Bob Woodward’s column in the Washington Post calls out President Obama for lying about the sequester that he now says will be apocalyptic.
Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.
What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?
The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”
The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.
“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”
The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved. (Read More)
None of this is new news, but since Obama continues lying about it I guess we have to keep pointing it out. The man’s a professional liar, but don’t expect to hear about this on the evening news.
Update: Linked by The First Street Journal – thanks!
Update: Linked by Big Pulpit – thanks!
85 Billion. What is that, three days of running the federal government. So the solution is simple, every government worker including all politicians, yeah that includes you Obama take a unpaid furlough for three days. Shut down a few copiers and cut back on all the handouts to your friends and no worries mate.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
The ripple effects of delaying the opening of National Parks will have dire consequences for many of the surrounding areas already struggling financially. It’s shortsighted and could be solved very simply by eliminating a couple of multi-million dollar management fires this summer. So instead of letting them burn, and turning them into a fire-industrial complex boondoggle, put them out at a fraction of the cost – and smokejumpers are the very people to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0
The purpose of the sequester was to force Congress to negotiate a grand bargain including revenue increases and spending cuts, therefore the sequester cuts were purposely made to be unpalatable to both parties.
And let us not forget, the sequester would not have passed without Republican votes, so it is ludicrous to blame only Obama et al.
Let us have both tax and spending solutions to reduce the deficit, in such a way that the economy will not be put into recession, and that all segments of American citizens will bear the burden. Focusing only on who is spinning or lying is not productive towards a solution, but productive only for further anger and frustration.
The idea of a 3-day furlough would apply to government workers only, therefore an unequally shared burden which would likely be so disruptive as to cost money to sort out the confusions. Thus this is no solution.
Like or Dislike:
2
[...] Karen wrote that even Bob Woodward, not exactly a radical reich-winger, has documented that President Obama has been lying through his scummy teeth about who proposed the sequester he is now so very much against. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
No Wagonwheel, revenue (taxes) is not the answer. If Obama gets his hands on more money he will just spend more. As for it being an unfair burden on government employees, too bad. I was laid off last year twice because my employers had reductions in “revenue” and had to cut back somewhere. What is good for the private sector is good for the government.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
Banzai Bob, sorry you got laid off twice, but it will get worse if this sequester takes place, especially for government workers, and most especially for those in the defense industry.
The solution rests in a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts, not in austerity (spending cuts only) which has already failed over time in, for example, the UK.
With sequester, there will be more like you who will lose their jobs. With stimulus, there will be more, hopefully you, who will gain jobs as the economy grows more.
President Obama is holding out for a compromise with the GOP on a combination of revenue increases by closing loopholes which the wealthy use, and spending cuts which are carefully adjusted to cause the least pain to Americans and the economy.
Then, as the economy strengthens, tax revenues increase which decrease the deficit, and more spending cuts can be gradually increased to further decrease the deficit. Strict fiscal discipline is required to successfully carry out these policies. In the past year or so, we have already cut 2.5T$ of spending, an encouraging sign.
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0
Here is the Obama argument as reported on The Hill today:
“Obama also cited the Pentagon’s warning this week that sequestration could cause 800,000 civilian employees to be furloughed, and said the cuts could force teachers to be laid off and hurt the military’s preparedness.
That outcome, the president reiterated, could be avoided if Republicans consent to a mix of spending cuts and new tax revenues to roll back the sequester, just weeks after Congress enacted a plan that allowed tax rates on the highest earners to rise.
Congress, Obama said, “can cut spending in a smart way, and close wasteful tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected.”
“Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising – instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans – they would rather let these cuts fall squarely on the middle class,” he added.
But as Obama’s latest comments underscore, the chances for a sequestration deal next week appear slim.
Senate Democrats have prepared a sequester replacement plan that would employ a roughly 50-50 split between cuts and revenues, and party leaders have cited poll data that they say suggests the public is on their side.
But GOP lawmakers have said that they will not agree to any more revenue increases, and believe they are in better shape than in other recent fiscal negotiations.
House Republicans leaders have also repeatedly said noted that the chamber passed sequester-replacement legislation twice last year. But that legislation expired at the end of the last Congress, and the chamber has shown no inclination to bring up another measure.
“We just need Republicans in Washington to come around,” Obama said, noting that the two parties had already come together on $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction.
“Because we need their help to finish the job of reducing our deficit in a smart way that doesn’t hurt our economy or our people. After all, as we learned in the 1990s, nothing shrinks the deficit faster than a growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs.”
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/284503-obama-time-for-gop-to-compromise-on-sequester#ixzz2LmjtmpLU
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Like or Dislike:
0
Wagonwheel,
Wake up and smell the coffee. The President will not compromise. He only wants tax increases and no cuts. If he doesn’t get what he wants he will scuttle any deal and blame the GOP, just like he has done before.
But let’s say he does get a 50-50 deal. You can bet that the tax increases will happen but any promised cuts will not. Just remember Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office. When he failed he just blamed Bush and the minority GOP which could not stop any legislation in Obama’s first two years in office.
As for the economy, it will continue to grow at an anemic pace due to the coming tax increases in Obamacare. Add the regulatory burdens on bussiness and banking(unless you have connections to Obama) where will the jobs come from. Oh wait, they will be in the government which of course means more spending.
Finally, if you believe Obama’s argument in The Hill, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
Bob Woodward: Obama Is Lying About Sequester http://t.co/3B4OBTrOlT via @lonelycon
Like or Dislike:
0
Wagonwheel,
Let us not forget that the sequestration was Obama’s price for agreeing to the debt ceiling deal with the Republicans. Obama insisted on sequestration, and the Republicans went along with it.
