By now you have probably heard that Rep. Billy Long (R-7) thinks that Missourians really want the sequester to hit harder – the cuts weren’t deep enough to satisfy them:

“The people that I’ve talked to seem to be doing well. In fact, when I got [sic] out in restaurants here in town [i.e. in Springfield], people come up to me. They want to see more sequestration, not less,” he said, according to KOLR 10 television.

At least now we know where Billy does his constituent outreach. Nevertheless, it’s not hard to make the case that when it comes to economic pain, he’s talking to the wrong people. Yesterday, we outlined here some sequestration cuts that have already hit home, and, as Think Progress notes, the pain has just barely gotten started:

… Cuts to defense spending will hurt the state, which is home to two large installations, Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base. Whiteman officials have already cut flight training time by 10 percent, eliminated non-essential travel, and frozen civilian hiring.

The pain could pick up speed as the year continues. The state’s Head Start program is likely to drop 1,200 children in total, and its education system overall will lose $11.9 million in funding, putting 160 education jobs at risk, serving 17,000 fewer students, and funding 60 fewer schools. Up to 8,000 civilian defense employees could be furloughed, resulting in the loss of $40 million in wages. A variety of other programs will lose significant money, including meals for seniors, air and water protection, domestic violence services, job search assistance programs, and law enforcement and public safety.

Of course Billy’s budget cutting fervor has its limits. When asked late in February if congressmen should have their pay cut in the same way that sequestration would cut other federal employees pay, Billy just couldn’t see it:

Asked if he should have to take a pay cut in his $174,000 salary, Long tells a CNN reporter, “I don’t think so. Raise our pay.”

To be fair, this sentiment, sincere though it may have been, was directly contradicted by a press release that Billy had circulated a few days earlier in which he took credit for voting for H.R. 273, calling for cuts to the pay of all federal workers, including congressmen – which, it seems,  he really did. So what was behind this vote? Was Long confused, or did he just give in to peer pressure and go along with the GOP majority to get along? I guess they don’t call it “lock-step” for nothing. But it’s gratifying to learn that it hurt him to do it.

UPDATE:Seems Billy really has been hearing from all the wrong people – plenty of his constituents aren’t too happy about his take on what’s happening in his district vis-a-vis the sequester cuts.

Also, The Erstwhile Conservative’s Duane Graham, who I believe is a resident of Billy’s hometown, Springfield, provides some insights on how and where Billy gathers his insights – such as restaurants serving 30 dollar entrees.

 

Via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Am voting on a bill to force the FAA to reprioritize their $ to prevent furloughs of air traffic cont.s and reopen contract control towers. 9:05 AM – 26 Apr 13

Yeah, right:

FAA Sequester Reprieve: The Start of Things to Come?

By David Hawkings Posted at 11:42 a.m. April 26

Congress moved quickly today toward putting a stop to the air-traffic-controller furloughs. It won’t be the last such backstop effort to skirt the dreaded sequester knife, though it may be the fastest.

Today’s action means that lawmakers will be subjected to only one more sequester-delayed trip home, and perhaps they won’t be buffeted by town-meeting turbulence during the coming recess. But members are sure to be chastised for making an exception to their tough budget rules that only makes life more convenient for themselves and their business constituents.

The House arranged this morning for expedited enactment of legislation the Senate passed Thursday night, albeit on a rushed voice vote after several budgetary hard-liners at each end of the political spectrum had left town….

[emphasis added]

This vote was recorded:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 125

H R 1765      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      26-Apr-2013      12:13 PM

     QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

     BILL TITLE: Reducing Flight Delays Act

[….]

—- YEAS    361 —

Clay

Cleaver

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Luetkemeyer

Wagner

—- NAYS    41 —

Long

[emphasis added]

Never underestimate the drive to get home without a flight delay.

Greg Sargent writes today:

The Republican strategy on sequestration has been clear for months now: sequestration is terrific because spending cuts are good…and every specific program cut by sequestration is a terrible injustice that Barack Obama should have avoided.

Many of Missouri’s Republican political contingent, folks like new-minted Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2), who were adamantly unwilling to entertain meaningful compromise when the sequester was still a gleam in the Tea Party’s eye, and who strutted around demanding spending cuts and no, never, under any circumstances, new revenue, are, now that they’ve got their cuts, trying to confuse the issue by talking about “Obama’s sequester.”  GOPers are also jumping on specific unpopular and damaging cuts – first they wept about curtailing White House tours and now they’re rending their hair about the furlough of large numbers of air traffic controllers. They want us to believe that they they’re blameless and if the Obama administration only cared enough or were smart enough they’d cut something else instead. But guess what? President Obama is powerless to pick and choose what to cut:

What is happening now is what the law requires, nothing less and nothing more. The president has no choice but to follow it.

