A quick way to cut $3.7 trillion from future deficits, cancel the Bush/Obama tax cuts.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/01/news/eco...

Everyone thinks they know everything, but they obviously don`t.

Time to pony up another 550 billion THIS YEAR not over ten years, which everyone knows won't happen.

"As part of his balanced approach to deficit reduction, the President has signed $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts into law through the Budget Control Act, and his budget calls for more than $340 billion in entitlement savings from Medicare and Medicaid, and $250 billion from other mandatory programs.

THE PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED $1 TRILLION IN DISCRETIONARY CUTS INTO LAW AS PART OF THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT:

President Obama signed into law $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years. As part of the 2011 debt agreement the President cut $1,028 billion in discretionary spending through the Budget Control Act. Together with another $676 billion in discretionary savings through annual appropriations bills and interest savings, this will reduce spending by over $2 trillion. As a result, annual discretionary spending is projected to fall to its lowest levels on record, measured as a share of the economy.

A breakdown of these savings is in Table S-3 (pg 24) of the Mid-Session Review of the President’s Budget.

Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.

In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies."

We already had the tax increases. Time for Obama to pony up another 550 billion in savings, for the balaced approach.

We got a couple of Dreamliners, C-5 Galaxies, and 747s on holding patterns waiting for QPS temp employees to man the tower right now.

Well, it closed yet?

"Moreover, 76% say that the president and Congress should focus on a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the budget deficit. Just 19% agree with the current Republican position that tax increases should be off the table."
From the Pew poll

They also thought that deficit reduction should be balanced with cuts and revenue increases, didn`t they?

The same poll found the dems were less likely to be trusted to reduce the federal deficit, control govt spending, and ensure a strong national defense. When asked about the automatic cuts even though the majority thought it was a bad idea the same majority thought the cuts should be more not less.

And...

From what you know, do you agree or disagree with
most of what [INSERT ITEM] (is/are) proposing to do?
(ROTATE ITEMS)
Agree
Disagree
(VOL)
Both/Mixed
Not
Sure
President Obama
February 2013
..................................... 45
46 4 5
Democrats in Congress
February 2013
..................................... 40
46 5 9
Republicans in Congress
February 2013
..................................... 29
57 5
They did ask this question, and 57% disagreed with what the Republicans are proposing. All 3 polls I cited agree more with Obama than Republicans, a direction for sure.

As I said pharm the poll results come down to the questions asked and the little stories written about the answers from the polls.

For example the link for the internal questions of the nbc poll you provided asked no questions about the dem controlled senate actions or their refusal to pass a national budget. The same poll found the dems were less likely to be trusted to reduce the federal deficit, control govt spending, and ensure a strong national defense. When asked about the automatic cuts even though the majority thought it was a bad idea the same majority thought the cuts should be more not less.

But like anything statistics based the numbers can always be made to look better for the items that you want them to.

"GM Could Close"

"even a majority of Republican voters endorse Obama's approach of seeking tax hikes as well as spending cuts"
"The poll found that a whopping 67 percent of respondents disapproved of how Republicans are handling federal spending. That includes 64 percent of Democrats and an astounding 51 percent of Republicans that buck their own party. Only 26 percent of respondents approved."
Hmmm.... seems to be a specific direction to me.

lol. The polls show only answers to specific questions asked....

potus gave the working people a 2% cut in pay on Jan 1, 2013, but cannot figure out how to cut 2.4% of growth from programs that have grown over 17% in the last 4 yrs. Spending will still go up on most programs as this is only a reduction in the rate of growth. Scare tactics are all he can offer up. Most govt programs are wrought with graft and inefficeincies , we will not notice much change if the cuts go . Take out the 30 Billion of pork in the Sandy bill and 1.5 billion of grants to Hollywood also eliminate confrences like the GSA scandal to start.

With Congress being in the teens in all polls, another would be a waste of time. The polls cited show the direction Americans want to go.

yet not a one of those polls asked people what they thought of our nation not having a national budget for over three years...the same thing that would have stopped the need for the current financial actions.

