which is the actual operating budget for the next fiscal year you know the sentiment towards the President could decline."

He says pollsters like him will continue to conduct surveys to see if the public's opinion changes if the automatic spending cuts kick in. 

"That's when the polls may change and that's why we do them so that we're right there to find out if they did," said Zogby. 

Zogby says he does think the sequestration will go into effect, he doesn't see any suggestion of an agreement being made.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey is an architect of a GOP proposal that would allow deep automatic spending cuts to take effect Friday but authorize Obama to choose where to chop and where to trim. My oh my, Obama would have to govern instead of campaign.

Toomey draws up measure to soften sequester

Proposal would allow Obama to choose where to cut

February 27, 2013 12:16 am

By Tracie Mauriello / Post-Gazette Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey is an architect of a GOP proposal that would allow deep automatic spending cuts to take effect Friday but authorize the president to choose where to chop and where to trim.

Mr. Toomey and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, expect to introduce their bill today, but it’s already under attack by Democrats and some fellow Republicans, who have their own ideas for how to address $85 billion in automatic spending cuts known as the sequester.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he will allow each caucus to offer only one alternative for an up-or-down vote.

None of the proposals that have emerged so far appears likely to receive enough votes to pass in the Senate.

The Toomey-Inhofe legislation would maintain the overall size of the sequester but would authorize the White House to decide where to cut within broad categories.

As it stands, defense spending would be cut by 13 percent and most other departments and programs would be cut uniformly by about 9 percent over the next seven months.

"It gives no discretion to the managers of the agencies or the administration -- or anyone, for that matter -- to decide which of these programs has greater importance, greater urgency than another," Mr. Toomey said. “There are any number of contrasts and comparisons you could make, but -- in my view -- a government subsidy to Solyndra wouldn't be as high a priority as maintaining air-traffic controllers."

Republicans including Sen. John McCain of Arizona have said that kind of approach relinquishes congressional budgetary authority to the president.

"I say to my Republican friends, if you want to just give the president flexibility as how to enact these cuts in defense spending, then why don't we go home and just give him the money?" Mr. McCain said Sunday during an appearance on CNN.

Mr. Toomey said he tried to ease that concern by including a provision that would give Congress final approval over the cuts President Barack Obama would decide to impose.

"I understand [Mr. McCain's] point, and this is why I have consistently said the Senate ought to do its work. We haven’t been doing budgets these past two years," he said.

"We shouldn't be governing by crisis and governing by [fiscal] cliff. I wish we weren't in this position ... but I'm dealing with the reality that faces us on Friday morning," he said. "I'm trying to make a bad situation less bad."

Democrats say it's inconsistent for senators who have criticized the president's spending priorities to now want to give him more discretion.

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said Republicans are playing politics by forcing the president to take the blame for cuts he's being forced to make. "When the cuts start to affect people, they want to be able to say, 'The president had the flexibility not to do this to you,' " he said.

"There is nothing that Sen. Toomey is doing that improves the situation," Mr. Doyle said. "It's like saying, 'We're going to cut off one of your fingers, but you get to choose which finger.' "

Mr. Obama wants more than the ability to choose where to cut. He also wants more money on the table so he won't have to cut so much. He wants to raise $580 billion in revenue over the next 10 years by closing loopholes and stopping deductions that help the wealthiest taxpayers.

He and other Democrats say the GOP is putting the interests of the wealthy ahead of the needs of the rest of the country by allowing cuts that will reduce essential government services such as funding to Head Start early education, vaccination programs, meat inspections, airport security checks and much more.

"There's no smart way" to cut $85 billion in seven months, Mr. Obama said Tuesday during a public appearance in Newport News, Va. "Do I choose between funding for the disabled kid or the poor kid? Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other one?"

He's looking for additional revenue by closing "wasteful" loopholes and ending deductions he says help only the wealthiest. In exchange, he's willing to cut $930 billion in spending over that period.

The administration has said that if the poor and middle class have to suffer by losing services in order to reduce debt then the wealthy should contribute, too, and that means them paying higher taxes.

Republicans say the rich already are paying more than their fair share.
"Spending always ultimately gets paid for by confiscating [money] from the more productive private sector," Mr. Toomey said during a Senate Budget Committee hearing Tuesday.

Republicans are adamant that they won’t let that happen this time.