Here’s what the laws and the technical analyses say. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 897 non-defense “budget accounts” — and the thousands of “programs, payments and activities” within them — shall be cut by the “same percentage.”

That hasn’t stopped our GOP pols from pretending that it was or is all avoidable. Ann Wagner, for instance, wants us to know that she “offered solutions to replace his [i.e. Obama’s] sequester with responsible cuts and reforms” – which, Wagner being such a reasonable member of the extreme right wing, otherwise known as the GOP, were surely ignored out of pure willfulness, don’t you think?

Another Missouri GOPer, Senator Roy Blunt, has been far cagier. He wants President Obama to really own these Republican spending cuts because, once they go into effect, nobody but nobody is going to like them:

Last week, Blunt introduced the “Essential Services Act of 2013,” which would protect American jobs and public safety by ensuring “essential” federal employees like air traffic controllers continue to provide vital services. The bill, which Senate Democrats blocked as an amendment to the continuing resolution (CR) last month, would give the Obama Administration the flexibility it claims it does not have to apply the same standards used during occurrences of inclement weather or other government shutdowns to the sequestration cuts to each agency.

This effort by Blunt and Wagner to trick us into thinking that that if it weren’t for President Obama and his  Democratic minions we could have our budget cake and eat just as well as we always have is just downright silly. As Sargent notes:

… It may be true that no one specifically wants to shut down air traffic control, or the FBI, or food inspections, or the military … but once you start really looking at that list, what you find is that the level of cuts involved mean that something that “nobody” wants to cut will in fact have to be cut.

The truth is that sequestration cuts – which are significant enough already – already represent significantly lower levels of cutting spending than what House Republicans wanted. Some Tea Partiers in the House voted against them because they were not severe enough. And don’t forget: the budgets that Republicans have been voting for, year after year, promise to entirely wipe out non-defense discretionary spending over the long term. All of it.

Now, it’s true that if you ask Republicans whether they support this cut or that cut, at least the ones that affect their supporters, they’ll claim that, no, they only want to do away with waste, fraud, abuse, and foreign aid. But that’s not what their budgets say. It’s not what their rhetoric says, either.

I believe that almost every one of our Missouri GOP House members voted for that GOP budget that would, as Sargent correctly notes, “wipe out non-defense discretionary spending over the long term. All of it.” I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of hearing them squawk now that the chickens they enabled are on their way to Missouri. Is it too much to ask these charlatans to stand up and take responsibility for what they’ve done – not to mention what they’re still trying to do?

“…Every summer thousands of American school children make their way to Washington DC to see their government in action and visit the People’s House…”

Somehow, “you ruined our family vacation” doesn’t sound convincing as an argument for establishing budget priorities. A petition at the White House site:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

reinstate the public tours of the White House. This is the people’s house and they deserve the opportunity to tour it!

The White House is also known as the People’s House because it belongs to the American people. Every year thousands of Americans have come to see where our president works. Every summer thousands of American school children make their way to Washington DC to see their government in action and visit the People’s House. Unfortunately, due to Congress’ inability to work with the president and pass a sensible budget the President has chosen to save money by stopping the tours of the White House, thus denying the American people the opportunity to see how their tax dollars have supported the Executive Branch of our government. Using the American people as a pawn in this budget fight is patently wrong and we request the immediate reinstatement of the tours of the White House.

Created: Mar 30, 2013

Signatures needed by April 29, 2013 to reach goal of 100,000 99,251

Total signatures on this petition 749

Uh, taxation is the price we pay for civilization. People might want to remember that the next time they plan their family vacation after voting to keep right wingnut obstructionists in office.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): missing the point, again (March 6, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): a foolish consistency… (March 10, 2013)

….Think about that for a moment. EPA expenditures (of a relatively modest amount) which might ostensibly have a positive effect on the global environment (after all, we do live on the same planet) are bad, tours of the White House by foreign nationals are good….

Got it. Budget priorities.

