The Sequester fear mongering has been so outrageous and silly that even the mainstream media is taking notice. The president's claim on Friday that the janitors at the capitol will now be working for less pay earned the president four Pinocchios.
Glenn Kessler from the Washington Post gave the president the rating after he made the following comment during a news conference on March 1, 2013:
"Starting tomorrow everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol. Now that Congress has left, somebody's going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. They're going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they've got to figure out how to manage that. That's real."
The announcement must have surely panicked some employees, as damage control was needed to reassure the maintenance workers and security guards that they will not be suffering a pay cut. It is difficult to tease out the actual facts regarding the impact of sequestration, particularly when wild claims are made by the Obama administration. The truth is that if federal government waste was addressed, there would be no need to furlough or lay-off anyone.
As Kessler notes,
"Obama's remarks at the news conference so alarmed Capitol Hill officials that an e-mail was sent by the Capitol building superintendent that comments that people who clean the building would get a cut in pay were 'NOT true.'"
The email said, in part, "Our current sequestration plan does NOT include "reductions in force" or furloughs. The pay and benefits of our employees WILL NOT be impacted as per our current plan."
Kessler continues to say,
"Obama's remarks continue the administration's pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester...nothing in Obama's statement came close to being correct."
The statement was one of many irresponsible and immature comments made by the Obama administration. Sadly, this behavior will likely continue; as now there is a political point to be made. If there is no perceived negative impact of sequestration, the American people may actually realize that there is room for spending cuts in the federal government.
Image Source: Politifact
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 33
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together here. Less maintenance means less hours for maintenance workers, which means less pay. Especially if said workers are accustomed to a certain level of scheduled overtime pay that they depend on as regular income, which is clearly being cut back, according to the above memo from the AOC. Less hours = less pay = Obama not stretching the truth and not being "irresponsible and immature" as some bloggers have claimed.
Obama is deceiving the nation, and half of the people are patting him on the back for doing so. Rocket science is not needed to see that, either…
"We have embedded an image of the first AOC document below. Stephen T. Ayers, the architect of the Capitol, listed a number of steps being taken to reduce expenses, including limiting new hiring and postponing repairs. This line jumped out at us: “We do not anticipate furloughs for AOC employees as a result of Sequestration.”"
"A White House official noted at first that the memo does refer to “further reducing overtime.” Technically, that could mean some janitors might see less pay, but it’s unclear how many actually earn overtime. Under the reasonable person test, a possible reduction in overtime appears a bit different from “just got a pay cut.”
"Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad--and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments.
We originally thought this was maybe a Two Pinocchio rating, but in light of the AOC memo and the confirmation that security guards will not face a pay cut, nothing in Obama’s statement came close to being correct."
According to the AOC memo, Obama is not deceiving the nation. Not to mention, nothing you said addressed the points I made. If you're interested in rational debate, it would be helpful to spend more time thinking of a substantive response rather than blanket ad hominem attacks. If you're not up to the task, I'll understand.
And that is exactly what happened here. For Obama to make a bold declaration like that is not just wrong, but irresponsible, because it is clearly stating that people are getting a pay cut, which was not the case.
It is reminiscent of the speech Obama gave saying:
"Emergency responders like the ones who are here today -- their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded," Obama said. "Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go."
A. Innocent until Proven Guilty
B. Officials will have some discretion about how to make the cuts
C. Obama is exaggerating
D. Budgetary factors have always shaped prosecutorial priorities
"It’s clear that U.S. Attorney’s offices are looking at a potential cut of $101 million, and a reduction of that size would almost certainly cut back on prosecutions in some fashion. However, the impacts are not as clear-cut as Obama’s bold language suggests. Officials will have a fair amount of discretion in prioritizing what types of cases prosecutors will pursue, possibly cutting back on civil cases rather than criminal ones. And the cuts taking place in U.S. Attorney's offices wouldn't directly affect "criminals" at all, but rather suspects and targets of prosecution who haven't had their guilt determined yet. These represent significant exaggerations, so we rate the claim Mostly False."