Obama got the tax hikes he wanted in January; now it’s time for spending cuts. The Democrats should be willing to compromise, and show some flexibility.
Obama has spent trillions of dollars on stimulus and bigger gov’t over the last four years, the Fed is printing and printing to fund it, and where are we? The economy has declined from 2.5% growth to -0.1% growth over the last four years. A lot of people are hurting.
We simply can’t afford massive gov’t, and massive gov’t spending anymore. We need to scale back the spending, and revitalize the private sector.
It’s rather obvious that Obama and the Democrats are playing games, to score political points and maintain their massive gov’t. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
SO MUCH BS FROM OUR LIAR-IN-CHIEF: Bob Woodward: Obama Is Lying About Sequester http://t.co/0eIqo1tsPH via @lonelycon
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] histrionics continue, with DOT secretary Ray LaHood claiming that if the sequestration his boss proposed and signed into law takes place air traffic controllers will be cut and air travel will become even worse than it is [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Bob Woodward: Obama Is Lying About Sequester | The Lonely Conservative http://t.co/jm31dbTr5C via @sharethis
Like or Dislike:
0
Bob Woodward: Obama Is Lying About Sequester | The Lonely Conservative http://t.co/q72kut0j66
Like or Dislike:
0
@WagonWheel…
I have a very simple suggestion for you…please…PLEASE read “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt. Then get yourself a copy of “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat.
You need a better understanding of basic economics, and the destruction that occurs when groups employ (and empower) the government to rob from one and give to another, while skimming the greater quantity for itself.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Marilyn, I appreciate your suggestions. However, it does not take expertise in economics to comprehend that middle income wages have been stagnate since the ’70′s, and that the bulk of the nation’s wealth has landed in the hands of 1% of our population. Tax policy has been the main culprit.
The post WWII prosperity was focused on the middle class, during which times tax policy was very progressive; and we thrived.
The wealth distribution we now have, which shuts out the middle class, is unsustainable short of chaos. Therefore, along with spending cuts, we also need revenue increases. On the latter, closing loopholes and reducing tax expenditures are as important as spending cuts in order to reduce the deficit.
We’ve already cut $2.5 trillion in spending and the deficit is decreasing, so we are on the right track.
PS: Hazlitt is an advocate of the Austrian school, top down growth, Hayek et al., which I believe is not appropriate for us, especially now when the top are not investing sufficiently. What good has this approach been for the UK? On the other hand, the Keynesian approach worked for us during the Clinton 2nd, and Obama 1st, in the latter case the stimulus saved us from a deeper recession than we had, a good thing.
Regarding Bastiat’s The Law, I understand your Libertarian viewpoint. Can you give me an example where this approach has been successful? Can we depend on philanthropy to substitute for the government? I think that the collective will, determined by democratic processes, has proven itself to be effective, though to be sure often troublesome, like now in the good old US of A, in which a powerful minority wishes to subvert the will of the majority. This is not good!
Like or Dislike:
0
Larry in New York, you are in favor of austerity, which will slow down GDP growth and generate job losses. This is going backwards. We need to further stimulate the economy (infrastructure), while continuing to cut waste and increase efficiency (ACA). Importantly also is to revise tax policy to decrease the deficit and more equally share the tax burden. We have allowed ourselves to get so far out of balance per the Bush tax and war policies that it will take some time, well beyond Obama, to get us healthier. These policies contributed greatly to the “big government” of which you now complain. Wisely, Obama et al are contracting government as we speak, for which he gets no credit from the Right.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wagonwheel,
With all due respect, blaming George Bush for our current problems really doesn’t make much sense. His deficits averaged less than $200 billion per year. His tax cuts increased gov’t revenues, not decreased them. The economy was better under him, and unemployment was lower. The wars are mostly over, so they are no longer contributing to the deficit. If the wars were a reason for the deficit, then the deficit would have shrank as the wars ended.
Why has the deficit increased by a trillion dollars per year since Bush left office? Mostly because Obama added about $700 billion in spending per year to the federal budget. Most of that was Stimulus, which hasn’t helped our economy at all for the last four years. Obama spent trillions on infrastructure, “investments” in things like green energy, and greatly expanding the number of gov’t workers, everything from teachers to DC bureaucrats. What has the result been? A weaker economy, higher unemployment, lower wages, and increased poverty for everyone except gov’t workers. The same result as Europe, Japan, Argentina, the UK, and many other nations that have big gov’t and Keynesian spending policies.
Yes, I’m in favor of gov’t austerity. Gov’t gets all of it’s money from the private sector; mostly, the workers. Also, gov’t doesn’t produce the goods and services that we all need and want. So, basically, the more the gov’t takes, the less there is for the people that build the farms and factories and offices, and the workers who work in them. The private sector produces wealth and prosperity, not the gov’t. All our new teachers and freshly paved roads won’t do much good when businesses are reluctant to expand and hire new workers or give raises to the old ones.
One final note : the $2.5 trillion in spending cuts that Obama claims is largely illusory. He’s still claiming savings from not fighting a war in Iraq, and lower interest payments for the national debt because interest rates are very low. In reality, under Obama we have the biggest gov’t in our history and that gov’t is spending more than ever, by far, and he’s still working to increase it.
Like or Dislike:
3
Bob Woodward: #obama Is Lying About #Sequester: http://t.co/3K6NVFaQ35 #tcot #tlot #tgdn #pjnet #whitehouse #dnc #teaparty
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Woodward: Obama Is Lying About Sequester – Lonely Conservative [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Bob Woodward: #Obama Is Lying About Sequester http://t.co/IQeTXBS98H via @lonelycon
#TCOT
Like or Dislike:
0