"Americans wholeheartedly disapprove of how Congressional Republicans are handling federal spending, according to a new poll result from ABC and The Washington Post that undercuts one of the party's major messages.

The poll found that a whopping 67 percent of respondents disapproved of how Republicans are handling federal spending. That includes 64 percent of Democrats and an astounding 51 percent of Republicans that buck their own party. Only 26 percent of respondents approved."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sequester...
If it was only one poll it might be an anomaly. But I have cited 3 different polls.

pharm a poll is taken for many reasons. Many times the polling has an inaccurate view on what eventually would be an outcome, like an election. In other cases a poll is used to gauge public opinion. Public opinion is often regional and demographic based, that is the reason for proper sampling. An over +12 sample of dems might be very accurate in a metro area or even underscored in an area like SF or madison. But to put out a +12 dem poll as a mean nationally is very skewed. But please feel free to believe what you want.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sequester...

I guess all the polls are wrong again, just like the ones saying Obama would beat Romney. We heard how they were all skewed towards Democrats, but in the end they were skewed the other way.

WASHINGTON — "President Obama starts his second term with a clear upper hand over GOP leaders on issues from guns to immigration that are likely to dominate the year, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds. On the legislation rated most urgent — cutting the budget deficit — even a majority of Republican voters endorse Obama's approach of seeking tax hikes as well as spending cuts.

The survey underscores the quandary for the GOP as it debates the party's message in the wake of disappointing losses last November for the White House and in the Senate.

Now just 22% of Americans, nearly a record low, consider themselves Republicans."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...

ford do you not know how government works? Little harry "could" have put up his own, similar, bill in the senate to vote on. Then both versions, senate and house, would go into joint committee to hammer out the differences and then back to each respect chamber for a final vote before going to the president for a signature or veto. When little harry refuses to even let his chamber participate in the process how exactly does one chamber get anything done?

(I know the answer but do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings...)

Thanks for the internal numbers pharm. As I suspected it was an over +12 dem poll; no wonder the results were to your liking and posted on nbc in the first place.

"PBS’ Frontline has an interesting piece on the GOP response to President Obama’s election in 2008, reporting that, “After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything.”

Part of this “everything” was the efforts of the new administration to end the Great Recession and restore the economy back to full health. From the start, the GOP sought to block measures that a wide swath of economists agreed would provide help to boost the economy and bring down unemployment. This obstructionism has been a constant theme throughout the past four years, and it continues today.

Congressional Republicans have made it clear that they intend to use every bit of leverage they can to force cuts to domestic spending in the coming year. This leverage includes threats to not raise the statutory debt ceiling and/or force a federal government shutdown after March 27, when the standing appropriations continuing resolution (CR) expires. This, of course, would represent the long-promised repeat of the spring and summer of 2011, when congressional Republicans secured over $500 billion in domestic spending cuts in CR fights and another $2.1 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for incrementally raising the debt ceiling by an equivalent amount—better known as the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011.

The BCA cuts have already done damage, and will all-but-surely slow growth in the rest of 2013 as well"
http://www.epi.org/blog/congressional-re...

"On the same day that John Boehner told the Senate to get off its ass, he refused to allow the House to vote on a sequester replacement bill.

According to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), “Tonight marks the third time this year that House Republicans have refused to take up a Democratic substitute to the sequester while failing to put forth their own sequester alternative. With 750,000 jobs at stake – not to mention the furlough of hundreds of thousands of federal employees – this is a total abdication of leadership from Speaker Boehner and his caucus.”

Speaker Boehner’s stock line is that the House has already acted, but this is a lie. The House acted in the last Congress. The two bills that were passed in the 112 Congress died as soon as the 113th Congress was sworn in. The House has to pass a sequester replacement bill, but Republicans are refusing to allow Van Hollen’s bill to come to the floor for a vote.

