Saturday, March 02, 2013

Hartzler: This is President Obama's sequestration

In her weekly newsletter, Fourth District Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler puts the blame for the sequestration squarely on President Obama's doorstep and continues to misrepresent her vote against the Violence Against Women Act, by noting that she supported it. What she supported was a failed House version of the act, not the one that was passed this week.


With the President’s sequester taking effect, a total of almost $1 trillion in drastic cuts to our military is set to be realized over the next 10 years. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned of a ‘hollowing’ of our armed forces if they were forced to suffer additional cuts. Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno has cautioned that if we do not have the resources to adequately train and equip our men and women in uniform, they will pay the price – potentially with their lives. It didn’t have to be this way.
 This is President Obama’s sequester, hatched by his then-Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew, and was included in the final version of the Budget Control Act of 2011 – which I voted against. My House colleagues and I later passed two bills to replace the sequester with sensible spending cuts and reforms that do not raise taxes on hard-working Americans. Unfortunately, the Senate refused to take up the bills and its inaction has created this artificial crisis.
 Now that the sequester is taking effect, I urge President Obama to work with Congress to implement common-sense reforms and cutting alternatives to roll back the harmful impact of the sequester. We can do it if we get our priorities right. Examples of waste abound: The IRS has its own TV station that costs taxpayers $4 million a year; the EPA gave $100 million to foreign countries, including China, over the last 10 years; and the federal government owns $1.7 billion of excess or unused federal property that could be sold.
 Let’s cut where it matters and prioritize our national security. It is time for the President to stop the campaign-style rallies, roll up his sleeves, and join those of us who are working hard to keep our country’s armed forces strong and ready.
 On another note, I supported legislation this week protecting women against violence when I voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - legislation that provides vital protection for vulnerable women and children. VAWA supports assistance to adult and youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Violence against women, in all its forms, is unacceptable. I support efforts to prosecute to the full extent of the law all those who engage in these deplorable acts of abuse and violence, and commend the domestic violence shelters in our district that do so much for those in need.
 The House version of the Violence Against Women Act protects women, provides funding for the Rural Grant Program, and reauthorizes the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program. As a former board member of CASA, I support this important program and appreciate what it means to children who benefit from having a friend come alongside them during the court proceedings meant to put these children on a path of safety and security after having been abused.

3 comments:

Unknown said...

What she is saying makes complete sense to me Randy. The President did support the Sequester and signed it into law and now seems surprised and shocked by it. He approaches it like it was all the Republicans idea.

I am not saying the Republicans don't have plenty to answer for with it but so does the President No one seems to be holding him accountable for his part in this mess.

We seem to be running from one crisis to another. That is on way to run the country as a Congress or as a President.

Anonymous said...

If you voted Republican, you oughta' be happy if your job goes down the tube. You got what you wanted...and you got Belly Long to boot.

Anonymous said...

I continue to be amazed at what has become a largely ignorant electorate who refuse or fail to understand that reductions in future spending are not even really "Cuts".