From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP):

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits

Economic Recovery Measures, Financial Rescues Have Only Temporary Impact

By Kathy Ruffing and Joel Friedman

Updated February 28, 2013

Federal deficits and debt have been sharply higher under President Obama, but the evidence continues to show that the Great Recession, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficits that have occurred on Obama’s watch – based on the latest Congressional Budget Office projections as well as legislation enacted since we last issued this analysis of what lies behind current deficits and debt.

Though some lawmakers and pundits continue to blame record deficits on the President’s policies in general – and his actions to boost the economy and stabilize the financial system in particular – these policies increase budget deficits only briefly; they will have no significant impact on the long-term problem of large deficits and rising debt….

….Although longer-term pressures on spending stem chiefly from an aging population and rising health-care costs, those pressures are not new.  Policymakers knew about them when they enacted the Bush-era tax cuts and assented to fighting two wars on borrowed money.  (These pressures also were taken into account in the Congressional Budget Office projections issued at the start of 2001, which showed budget surpluses for the next several decades.)

The goal of reining in long-term deficits and debt would be much easier to achieve if it were not for the policies set in motion during the Bush years.  That era’s tax cuts – most of which policymakers extended in this year’s American Taxpayer Relief Act, with President Obama’s support – and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the debt that we will owe, under current policies, by 2019.[1]   By contrast, the economic recovery measures and financial rescues will account for just over 10 percent of the debt at that time….

Ah, yes, the Bush tax cuts. The plan has always been to dismantle everything, long term debt didn’t matter.

So, we get this right wingnut drivel:

View From the Capitol – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler’s Newsletter for the Week of March 4-8, 2013

….Many federal agencies will be required to implement 7.8 percent cuts across their departments, and the Department of Defense will experience a $43 billion cut taken from the last six months of its budget.

I continue to be very concerned about the impact of these cuts to our national defense and to individuals and families in the Fourth District, specifically. The biggest impact will be felt among civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD). According to preliminary plans laid out by the House Armed Services Committee’s Readiness Subcommittee, on which I serve, these workers are expected to be furloughed one day a week starting sometime around the end of April for a period of 22 weeks. I inquired of DOD officials as to how this was going to be implemented. They stated they are in negotiations now and details will be unveiled soon, but the “once-a-week-for-22-weeks-plan” is the most likely scenario.

The furloughs could impact a significant number of families in our area. Preliminary DOD estimates show up to 6,000 Army civilians and 2,000 Air Force civilians could experience this furlough. Being required to stay home one day a week will result in a 20 percent reduction to workers’ take home pay, which translates to less money to buy groceries, put gas in the car, and pay for school expenses for their children. It will mean less money available to be spent elsewhere and could impact the economies of local communities….

The defense budget is first a local economic stimulus program?

Revenue is, as always with republican dogma, completely off the table:

….raising taxes….This idea is a nonstarter….

And then there are these gems:

….The EPA gave over $100,000 in grants last year to foreign countries….

….I believe some of the cuts to other areas of the government are being politicized. The President, this week, cancelled White House tours. This is unnecessary.

I have spoken with citizens of Missouri’s Fourth District who have planned family trips to Washington with tours of the White House on the schedule. Among my constituents impacted by this unnecessary decision is State Representative Mike Kelley who will be visiting Washington on a working vacation during the legislative spring break. Representative Kelley, his family, and a foreign exchange student from Ukraine had hoped to visit the White House during their visit. He told me he is particularly disappointed for the student who looks to America as a beacon of freedom and to the White House as a symbol of that freedom. I will have the opportunity to show her our beautiful U.S. Capitol, but I am saddened that the President’s actions will deny her what could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to tour the White House….

[emphasis in original]

Think about that for a moment. EPA expenditures (of a relatively modest amount) which might ostensibly have a positive effect on the global environment (after all, we do live on the same planet) are bad, tours of the White House by foreign nationals are good.

How’s that for consistency?

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): missing the point, again (March 6, 2013)

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): what never bothering to actually read the U.S. Constitution gets you (January 18, 2013)

Apparently, republicans aren’t the only ones who are immune to actually reading the Constitution:

McCaskill Introduces Bill To Cut Pay During Sequestration

Senator calls on colleagues to take a pay cut until a balanced compromise can be reached

March 1, 2013

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill and Bill Nelson will introduce legislation that would cut pay for members of Congress if federal employees are furloughed due to the sequester. The legislation calls for a reduction in Congressional salaries once federal furloughs begin.