As I've shown in my initial comment, that is indeed the case.
For example, have you heard anyone in the MSM (aside from Woodward) challenge Obama and Lew about the origination of the sequester?
President Obama and soon-to-be Treasury Secretary Jack Lew both blatantly lied and said the sequester proposal originated in Congress. Why did they do that?
Just like the violence in the occupy movement and labor unions, it was diminished, deflected, denied...., it empowers the bad behavior to continue.
I recently wrote about the alarmism over the Fukushima nuclear accident.
"One of the most egregious examples of alarmism over the Fukushima nuclear accident was probably displayed by Dr. Christopher Busby, who used the occasion to profit personally from the disaster. He championed "a series of expensive products and services which, he claims, will protect people in Japan from the effects of radiation." The Guardian reported that the inability to challenge Busby represented a "long-running failure by people within the green movement." The inevitable alarmists who use disasters to push their agenda, (i.e., never let a crisis go to waste) or to profit personally, degrade the environmental movement. Those who genuinely care about the environment should loudly denounce those within their ranks who inflate or exaggerate findings, incite class-warfare and use their academic credibility to profit personally."
And I've told you numerous times that I couldn't give a rip. Your personal feelings towards me have no bearing on the conversation.
"You agreed with the words of others that you presented."
Wrong. The conclusions drawn were my own, based on empirical evidence that was suppose to show that Obama was lying, which in reality did the exact opposite.
"I have no obligation or even desire to address the points of others you gave, as opposed to your own."
False premise.
"Neither of us need you to guide us through this discussion in determining to what we are allowed or obligated to address with our comments."
Apparently you do, as you've attempted to make the argument personal by the addition of the "people like you" comment. Less personalization, more facts.
Very sad indeed, Vic. Thank you for your comment.
Just think about Benghazi...We should know by now not to be surprised at anything that comes from Obama's lips. I wish Woodward would do research on Benghazi; maybe we would finally see the truth.
Tony Stark Mar 3, 2013, 4:19pm EST
"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together here. Less maintenance means less hours for maintenance workers, which means less pay. Especially if said workers are accustomed to a certain level of scheduled overtime pay that they depend on as regular income, which is clearly being cut back, according to the above memo from the AOC. Less hours = less pay = Obama not stretching the truth and not being "irresponsible and immature" as some bloggers have claimed."
Any takers?
Great suggestion. The lack of media interest is astonishing. Consider the Benghazi survivors - Hillary Clinton testified that there were 25-30 of them - how does she not KNOW how many survivors there were?? How is it possible that these people have not been interviewed? What were the results of the FBI interviews with these survivors? It is INSANE that none of the so-called "watchdogs" are paying attention to this one, simple question.
Sorry, Vic - I missed that - it is definitely the perception they want the LIV to have - sadly, it works. Despite the rampant government waste.
Consider:
In 2012, the "federal government will spend more than$668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure...That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three." Yet, "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty." Clearly, the "war on poverty" needs to be re-evaluated. If the goal for these programs is to reduce poverty, they are an abject failure. Not to mention the fraud and abuse.
Anyone can imagine that there is some fraud with welfare programs, but how much, exactly? All one needs to do is a simple search online to find story after story, week after week of welfare fraud. The actual statistics on Food Stamp fraud are elusive.
Why do you think it is so difficult to find stats on such a massive government program?
In the next few days every little delay or issue will be blown out of proportion and blamed on the sequester cuts. So damn predictable.
Somehow, he thinks that starting with 3T, adding 100 B, minus 20B, is somehow less than 3T?
Since the budget was NOT cut by sequestration, that only means people would not get as big of a increase, or hire as many people as they had hoped.
Unless of course, they WANT to hire more people, and cut wages to make up for it - which is exactly what has been done so far.
A**hole can not closed what does not belong to him.