His bill has adopted Obama’s balanced approach. It contains the Buffett Rule, and it cuts subsidies for agribusiness and Big Oil. The bill also contains a 2/3 cuts to 1/3 revenue ratio. Republicans refuse to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote for one simple reason. They are afraid that it will pass. There are likely enough Republicans that will cross party lines and join with universal Democratic support to pass the bill. The Senate version of Van Hollen’s bill will be passed easily, and Obama would sign it in about a half a second"
http://www.politicususa.com/john-boehner...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sectio...

RAF, as I am sure you know, the poll results are available from many sources. If you want to brush them off because of what you consider a biased source, that is your choice. But, I ask you, why should anyone believe your cites from what they consider biased sources? Dispute the facts, not the source if you are open to finding the truth of things.
As far as passing tax hikes, spending cuts have been passed also. Does that mean no more should be searched for?

Yes, those would be the ones that Senator Reid refused to take up in the Senate as they were Tea Party based stupidity and Leader Boehner knew that when he sent them over.

And don't worry about hurting my feelings - the comment was for you since you are so sensitive to incoming.

pharm as far as disputing your poll, until you can provide a link to the internal data from the poll and not just one persons view of possibly a single question from it, I will gladly keep questioning the biased source.

pharm the president just passed tax hikes...short memories.

ford, would those be the same ones that little harry refused to take up in the senate? The same little harry that has refused to put forth a budget for over three years?

(I know the answer but do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings...)

"The house has passed 2 bills that would deal with the sequestration. The Democratic controlled Senate will not take up those bills."

A couple of questions:
When were these bills passed?
If during the last congress, can they be taken up by the current congress?

(I know the answer but do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings...)

W"ASHINGTON — President Obama starts his second term with a clear upper hand over GOP leaders on issues from guns to immigration that are likely to dominate the year, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds. On the legislation rated most urgent — cutting the budget deficit — even a majority of Republican voters endorse Obama's approach of seeking tax hikes as well as spending cuts"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, and if I remember correctly you once said (paraphrasing) dispute the information, not where it comes from. Also, for someone who continues to post blogs from the Heritage foundation to question a source is hypocritcal.

NBC? LOL. Might as well link to huff post, daily kos, media matters, and tpm as well.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...
The American public doesn`t understand either.

Classic! Not only do those on the left refuse to pass a national budget, now these same folks refuse to look at the running total of national debt that they are responsible for. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-66MpfY_T5bA/Ta...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/26/democr...

pharm the first few words of ezra's post says everything..."I don’t understand..."

Does this mean GM will not be coming back to Janesville?

The airport won't close, the safety net may,

I don't doubt there are alot of flights in and out of the airport. But if it can't pay for itself then it is a gov't supported playground for most of those flights and a gov't handout for the rich "businesses" paid for by the taxpayer. I say close it if my taxes can go down a couple bucks. That kind of seems like the current theme in this town isn't it?

Bucky12345: I'm sure I could set up a tour of the tower for you. Look at the weather forecast and pick a Saturday or Sunday which looks good. Call 754-2611 for the tour.

Oh by the way. The actual number of operations were over 56,000 for last year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYzjMs-6M...
Hypocrite!

I find the figures used to be highly suspect. 50,000 operations per year, an operation is a landing or take off. If you do the math that would mean 136.9 landings or take offs each day or 5.7 landings or take offs per hour. I doubt this is true for this airport. I know the airport workers don't want to lose their jobs but putting out bogus figures is not going to get people to side with you or the businesses that use your service. What are the real facts and figures? How much will this cost the airport and the county?

That airport's a nuisance. I've got three words for the companies whining about this: Pay Up Sucker!

If a private company wants to use the airport then they should be funding it. No exceptions.

I am truly surprised (not really) of how many people on here who are writing their silly arguments, think that they know everything there is to know about airport operations, control tower functions, BE ratios, safety concerns, operations to runway ratios, etc etc etc....

Here is a scenario for you so-called educated people out there:

On a average Saturday, with normal operations being 30-50 operations an hour, with the weather dictating any runway of the three runways can be used, with 2-3 jets and 2-3 twin engine turbo props being in the mix of slow single engine aircraft, on top of the 1 to 3 pilots per hour which seem to not know which way north is or what a downwind leg is or what hold short means....with 5-6 instrument approaches being used to simultaneous runways, with maybe an aircraft in distress sometime during the time period....just what are the chances an incident/accident/midair collision/death/destruction could happen?