"The administration can either go ahead and make very disruptive spending cuts ... or they could support my legislation, which would give them the flexibility and the authority to do this in a way that is least disruptive and does the least harm," Mr. Toomey told reporters Tuesday evening.

"I don't think there's going to be any grand bargain" to avoid the sequester entirely, he said.

Washington bureau chief Tracie Mauriello: tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 703-996-9292.
First Published February 27, 2013 12:00 am
Join the conversation:

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/toomey-draws-up-measure-to-soften-sequester-677058/#ixzz2M4jmCGq0

Canadians set the record straight on historic revisionism

Today’s letters: The Oscar for historical revisionism goes to …

Paul Russell | Feb 26, 2013 1:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 25, 2013 5:00 PM ET
More from Paul Russell | @justapostie NATIONAL POST

Re: Post Oscars, Feb. 25.
Argo’s Oscar win as best picture embodies all of Canada’s factually historic undercover victories, from Wars in 1776 and 1812 to the invention of the light bulb. Ken Taylor’s U.S. recognition and appreciation in 1979 was so over the top that Ben Affleck’s claim of research oversight verges on wilful blindness.
Another Academy Award-winning movie that overlooked Canada was The Longest Day. Our country has the most successful and third-largest battle contingent taking part on D-Day, but our efforts were not even mentioned in the film. To add insult to injury, Ottawa superstar Paul Anka was cast as a U.S. Ranger.
This is no way for a superpower to treat a trusted neighbour. Just because several Hollywood movies feature Edison’s refinement of the light bulb in 1879, doesn’t mean he really didn’t go to Toronto and purchase the first patent of 1874 from its inventors, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans.
According to former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, Canada was 90% responsible for the success of Argo. Still, the Oscar went to its American creators, and once again, Canada, got nothing but the “Golden Fleece.”
Michael John Charette, Oakville, Ont.

How’s this for irony? Two of the contenders for best picture at Sunday’s Academy Awards (Lincoln and Argo) are both significantly wanting in historical accuracy. Lincoln mistakenly portrays Connecticut’s senators as having voted against the abolition of slavery, when in fact they most certainly voted for it. In Argo, the CIA is wrongly given the credit for rescuing six Americans from Iran, when it was the Canadian embassy and its ambassador Ken Taylor’s highly clandestine plan that was responsible for their historic rescue. Even former U.S. president Jimmy Carter recently refuted the movie’s inaccurate portrayal of the incident.

The performances in Argo would have been just as formidable, had they got the documented facts straight.
Victor Redlick, Toronto.

Surprise, surprise! The United States has taken credit for getting six citizens out of Iran in 1979. No wonder — Hollywood is simply a reflection of America. For many Americans, the rest of the world is an afterthought, not worthy of its attention, let alone gratitude. The movie reflects the pervading attitude that the world is America and all else might as well be on another planet.
Argo should not have been nominated, being one of the weaker movies of the year. I’m convinced that if Ben Affleck had been nominated for best director, neither he nor the movie would have received the attention they did and neither would have won in their respective categories. I think the win speaks more to the influence of George Clooney than to the movie’s artistic merits.
Marc Lafleur, Caledon, Ont.

The White House and congressional Republicans intensified their differences Sunday over how to deal with automatic spending cuts slated to take effect Friday, raising the possibility that the political standoff could curtail many government services. GOP leaders insisted in appearances on Sunday talk shows that they were willing to let the budget reductions go into effect, while Democrats sharpened their call for increased taxes.

Why it will be the end of the World as we know it, but I feel fine:

500-Year-Old Machiavelli Arrest Proclamation Discovered in Italy

This week the city of Florence recreated the “Bando,” the official proclamation, which 500 years ago gave any citizen of Florence with any knowledge of the whereabouts of one Niccolo Machiavelli just one hour to report the information to the authorities.

Because at one point Machiavelli was fighting the bad guys!

He lost. And he lost his beloved Florence to the Medici family, aided and abetted by the Pope’s invading army.

So disillusioned, he wrote the political guidebook “The Prince,” declaring that the end justifies the means. That rulers and governments can and should be brutal to defend themselves.

The 500th anniversary of Machiavelli’s book and his arrest is now being marked in Florence.

That’s where we found the man who recently uncovered the “Bando” while researching the role of town criers in Renaissance Italy. Stephen Milner is visiting professor at Harvard’s Center for Renaissance Studies, the Villa I Tatti.

Hear and Now