# Sequestration and the “fiscal cliff” **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 12, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106 "2013-02-12T19:16:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/121 "2013-03-02T13:31:56Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > This is just silly. Maybe you should ask yourself what is bigger, $40 billion per month or $85 billion per year. Then once you have your answer, you could check and see if there was any news on the bigger of those items that might have caused Wall Street to be happy. Was there recent news about prolonging Fed quantitative easing through bond buy-backs or something? Serious question. ---
**Author:** ![It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/it_s_not_rocket_surgery/32/312_2.png) [@It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/It_s_Not_Rocket_Surgery)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/122 "2013-03-02T17:38:51Z")
I saw that the President signed the sequestration order last night. Would it have made any difference if he hadn’t signed it? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/123 "2013-03-03T22:32:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, it isn’t the free market. Actually, yes, it is. The Patent Office competes with other options (trade secrecy, non-secrecy). Your argument is equivalent to asserting that there is no free market in Coca-Cola (an example of a company that made the free-market decision to go the trade-secret route, BTW) because you can only get it from one source – not so; the fact that you can drink Pepsi or abstain instead suffices to bring this example into the “free market” category. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/124 "2013-03-04T04:03:38Z")
Your counterpoint to the legal process that has allowed inventors to get large settlements and judgments from multinational corporations that stole their intellectual property is that not all brands of sugar water taste exactly alike? That’s it? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/125 "2013-03-04T15:42:51Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Was there recent news about prolonging Fed quantitative easing through bond buy-backs or something? Serious question. Yes there was recent news. Following the latest FOMC meeting, there was discussion about ending the QE asset purchase program early. Essentially the market was spooked both about the potential for tapering off or ending the program earlier than expected as well as internal divisions at the Fed. This caused the market to sell off over a few day period. On 2/27, however, Bernanke met before a congressional committee and defended the Fed’s purchase program and said that a strong majority of the Fed supported the program. This caused the market to rally on 2/27. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/126 "2013-03-04T15:52:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, hoss, maybe the real answer is that simple. First time for everything, I guess. Yep, it really is that simple. I’m kind of curious how anyone could possibly see it any differently. Why do you think the stock market is at an all-time high, some reason other than the Fed pumping a few trillion dollars into the market? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/127 "2013-03-04T19:55:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Your counterpoint to the legal process that has allowed inventors to get large settlements and judgments from multinational corporations that stole their intellectual property Er, it’s traditional to post evidence for _your_ position, not evidence for the _other guy’s_ position. Oh, well, saves me the trouble of pointing out that the Patent Office survives if, and only it, its work does in fact provide return for its customers, as it the way of the free market. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/128 "2013-03-04T20:40:07Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Er, it’s traditional to post evidence for _your_ position, not evidence for the _other guy’s_ position. Oh, well, saves me the trouble of pointing out that the Patent Office survives if, and only it, its work does in fact provide return for its customers, as it the way of the free market. My position is that there is no competition for inherently governmental services, because by law no private organization can provide them, thus there is no market for those types of services. I think liberals and conservatives agree on this: liberals think government services are too important to turn over to the vultures of the private sector, and conservatives complain that lazy government workers don’t have to face market pressures. ETA: I think the idea that there is a market in which there is only one provider (whether it’s a private sector monopoly or a public service) because one can either buy the goods/services or not, stretches to the breaking point the idea of what a market is. I find the idea simply unconvincing that people vote with their pocketbooks against services like obtaining patents, getting construction permits, or registering their cars, and that such actions force a supply/demand equilibrium to determine prices. By definition, reimbursable operations costs are set by political processes in government agencies. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/129 "2013-03-05T23:46:29Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > HA! The numbers in the first link are a few years out of date, but will give you the general idea. In short - the Park Service Budget is around $3 Billion a year and we get to keep about $250 Million of the fees collected. > > [Budget (U.S. National Park Service)](http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm) > > You want to read it all - here is the FY 13 budget. 465 pages of fun. > > [http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY13\_NPS\_Greenbook.pdf](http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY13_NPS_Greenbook.pdf) That’s sort of my point. The parks SHOULD be profitable. I’m not a blind partisan who wants to privatize everything. Let the government or private industry do it. But if I own Yellowstone freaking Park or Gettysburg Battlefield, I can make some money off of that. There’s no reason to close down these parks when thousands of people are descending on them with money in hand. If the government is unable to run these parks at a profit, then maybe there is something to this privatization idea. A private company could run a balance sheet and see what was needed for admission to Yellowstone. A central planner who sets a fee by fiat? Not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/130 "2013-03-06T00:36:28Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > That’s sort of my point. The parks SHOULD be profitable. You’re right! So should the fucking cops. Blood sucking bastards. I don’t need them near as much as the very rich (and very poor), let them pay for police service sufficient to their needs and so will I. Or maybe. Just maybe, there are some things that as a society we should pay for together without worrying about a profit motive. I would include Parks in that rubric. You wouldn’t apparently. Which makes me wonder what you would that doesn’t directly benefit you. I suspect not much. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/131 "2013-03-06T00:49:51Z")