Come on brainiacs, let's here your answers.

Sequestration is a tool of budget control for conservatives (read less money spent on purpose)
.
Sequestration for liberals is a scare tactic that is used to say "this will be closed" and "that will be closed"
.
The fact is that the Federal Govt. Under sequestration will still spend more than it did last year..
.
The automatic increases that BOTH parties have put in place will not occur with sequestration.
.
Will the Tower close? Who knows... Would it matter...? A better question perhaps.

The airport it self is not closing Only the tower that controls the traffic in and out of the airport. Airplanes will still come and go as usual. they need to report on the radio of their intentions so others in the area will hear the message and look out for this and other traffic in the area. This procedure is done thousands of times a day at airport without a control tower.. Business will still be conducted as usual and no one will get hurt.

Sure a lot of people on here that hate the businesse's that provide people work.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/24/char...

It needs to be closed. It is a waste of taxpayer money

In simple language we all can understand Rock County got screwed again.

It will be even harder now to get a quality AirFest show together since the airport might be closed and the participants are unlikely to commit.

These spending cuts are small compared to what's actually needed, but they will not please the furor - Obama wants no limits on his campaign to economically destroy this country.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/bo...

Obama owns this. He made a deal, and is not wanting to be held accountable.

Something is seriously wrong with a president who continually lies and deceives the American citizens.

Benghazi
Fast and Furious
Drones
Sequestration
Unemployment
Food Stamps
National Debt

Did anyone happen to notice....NO headline on the national unemployment numbers this week.

janesvillean

OBAMA signed (and wanted) the sequestration, not Paul Ryan. If democrats didn't want it, why did Obama sign it?

What is wrong with "statuary caps on spending"?

You said it well woody.

We could save millions if Obumble would stop flying around the country and actually do his job.

for the past 25 yrs the tower has been used less and less every yr. 25 yrs ago there was over 150,000 operations every yr. Last yr just 55,000 operations. Why because aviation has gotten so expensive that folks like me quit flying. The price of planes to operate them has hit the roof and then some, so folks like myself can not afford to fly anymore. When I started fly a airplane cost 5,000.00, today that same airplane cost 50,000.00 and that is a 60 yr old used airplane. cost of flying back then cost 30.00 a month, today those same amount of hours can cost 300.00 a month. people had the idea if a person owned a airplane and flew was rich so they wanted some of the pie and in the end it bit them in the butt because no one is flying for pleasure anymore. I used this airport 15 to 20 times a month and today none.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWEvs1UBn...

We will save money by closing the airport.
Less spending means lower taxes.
Everybody wants lower taxes.

Ugly for the left when the media starts to actually report the truth on issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/b...

Dal- why are you calling this Republican short sightedness? The house has passed 2 bills that would deal with the sequestration. The Democratic controled Senate will not take up those bills. It is the President that started the sequester, and the Democratic Senate that is not dealing with it.

One more victim of Republican short-sightedness.

Real smart idea Sigma. Looking for a place to race your six cars ?

janesvillian....more scare tactics from you. Again, it is slowing down the growth of govt....not current rates of budgets. Don't you get it? We have to learn to live on CURRENT dollars.....no more "Oh, I need 5% more in my budget next year." We have to learn to live on what we are taking in TODAY! The cuts amount to a minuscule amount of money....something like a penny on a dollar in some cases. If we can't manage that, we are really doomed. So stop with hysterics. Lets let it happen.

First, the airport control tower would be the only thing shut down at the moment, planes will still come and go, but under different rules.
Second, those private jets pay a major chunk of the airports budget by being there. Their hangers are on airport property - I believe they lease the land, they pay every time they move out of their hangers.
Third,Every plane based there pays the same sort of fees, right down to the Piper Cubs there.
If you don't want to see this happen: Call, write, or e-mail your congressmen, & senators, tell them to quit playing politics and do the job we sent them to do. Work together, and keep the country running. Yes, there needs to be cuts, both sides have made offers, and found waste that needs to go, but they all have decided it's their way or no way...

