Partisan bickering continues as sequester cuts go into effect
By The Christian Science Monitor
Published: Saturday, March 2, 2013, 9:18 p.m.
The morning after the sequester spending cuts went into effect — “$85 billion in an across-the-board whack to both defense and nondefense programs — the Earth did not stand still nor did Washington come to its collective senses.
Both the White House and Republicans in Congress seemed spent as they sputtered out their political talking points about what everyone agrees is a lousy way to conduct the nation's business.
“It's happening because Republicans in Congress chose this outcome over closing a single wasteful tax loophole that helps reduce the deficit,” President Obama said in his weekly radio/Internet address.
The rebuttal on Saturday morning came from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington.
“The American people know full well that if they give this White House more tax revenue, it will be spent on new stimulus projects and government programs,” Rodgers said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- John Denver tune finally an ‘official’ W.Va. state song
- Spyware in government computers ‘has Russian paw prints all over it’
- Kansas public school funding unconstitutional
- El Nino could bring relief to U.S.
- Former National Security Agency contractor Snowden’s leaks to cost billions, take years to fix
- California man named as bitcoin creator denies involvement
- Great-grandfather takes wrong Conn. boy home from school
- Bin Laden’s son-in-law goes on trial
- Accuser takes stand during court-martial
- Miranda read to sex assault accuser, 14
- ‘Holy grail of guitars’ for sale in April auction