Minnesota Gov. Dayton says prospects for sequester deal appear dim

  • Article by: Kevin Diaz , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 26, 2013 - 7:13 AM

The meeting of the nation’s governors also saw Dayton named chair of the Midwestern Governors Association.

  • 34
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
endothermFeb. 25, 1310:25 PM

Republicans would rather throw the economy back into recession and cut job training for the unemployed than see taxes rise by one penny. They also treat oil subsidies and big defense contracts like sacred idols. It should now be abundantly clear that they support big money and big business, and the rest of us mean nothing to them.

20
51
yardboyFeb. 25, 1310:40 PM

Hmmmm, Dayton found similarities with Obama in wanting to spend more of other people’s money, now that is shocking.

48
18
rykytrFeb. 25, 1311:47 PM

33 billion. that is all the cuts are this year. 33 billion out of almost 4 TRILLION in spending! That is less than 1%. The idea our government can't trim spending by 1% is unreal. If we can't cut spending by 1%, how are we ever going to cut 1.5 trillion in annual Obama deficits?

48
13
comment229Feb. 26, 13 4:39 AM

This is going to be one of the biggest contributors to people losing their jobs or having them curtailed in some way. Where is Boehner hollering about this as a job killer and proposing other cuts? A few weeks ago, he acknowledged the unfairness of loopholes and offered to close them. Where is that now? Did they go away or are those loopholes for big business still there? Sorry, I am older, and this sequester attacks defense, and leaves social security and medicare alone. Fine with me. My problem is that I see where the brilliant minds in our defense dept. will cut (civilians) instead of where most American WANT to see the cuts made; IE why do we need more tanks when thousands are mothballed? why do we need weapons systems the military doesn't want? why do we insist on military bases around the world instead of one on each continent? Let the madness begin; no wait, that has already begun on both sides of the aisle in D.C..... third political party anyone?

12
28
kilofoxFeb. 26, 13 5:42 AM

Oh no. We will only be able to spend 15 billion more than last year. How will we survive. This is so sad, the lies and deception from Obama. I love the comment "This will throw the economy back into a recession". Don't you have to be out of a recession before you can get thrown back into it. I guess a 7.9% unemployment rate is the Dem's idea of a great economy. 7.9% is the new 4%

38
9
mom2fourFeb. 26, 13 5:49 AM

Everyone has their marching orders in the Democratic Party. The spokespersons for all government agencies do as well. Make this as painful as possible and above all, hype it up as much as possible about how bad this is going to be. In concert, the blame game is being directed at the Republicans - all for maximum political gain. It will work unless we, the people call them on it and see through it for what it is.

36
10
mom2fourFeb. 26, 13 5:55 AM

If you think Obama wants the spending problems fixed, look what he has been doing instead of working with Congress: He took much of last week off to fly around and play golf in Florida. He is now flying around in "campaign mode" trying to hype up how bad this is going to be for the American people. Folks, it's only pocket change out of the vast federal budget. We are still going to spend more in 2013 than in 2012. My God, if we can't even find such a little amount to reduce, how will we ever do what is truly necessary? This is politics people, pure politics.

36
10
kilofoxFeb. 26, 13 6:18 AM

Comment229....This will be one of the biggest contributors to people losing their jobs? No that would be Obama. We will spend 15 billion more this year than last. We aren't even cutting anything, they are simply reducing the increase in spending. Take a deep breathe, your beloved programs will still be here.

33
11
comment229Feb. 26, 13 6:20 AM

"annual Obama deficits" As an independent and former republican, I can honestly say this is NOT a fair statement. If McCain or Romney had been elected president, there still would be a huge deficit problem. Further, spending can be promoted by the POTUS whoever that may be, but it is congress that is responsible for passing these spending programs and cutting them and that is where the frustration begins and ends. Since congress is the problem, and I hear all the time that we need to get rid of the current members, except mine of course, which are perfect, then maybe the solution is to cut funding across the board by 2 to 3 percent to start. A nuclear explosion kind of approach? Well, the scalpel hasn't worked now has it? We need to seriously curtail spending, and the first place we should start is by informing the rest of the world that we are done solving their problems. It is time to take care of American problems, and Americans first.

19
5
jathu001Feb. 26, 13 6:27 AM

The same essential argument comes around again and again. Do we solve the problem by spending cuts only? Or used a balanced approach that asks those who benefit the most from the loopholes to pay a little more by having less loopholes? The fact that the GOP denies the idea of a "balanced approach" is in itself extreme and a failure to compromise. If it were NOT true that the ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations have made off like bandits in recent years, we could understand the argument of spending cuts only. But it just isn't the truth. And you can't deny that the framework of our economy has fundamentally been changed: increasing disparity between the wealthiest and everyone else, decreasing middle class, and all of it resulting in more and more folks needing government help because what else can they do? Though I work three jobs and rarely even use my health care, my skyrocketing premiums over the past decade have absolutely altered my ability to provide for my family, and any possible retirement. Yet the salaries and profits of the CEOs running the health insurance companies are out of control. Why am I "the problem" if it has come to the point where thank God "Obamacare" --government-directed health care reform has become necessary because our system is a mess? Why is Obama the problem? Why are those CEOs and their companies' NOT part of "the problem?" Sheesh. Then some have the nerve to blame the government for having to regulate and rein in these crazy rules in which the few control the many. What if those at the top just played fair and took only their fair share? Or at least just a little bit less? It seems to me that then the government wouldn't have to do so much. I don't dispute some cuts need to be made. But there is definitely more to the story.

9
23

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT