Obama and sequester bluff: The sky is not falling

Well, Barackula signed the sequester into law, and last time I looked, the sky was still up there. I couldn’t even find any cracks in it.

Gee, I guess he lied to us again. Just a couple of days before the reductions in the rate of spending increase took effect, Obama cut back on the tone of desperation in his rhetoric and is now claiming that the sequester will still be a disaster for some, but that it will take awhile to materialize.

Clearly, he is setting the stage for a series of press events in which he will “discover” someone who has been harmed by the “cuts” and highlight them as typical of the vast number of ordinary folks who are suffering at the hands of the cruel Republicans. Don’t believe a word of it.

This will just be another in his continuing flood of lies. Let’s examine what Obama has said, just about the sequester: In one of the debates with Romney, he claimed that he did not create the sequester and that, in any case. it would never happen. Two lies in one sentence. Not bad, Barack! In fact, the sequester originated in his White House, which, doubtless with his approval, pushed it to Obama’s acolytes in the Dem-controlled Senate for action.

True, the Republican-controlled House also approved it and the GOP does bear a share of the responsibility (or credit) for it but it was Obama himself who signed it into law. Earlier he had threatened to veto any effort by Congress to cancel the sequester.

Of course, this was Obama running a bluff - assuming that the Republicans would cave in at the last minute and agree to dump the sequester and accept yet more tax increases along with minimal spending cuts, as was the case with the so-called fiscal cliff. But this time the Republicans hung tough and Obama found, to his frightened chagrin, that he was soon to have to face implementation of cuts for which he would bear most of the responsibility.

Of course, this was Obama running a bluff - assuming that the Republicans would cave in at the last minute and agree to dump the sequester and accept yet more tax increases along with minimal spending cuts, as was the case with the so-called fiscal cliff. But this time the Republicans hung tough and Obama found, to his frightened chagrin, that he was soon to have to face implementation of cuts for which he would bear most of the responsibility.

It was at this point that Obama shifted direction and began bellowing like a wounded cow that the economy would collapse if the rate of growth of federal spending were cut by a miniscule 2.3%.

Nobody bought the BS. Obama’s approval ratings have fallen four points since he began his campaign of lying hype regarding the sequester and his false claims that Republicans are solely responsible for it. Blame-shifter-in-Chief!

Once it was apparent that the sequester would be enacted, our simon-pure President stepped forward to announce that he would not seek to apportion blame for whatever ill effects might result, and then a few sentences later heaped supposed blame on the Republicans for bringing fiscal ruin in order to protect the wealthy from tax increases.

Has he already forgotten that the Republicans violated their early pledges and agreed to a tax increase on the wealthy in exchange for future spending cuts 41 times smaller than the spending increases approved in the “fiscal cliff” deal? And then, of course, the sequester brought no widespread fiscal ruin.

On the very day that the sequester took effect, for the first and only time Obama got round to meeting with Congressional leaders from both parties to discuss ways to avoid the spending reductions. He had known for 17 months that the sequester was coming so why did he wait so long to begin talks to avert it?

The time to avoid a problem is well in advance of its impact, not at the very moment it comes upon you.

Any competent leader would strive to do this but then that excludes Barack Obama. And in the meeting Obama reportedly eschewed possible settlements in favor of repetitions of his tired old talking points about the need for additional taxes on the rich and repetitions of the fake bromide that the United States does not have a spending problem but rather a problem of maldistribution of wealth.

Why do this? Why call a meeting which you know will fail to find a solution and then guarantee failure by insisting on measures already rejected many times by your opponent?

The answer became obvious later that same day when the Great Mendacinator called a press event to announce the failure of the talks and to again blame the Republicans for the sequester. Always ready to sacrifice the interests of the country to his own political advantage, Barackula called the meeting and made certain that it would fail to create a basis for further claims that the Republicans are primarily responsible for whatever bad happens as a result of the sequester.

We will hear a lot more on this theme as he continues to hope to use this lie to pressure the Republicans to give in later or to use it against them to the advantage of Democratic candidates in the 2014 elections.

You see, whatever the Congress taketh away, it may also give back. At the end of March, Congress will have to deal with passage of a continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (through September 30) because the Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget for four years.

Republicans will try to use this issue to include flexibility authority for the Defense Department to allocate the sequester’s cuts into areas where they will do the least harm to our military readiness. Obama will hope to trade that for additional tax increases and concomitant reductions in sequester cuts.

Later this summer, this will be followed by another tax/spending cut battle when the Congress must again reach agreement on raising the national debt ceiling. Recall that the epic fight over the debt ceiling in August 2011 was what left us with the sequester problem in the first place.

I’ll write more about both these matters in the near future. For now, just keep in mind that this whole, intense, over-hyped battle is about a reduction in spending levels of only 2.3% and that, even with the sequester cuts, the federal government will still spend $15 billion more this year than last. Total government expenditures this year will be about $3.6 trillion – TRILLION – dollars.

We don’t borrow 2.3% of that. We borrow about 35% of that. And 35% is the amount by which our expenditures have to be cut, through a combination of spending reductions and revenue increases, if we are ever to balance the budget and get ourselves in a position to begin to pay down the colossal debt which threatens our country with bankruptcy.

If the progressives scream, squall and scrap this hard over a tiny reduction of 2.3%, can you imagine how hard it will be to get them to agree to the real cuts and the real pain which will be necessary to save our country? Those of us who care for the country and want to strengthen it, as opposed to those who want to continue to use it as a cash cow and devil take the consequences, have a tough row to hoe.

If the progressives scream, squall and scrap this hard over a tiny reduction of 2.3%, can you imagine how hard it will be to get them to agree to the real cuts and the real pain which will be necessary to save our country? Those of us who care for the country and want to strengthen it, as opposed to those who want to continue to use it as a cash cow and devil take the consequences, have a tough row to hoe.

Stan Escudero March 3, 2013