DescentBB

A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama's political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

The response noted that the administration had already told Congress that the APHIS would “eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry” without additional funds.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tim Griffin said the administration’s response to Brown’s email shows a bid to undermine efforts to replace the cuts, known as sequester, with less onerous ones.

“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the sequester cuts for political gain,” Griffin said in a statement.

From:
Brown, Charles S
-
APHIS
Sent:
Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To:[redacted]
Cc:[redacted]
Subject:
FW: Aquaculture loss
-
sequestration
All,
During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the
sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region).
The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS.
The response back was, “
We have gone on record with a
notification to Congress and whoever else that “APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers
in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide
funding to cover the costs.“
So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you
need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000
aquaculture reduction.
I will use the information you have already provided.
If I need additional information, I will let you know.
Charlie

Charles S. Brown
Eastern Regional Director
USDA
-
APHIS
-
Wildlife Services
920 Main Campus Drive
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27606

"Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013, until further notice," the recording said. "Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours ... We very much regret having to take this action, particularly during the popular spring touring season."

Obama, fresh off his November reelection, began almost at once executing plans to win back the House in 2014, which he and his advisers believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president. He is doing so by trying to articulate for the American electorate his own feelings — an exasperation with an opposition party that blocks even the most politically popular elements of his agenda.

Obama has committed to raising money for fellow Democrats, agreed to help recruit viable candidates, and launched a political nonprofit group dedicated to furthering his agenda and that of his congressional allies. The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama’s thinking.

“The president understands that to get anything done, he needs a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “To have a legacy in 2016, he will need a House majority in 2014, and that work has to start now.”

Merriam-Webster. wrote:Definition of DEMAGOGUE
1
: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

CUDA wrote:

Merriam-Webster. wrote:Definition of DEMAGOGUE
1
: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

callmeslick wrote:definition of blind stupidity: Trying to imply Obama fits the definition of demagogue.

look, the idea of managing this is to not hurt people, but I admit, it is meant to bring the public's attention to what good comes of 'discretionary' spending.
I see little beyond inconvenience in the White House Tour thing, yet it saves some money. As for the Ag dept curtailing wildlife control, it is less harmful than stopping food testing, for instance.......once, again, you all are getting political yourselves in your reaction, and far more so than is the Obama administration in trying to make the cuts. If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free to suggest lest impactful ways to cut discretionary spending by 6.9% in the areas not off-limits by the way the law was written.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Merriam-Webster. wrote:Definition of DEMAGOGUE
1
: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

I'm afraid I agree. Too much crap is leaking out of the political woodwork.

callmeslick wrote:definition of blind stupidity: Trying to imply Obama fits the definition of demagogue.

look, the idea of managing this is to not hurt people, but I admit, it is meant to bring the public's attention to what good comes of 'discretionary' spending.
I see little beyond inconvenience in the White House Tour thing, yet it saves some money. As for the Ag dept curtailing wildlife control, it is less harmful than stopping food testing, for instance.......once, again, you all are getting political yourselves in your reaction, and far more so than is the Obama administration in trying to make the cuts. If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free to suggest lest impactful ways to cut discretionary spending by 6.9% in the areas not off-limits by the way the law was written.

What they are maximizing in the cuts is merely the visibility

callmeslick wrote:they're doing no such thing, actually, CUDA. What they are maximizing in the cuts is merely the visibility. If they wanted to make them most painful, they could have cut things like unemployment benefits, healthcare, childcare subsidies, large-scale military contracts. For the moment, they are clearly holding off on the really painful cuts, but making sure word gets out on the minor stuff they are cutting. Painting it in any other way is sort of silly.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:they're doing no such thing, actually, CUDA. What they are maximizing in the cuts is merely the visibility. If they wanted to make them most painful, they could have cut things like unemployment benefits, healthcare, childcare subsidies, large-scale military contracts. For the moment, they are clearly holding off on the really painful cuts, but making sure word gets out on the minor stuff they are cutting. Painting it in any other way is sort of silly.

That is bullcrap!
They aren't putting off anything, the legislation dictates when it hits, and the percentage of the reduction in the scheduled budget increase is to be applied evenly to all programs, projects and activities. If the White House wanted to apply some helpful applications to the "cuts" they would have accepted the House's offer for an amendment to allow that but Obama chose to refuse the option and instead demagogue the issue saying he 'doesn't want to decide which child doesn't get fed'. And he would have allowed the APHIS agent in NC to apply some logic to them instead of instructing him to make sure the impact was NOT lessened by his methods!

You are doing a pathetic job of trying to spin excuses for Obama in what is obviously a complete political stunt. Why do you want to be so wrong?

Will Robinson wrote:Leaking out or taking place?!?
It sounds like you lament their exposure not their actions!

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Leaking out or taking place?!?
It sounds like you lament their exposure not their actions!

No, I definitely lament their actions. I like to see a people play fair and not resort to dirty tricks. But when the other side plays dirty, well.................

CUDA wrote:So the president is minimizing the pain of scarqeuester according to some.
Well days before it goes into effect he trots out Napolitano to tell how bad travel will become because of these cuts and how they are going yo have to furlough workers to cover the shortfall. Yet the night before scarequester the TSA spends 50 million on new uniforms.
And plus they release prisoners from jail. Sounds minimized to me

woodchip wrote:I asked this in another thread. Does anyone here know how govt.budgets work?

callmeslick wrote:seems to be a disconnect between how it's supposed to work and how it works in practice.

Given the average credit-card debt among U.S. citizens, I think the national budget reflects the normal household budget pretty well...

CobGobbler wrote:Move to another country if this one is so bad.

Foil wrote:Given the average credit-card debt among U.S. citizens, I think the national budget reflects the normal household budget pretty well...

Will Robinson wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Move to another country if this one is so bad.

Or make it better.

woodchip wrote:Well since even slick has missed this part of the budget game, let me bring it to light. The question is, what happens if a manager runs his dept. well and has excess money from the budget? Now being as you are all honest folks your first inclination would be to turn the excess money in to help with debt and future budgets. Well you'd be wrong. The good mgr. takes the excess money and spends it...every last bit of it. Why? Because the way govt. budgets are set up, if you turn money in your budget for the next year will be cut by a equal amount. So there is no incentive for a well run dept that is frugal and can save money. Now add this up across a million different depts and you can began to see where some of the waste is generated. As slick points out, govt. budgets are indeed different from your budgets. Where-as you look for ways to save money, govt. mgrs. are looking for ways to spend money so at the end of the year they get the same budget plus that annual increase.