Sequestration is something that has been pushed by our own Paul Ryan for years and years. It was his pet technique for reducing spending, and now you're blaming it on Obama, who wasn't even in federal office when Ryan began pushing for it, long before Paul was in charge of budget policy for the House. You must think we're pretty gullible, wislady.
http://youtu.be/NYzjMs-6MAE
.
In any case, this demonstrates how the people "dependent on government" are pretty much all of us. We all in Rock County need services that are quietly provided by our taxes year in and year out. The "Party of No" wants to cut those services, to cut spending, KNOWING that this will wreck the economy. They want it in bad shape for the 2014 and 2016 elections. It's appalling, shameful, and downright treasonous.

Maybe the government funded PBS and NPR will have to shut down, and Big Bird will have to go on Food Stamps.

If any of you attacking the companies that have private jets had a clue you would already know KJVL (Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport) tower is already closed from 9:00pm to 6:00am every day of the year. The companies you are attacking only get clearance from the tower to take off/land if and when its open and and file the IFR flight plan though Rockford, which has the closest tower with operational radar that is open 24/7. The private jets you refer too already pay landing fees at almost every airport they are landing at so please get your facts straight before your computer gets a chance to make you look like a fool once again!

The airport is not closing, this is just the liberals with their hair on fire. The sequestration is Obama's deal, and now the dems are caught up in a lie that never ends. If they put as much effort into trying to figure out a budget, as they do in deceiving and trying to hide the facts from the public, they would accomplish something.

If democrats can not work together and finish the deal they made, then closing things down will have to be the answer. Cut WH staff, Czars & Bureaucrats!

Get rid of the airport. Build a fairgrounds, Baseball stadium, and drag strip on the land.

Woods--your comment, "When the rich got Bush's tax breaks for the rich, the peasants covered more of the costs for them to play with their jets. I say, If you want to play, you have to pay." gave me a good laugh.:) I would guess that either ABC Supply, Prent, or Regal Beloit pay more taxes in one year that you will in a lifetime. Based on that, what exactly would be your definition of "if you want to play, you have to pay"?

Chop chop her comes the Ax....if its not in the budget it must go...chop chop Gary.

Gary thinks (if that's possible) that money grows on trees. Apparently he or she does not adhere to a budget.

How is this "crucial"? I say remove the airport and put in a drag strip. Or remove half of it and put in a drag strip on half.

Again folks, these are scare tactics from the Obama administration. They are cutting the GROWTH of govt, not the current expenses. If the govt departments can't operate at their current budget rates or find ways to cut expenses then they don't deserve to keep going. Same with the airport. If it can't pay it's way with current support, then close it.

Wasn't it about a year ago that the FAA announced that it would fully fund the airport? This turn of events will take the Shine off of local industrial development. Will private companies step up to the plate to support their "needed" air service facility? Will the community continue to be asked again to support (to the tune of over 17 million dollars) what appears to be a Southside Development Rat Hole? A serious newspaper investigation would be enlightening. What do you think?

Less government is better, right?

So my tax dollars are paying for convienence for ABC, Prent, ect. Well times are tuff, keep your plane in chicago and use vangalder bus service for your business. Lets see how Wislady sits on this. Can't wait for your post with a link to a right wing article about Obama that has nothing to do with this article.

The saint Obama admin is just threatening to close things that people will notice. This is the same tactic that school boards have used every time that they wanted a tax rate rise. Threaten to drop sports and other extracurricular activities. It is amazing that a cut of less than 2% of the federal budget will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.BS

"ABC Supply, Prent Corp. and Regal-Beloit have corporate jets in private facilities at the airport."
.
When the rich got Bush's tax breaks for the rich, the peasants covered more of the costs for them to play with their jets. I say, If you want to play, you have to pay.

It would help to understand this if the cost of operating the Control Tower was included in this article.
Just how much money would be saved by shutting it down?
What is the real economic benefit, in dollars, of keeping it operating?