> [@It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](#): > > I saw that the President signed the sequestration order last night. > Would it have made any difference if he hadn’t signed it? Why wouldn’t he sign it? It was his idea! > [@](#): > > None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.” > **[White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/03/white-house-admits-third-time-president-obama-fibbed-on-sequester/)** > > Despite this conclusive evidence that Obama himself proposed the sequester, the media sat on its hands. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/132 "2013-03-06T01:06:19Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > You’re right! So should the fucking cops. Blood sucking bastards. I don’t need them near as much as the very rich (and very poor), let them pay for police service sufficient to their needs and so will I. > > Or maybe. Just maybe, there are some things that as a society we should pay for together without worrying about a profit motive. I would include Parks in that rubric. You wouldn’t apparently. Which makes me wonder what you would that doesn’t directly benefit you. I suspect not much. I don’t understand the hostility or the strawman. I understand that police benefit us all. The parks are a recreation activity that could be managed competently and make a profit. Protection from criminals v. recreation at Yellowstone are not at all equal. My simple point was that sequestration, in order to cut the budget, shouldn’t apply to things that are profitable on their face. And if, as a prior poster pointed out, Yellowstone isn’t profitable on its face, then it should be. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/133 "2013-03-06T01:16:55Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Yellowstone isn’t profitable on its face, then it should be. Why should it be? See I would say rather that (user-fees being assumed) the cost to enter Yellowstone should be exactly balanced to the cost of maintaining it. Why should Yellowstone users get taxed to pay for other things like SSDI? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/134 "2013-03-06T01:42:01Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Why should it be? See I would say rather that (user-fees being assumed) the cost to enter Yellowstone should be exactly balanced to the cost of maintaining it. Why should Yellowstone users get taxed to pay for other things like SSDI? Because it’s a valuable asset with potential to make a profit. Why should the government cut the profit to make it revenue neutral? Should Walt Disney (if he was still alive) build an amusement park to break even for the sake of the public? Or, I would guess you would say that the government should do that for some reason. Why? The state profits on every candy bar I buy at the convenience store through a sales tax. Why shouldn’t they profit through a purely recreational activity that is voluntarily and user funded? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/135 "2013-03-06T01:59:57Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Why wouldn’t he sign it? It was his idea!..] It is rare to see such prescience as the author of the linked article displays, tying together the seemingly unrelated threads of Benghazigate, class war, Obamacare and the sequester. But clearly Obama has been opposed to the sequester as it slouched to Congress to be born, yes? So, if it was his idea, but the Republicans insisted on making it happen over his objections, that means its his responsibility? Or what, perzackly? Are you saying that if Obama had just admitted it was his idea, but that his idea sucked and they shouldn’t make it happen, they wouldn’t have? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/136 "2013-03-06T02:03:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Because it’s a valuable asset with potential to make a profit. Why should the government cut the profit to make it revenue neutral? Should Walt Disney (if he was still alive) build an amusement park to break even for the sake of the public? Or, I would guess you would say that the government should do that for some reason. Why? The state profits on every candy bar I buy at the convenience store through a sales tax. Why shouldn’t they profit through a purely recreational activity that is voluntarily and user funded? Because it was paid for already by the taxpayers. Walt used his own money (or his investors) to build his park. Why should we have to pay profit tax on something we already paid to buy in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/137 "2013-03-06T02:13:22Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > That’s sort of my point. The parks SHOULD be profitable. . . . if I own Yellowstone freaking Park or Gettysburg Battlefield, I can make some money off of that . . . One big concern is making the parks into “theme parks.” You may remember the furore when Disney talked about building an historical park near the Antietam battleground. We basically don’t want thrill rides and gambling casinos popping up all over Yellowstone. By emphasizing the fairly austere natural beauty of the place, and discouraging “improvements,” we artificially limit the possible profit. This, in turn, suggests either public operation, or very limited and regulated private concessions. I actually do approve of private concessions companies operating the parks. I just want their operations very strictly and tightly controlled. Private “ownership” is right out. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/138 "2013-03-06T02:47:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I actually do approve of private concessions companies operating the parks. I just want their operations very strictly and tightly controlled. Private “ownership” is right out. We’re doing that right now in Florida at the State Parks. The result? Lost revenue to the State. All we’ve done is move the “use tax” from the State to private companies. Great deal for the taxpayers. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/139 "2013-03-06T05:35:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It is rare to see such prescience as the author of the linked article displays, tying together the seemingly unrelated threads of Benghazigate, class war, Obamacare and the sequester. > > But clearly Obama has been opposed to the sequester as it slouched to Congress to be born, yes? So, if it was his idea, but the Republicans insisted on making it happen over his objections, that means its his responsibility? Or what, perzackly? > > Are you saying that if Obama had just admitted it was his idea, but that his idea sucked and they shouldn’t make it happen, they wouldn’t have? Here’s another view from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker with timeline and quotes. Obama thought he could use the sequester to force more tax reform and the Republicans let it go through without additional tax concessions. For the administration to paint this as a Republican idea is just a flat out lie. The prez owns this one. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314\_blog.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/140 "2013-03-06T06:46:14Z")
No, what your “fact checker” asserts is that the idea _originated_ with the WH. That’s as may be. However, Congress is perfectly entitled to say “No!”. Or even “Fuck no! That’s a totally stupid idea!” And your favored timeline ends back in 2011. Did anything happen since then? Seem to recall Obama pretty strongly opposing it. But he still “owns” it because he rammed it down the Republican’s throats? They didn’t want to, but he made them do it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106.md?page=8)