the oscars to me, and so it qualifies as the best new thing in the world to me. it is time for the last word with lawrence o donnell, have a great night. and the oscar for best performance for people who claim to hate the government but secretly can t get enough goes to hold on, this is very exciting, america. these cuts do not have to happen. mr. president you got your tax increase. with four days until the sequester deadline. both sides are laying the groundwork to see who bleeds. the idea here is to fix the problem. both sides bought into this plan. there is no leadership from the president. the president proposed the sequester. he came from the white house and the president s aides. i got 98% of what i wanted, i m happy. death by a thousand cuts. do not have to happen. i would look to the states for action. find another way to do it. and get it done now.
i don t understand why liberals would prefer to fund the government through a mechanism that hit charities, the housing industry and high tax states than by cutting defense spending. and i don t understand why republicans prefer to cut defense spending than to hit charities, high tax, mostly through blue states that get subsidiz subsidized. the sequester is bad policy, terrible economic policy. i would like to get rid of it altogether. but if we keep it, we absolutely have to give the agencies the ability to make decisions about how to make those cuts. but if we did that, and we can t get rid of it, if we gave agencies that discretion, then if you give me a choice between 5 billion by cutting spending on homes and charities and state and local taxes, i think i would take the defense cuts. every other time we ended our wars we have brought defense spending way down. if this time is different, if we allow ourselves to get trapped
that hit charities, the housing industry and high tax states than by cutting defense spending. and i don t understand why republicans prefer to cut defense spending than to hit charities, high tax, mostly through blue states that get subsidized. the sequester is bad policy, terrible economic policy. i would like to get rid of it altogether. but if we keep it, we absolutely have to give the agencies the ability to make decisions about how to make those cuts. but if we did that, and we can t get rid of it, if we gave agencies that discretion, then if you give me a choice between 5 billion by cutting spending on homes and charities and state and local taxes, i think i would take the defense cuts. every other time we ended our wars we have brought defense spending way down. if this time is different, if we allow ourselves to get trapped in a mind set of being in a permanent war and require the
we want a little bit of space, but damn if we don t want to keep it around. a majority of people said they actually want to increase spending in two category. 53% want to spend more on veteran s benefits, and 60% want to spend more on education. education, which by the way, gets hit pretty hard by the sequester. now, maybe we need to change or relationship status rather than our policies. because the american people actually seem to like the services the federal government provides. and they approve of the spending the federal government does to provide the services, rightly or wrongly they approve. that is the reality. and that is the problem that the republicans are facing. the house republicans did pass a plan to replace this year s sequester with other spending cuts, passing the house in december. it would abolish the defense cuts and move the $1.2 trillion cuts entirely, entirely to the discretionary spending side. now, for the record, only 19 categories of the pew polled are
have five basic goals, number one, they say is cut the deficit. number two, cut entitlement spending. number three, protect defense spending and possibly even increase it. four, make the tax code simple by cleaning out deductions and loopholes. and five, five of course is always lower tax rates. now, the white house is able to cut a deal with republicans that accomplish one, two, three, four, it wouldn t lower tax rates but it will do all the other things. republicans won t entertain that deal. they say no, no, we prefer the sequester instead of one, two, three, and four. they get much less than a larger deal, they won t touch entitlement spending really at all. they will see defense spending go through an incredibly big cut. rather than striking a deal with the white house and accomplish four of their five, they re accomplishing part of one, one,