“The federal workforce is looking at furloughs that would result in a sizeable pay cut-and there’s absolutely no reason members of Congress should exempt themselves,” McCaskill said. “We can and should reach a balanced compromise to replace these damaging across-the-board cuts, but until we do, this is an obvious step to hold Congress accountable for the job we need to get done.”

The pending cuts are a result of the sequestration requirement Congress passed following debt-ceiling negotiations in 2011. The 2011 legislation required Congress to produce a bill with $1.2 trillion in deficit savings by this time or face across-the-board cuts — via sequestration — evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending. Sequestration was designed to be so unpopular that it would force Congress to compromise and replace it with a more sensible deficit reduction approach. But Congress has failed to pass a replacement. In the coming months, the first year of sequestration will begin. As a result of the cuts, many federal workers are expected to be subject to furloughs.

McCaskill has successfully prevented several individual yearly pay raises since arriving in the Senate, the most recent in March of 2012. Members of Congress have not received a pay raise since 2009.

###

“…The federal workforce is looking at furloughs that would result in a sizeable pay cut-and there’s absolutely no reason members of Congress should exempt themselves…”

Uh, here’s one:

Amendment XXVII

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Uh, people don’t want Congress to not show up. On the contrary, if there’s a looming sequester it looks really bad if members of Congress leave town before dealing with it. Oh, wait…

Previously:

Sequester this, Batman (September 23, 2013)

From the White House:

[….]

Unless Congress acts by March 1st, a series of automatic cuts-called the sequester-will take effect that threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs, and cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illness and our men and women in uniform.

There is no question that we need to cut the deficit, but the President believes it should be done in a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on. Already, the President has worked with Congress to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion, but there’s more to do. The President has put forward a balanced plan to not only avoid the harmful effects of the sequester but also to reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion in total. The President’s plan meets Republicans

more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does tax revenue from the

wealthy….

[….]

MISSOURI IMPACTS [pdf]

If sequestration were to take effect, some examples of the impacts on Missouri this year alone are:

Teachers and Schools: Missouri will lose approximately $11.9 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 160 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 17,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 60 fewer schools would receive funding.

o Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Missouri will lose approximately $10.8 in funds for about 130 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Work-Study Jobs: Around 1,280 fewer low income students in Missouri would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 750 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college.

Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 1,200 children in Missouri, reducing access to critical early education.

Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Missouri would lose about $3,745,000 in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Missouri could lose another $1,184,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

Military Readiness: In Missouri, approximately 8,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $40.3 million in total.

o Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $56 million in Missouri.

o Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Missouri would be cut by about $14 million.

Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Missouri will lose about $298,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Job Search Assistance to Help those in Missouri find Employment and Training: Missouri will lose about $758,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 25,460 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment.

Child Care: Up to 700 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

Vaccines for Children: In Missouri around 2,500 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $171,000.

Public Health: Missouri will lose approximately $572,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Missouri will lose about $1,300,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 3300 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Missouri State Department of Health & Senior Services will lose about $211,000 resulting in around 5,300 fewer HIV tests.

STOP Violence Against Women Program: Missouri could lose up to $127,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 500 fewer victims being served.

Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Missouri would lose approximately $419,000 in funds that provide meals for seniors.

Uh. taxation is the price we pay for civilization. Go tell the republicans.

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

N. Korea spits in our eye again with its nuclear test and our country toys with cutting our defense?! We must totally replace #sequester. 5:04 AM – 12 Feb 13

While Representative Hartzler (r) did not vote for the sequester deal, a whole bunch of republicans (the majority voting for it) did. Speaker John Boehner (r) at the time:

Boehner: I got ’98 percent’ of what I wanted in debt deal

By Daniel Strauss – 08/02/11 07:27 AM ET

“….When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy,” Boehner said in an interview with CBS News….

….The measure passed the House Monday 269-161, with 174 Republicans backing the bill. Sixty-six Republicans voted against the plan….

And the Twitter responses to Representative Hartzler (r) this morning are priceless:

Edward Maher ‏@EMaher81

@RepHartzler Replace it with what? Or is the GOP suddenly against spending cuts? 5:09 AM – 12 Feb 13

Mike Urban ‏@mju1983

.@RepHartzler Yeah, as a Missourian let me tell you how worried about N. Korea I am………(is that enough dots for the proper level of sarcasm?) 5:18 AM – 12 Feb 13

“….N. Korea spits in our eye….”

If this was a Monty Python script we could hurl surreal insults at them. Oh, sorry, apparently it is a Monty Python script.