Does this remind anyone else of the Clinton / Gingrich budget battles in the mid-1990s? My memory is that didn't go well for Republicans back then. Why would this go around be any different?

I remember when the state parks lost part of their funding. First thing to go was grass cuting and garbage pickup. They want you to notice. Same thing here. The Republicians need to publicize the cuts the House proposed and the Senate sat on.

It's curious that the end of the federal government as we know it is near when the cuts under sequestration are less than increase from last years spending.
Why it makes me think someone isn't being honest...

Doesn't sequestration sound like a bad medical side effect? "Warning: this product may cause anal leakage and sequestration."

It's good to know that - even in these tense times - our leading Democratic pundits over at Blue Oregon are fine-tuning the process. Kari has come up with a way to solve the inequities of the electoral college. I wish I could say this was a bit from the Onion but I think Kari is being serious here:

If we were to double the size of the House to 870 members, the Electoral College would go to 974 -- and the disproportionate effect of the Senate would be cut in half. Nationwide, each electoral vote would correspond to 318,792 people. Each of Wyoming's four electoral votes would represent 142,075 people - down to just 2.2x their appropriate representation.

If we were to triple the size of the House to 1305 members, the Electoral College would go to 1409 -- and the disproportionate effect of the Senate would be cut even further. Nationwide, each electoral vote would correspond to 220,091 people. Each of Wyoming's four electoral votes (yup, still four) would still represent 142,075 people - now down to just 1.5x their appropriate representation.

And incidentally, if we were to double the House, Oregon would actually jump from 5 members to 11 - and tripling would get us to 16. We're one of the states that has absurdly overstuffed congressional districts (having missed a sixth seat in 2010 by just 45,000 residents.)
Of course, doubling or tripling the size of the House would have all sorts of other unintended consequences. But if we're talking about redrawing state lines after every census, well, mine is the less-crazy idea of the week.

1305 members of the House of Representaives? That's the less-crazy idea of the week? No, Kari, try the most crazy idea of the new millennium.

As to whether states could move money around to cover shortfalls, the White House said that depends on state budget structures and the specific programs.

This doesn't bode well for the CRC bridge, dependent on federal dollars. Might be a stop to those light rail projects the people don't want to pay for.

Brakes may need to be put on all kind of questionable projects throughout our country.

Back to basics.
Course we have a history here of elected officials who like the "big projects" and not having to really be accountable for finances so they go on spending sprees.

The nutjobs who want to shutdown Hillsboro airport must be drooling and will be dancing in the streets once this happens.

Looks like that anal leakage had an outbreak over at Blue Oregon, Bill. Good thing I sequestered myself from their irrelevant chat room years ago. Meanwhile, back in D.C., The Greediest Show On Earth plays on. D's & R's adding up to a bunch of mad DR's....

There was actually an Onion piece that was picked up as real in China about a retractable dome for the Capitol building. Doesn't Kari's idea sound like the start of another Onion piece: "Capitol building to be torn down and replaced by one 3 times the size to accommodate 1305 Representatives."

It's tough for me to imagine an idea this ridiculous coming from an alumnus of a fine school like USC.

Last time I looked the executive decides how to implement cuts within broad and barely binding constraints. Look at last quarter's GDP data; when the executive wanted to cut spending quietly and without notable disruption the lawyer who you adore reduced defense defense spending last quarter by 22 percent. Now the manipulative, game playing phony is coming out. Congratulations! Obama is wonderful! We are so blessed!

Obama's bad, but not as bad as the dolts on the Hill. You might try running a decent candidate for the White House three years from now. If you can find one.

No rep, senator or the Pres wants to cut spending $0.01.
They cant come up with a budget in 4
$85b out of 4t(I think that is the annual spend) is like 2%.
We don't have even 2% waste in this govt
It looks like the only thing we can do is shut down stuff we want
I think we are being manipulated

I once played the other guy is worse game myself. I dropped it a long time ago when I realized it would destroy my children's future. Needless to say, adopting that view made me very unpopular within the federal establishment. Obama is destroying my children's future and anyone who supports him is part of that.

I think we are being manipulated

Absolutely. Consider this, virtually over night Ronald Reagan fired 11,000 out of 13,000 air traffic controllers and kept the system going with only minor disruptions. Obama is confronted with minor budget constraints that he had a year and a half to plan for; he is shutting down air traffic control. Obama is a complete player, nothing is real in his world. Obama finances his make believe by having Ben print the money and Timmy borrow it, so he can spend. That works until it collapses calamitously.

BTW, if we dropped the CRC ($4B) that'd be 5% of the total national cuts right there.

It just irks you that nay one of these parties can propose cuts (even Mr Obama who runs the executive side) yet they will bray all day long about how the other guy is not doing it. Or if they do give cuts, like Ryan (this is not a Ryan endorsement beyond his suggestion of cuts), they'll jump on it to say why not.

We're screwed.

It's pretty obvious most of the media have bought into the Obama Administration's lies about these budget cuts. They are also very bad at math; especially when these so-called "cuts" represent about 3% of the total Federal budget - and some of them are nothing more than budgeted increases from the 2011-2012 budget. I say let them happen.

Only in government is a brief slowing in the rate of "INCREASED SPENDING" considered a "CUT".

We are doomed.

Both sides of the aisle are essentially delusional. Dems think you can spend your way out of a spending problem. Repubs think they can starve the patient in order to save them.

None of them have the guts or intelligence to tackle the key issues:

1) An out of control military/intelligence/big brother cartel
2) An out of control banking cartel
3) An out of control medical cartel

But these are the cartels that run and control congress, so no surprise that they will sink the country before any meaningful stewardship.

Tim,
I realize what you mean but the problem isn't an out of control banking cartel. It's a banking cartel that's in control.

I can't figure out how cutting the rate of budget increases is a spending cut.

The media and politicians keep repeating this misnomer. All last week, and especially this weekend on all the news programs, the participants kept repeating this falsehood. Why can't it be framed correctly? The Republicans are even involved in this deception.

"None of them have the guts or intelligence to tackle the key issues"

If I may add, none of them have a deep enough re-election fund to ignore these guys.

On more thing, we can sell that GM stock we paid $50B for for $25B (30% of $85B) and get some of it back since GM is such a great success.

We're screwed.

"I say let them happen."

I'd agree - Except for one thing, they'll cut the most visible things (aka Washington Monument syndrome).

As far as any of this slowing down spending or cutting waste, that's bottom priority to them.

If the cockeyed scheme of adding more legislators actually becomes reality, any new building design should include three rings and a trapeze because we'd have an even bigger circus for sure.

.....cartel that's in control.

They like strings, watching too much "Punch and Judy" when kids?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy

And incidentally, if we were to double the House, Oregon would actually jump from 5 members to 11 - and tripling would get us to 16.

Yeah, and Florida would jump from 27 members to 54 - and tripling would get them to 81.

Texas would jump from 35 members to 70 - and tripling would get them to 105.

Oregon would still get drowned out. What an idiot.

Do numbers really matter, so what if we have more representatives if they are made out of the same cloth and operating within the same system that assures their place?