Don Que Little

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

OMG! The Sky is not Falling!

The president said unless a company is directly related to the Defense Department or is located in a town with a military installation, “It’s conceivable that in the first week, the first two weeks, the first three weeks, the first month … a lot of people may not notice the full impact of the sequester.

So the End of the World is not Nigh.

The so-called “sequester” cuts are due to begin taking effect Friday and would cut $85 billion in federal spending by the end of September.

$85 Billion being what he overspends in 17 days…And a Total of 1.2 Trillion over 10 years. This President overspends this much in just One Year!!! 😦

Negotiations have bogged down over Mr. Obama’s insistence on raising another $580 billion in tax revenue.

Aka Tax Increases. He Wants More Money to Spend!
So is every “deal” with this President going to be with Tax Increases? 🙂
Yes, because the meme being set up here is that cutting Government Spending on any level at any time is a bad, mean, evil thing to do!!
“First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen … “- In the Debates

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”

— President Obama, in the third presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012

Naturally, of course, he’s being dishonest as usual.
If the sequester does happen, expect video of Obama’s declaration to be put into heavy rotation by his Republican critics (I HOPE)
But not the The Ministry of Truth, especially now that Former White House Propaganda Mouthpiece Robert Gibbs is now working for NBC News.
They will play it up as the Republican’s Fault.
AS ALWAYS.
Never let it be said that President Obama has failed to spend time with Republican leaders in seeking an alternative to automatic budget cuts that are due to hit most federal departments Friday. On Wednesday, for example, the president gave GOP lawmakers as much as seven minutes, a rare face-to-face encounter that the White House described as a “meeting.”

“It is a sincere conviction among Republicans that the president’s negotiating posture isn’t about getting a deal done, it’s a zero-sum political game where his aim is to destroy the Republican [House] majority in the next election,” said Steve Schmidt, a Republican strategist

DUH!  That’s why he’s still Campaign Mode!

“I’m not interested in playing a blame game,”  (But it’s the Republican’s Fault!) Mr. Obama told shipyard workers in Newport News, Va., on Tuesday. “All I’m interested in is just solving problems. (But if I can’t do that I can blame someone else for it!) I want us to be able to look back five years from now, 10 years from now, and say we took care of our business and we put an end to some of these games that maybe, I guess, are entertaining for some but are hurting too many people.” (aka I’ve destroyed the Republican Party so there is no opposition to me and the Democrats taking care of whatever business WE want without opposition from anyone- aka a not so benign dictatorship!).

Said Republican strategist Whit Ayres, “The president is really good at campaigning and really bad at governing. So he’s doing what he’s good at.”

And Moving to try and exploit any Crisis, real or manufactured, is all he knows how to do.
Bob Woodward, The original “gotcha” journalist that all Liberal Gotcha Journalists and Crusaders against the Right Wing fawn all over. He the God who slayed Richard Nixon and created generations of “crusaders” for Ministry of Truth, Social Justice, and The Liberal Way or the Highway:
Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics.” The book clearly had the full cooperation of top White House and congressional officials. With the help of our colleague, we took a tour through the relevant sections in order to determine the accuracy of the president’s statement.The Facts

 The battle over raising the debt ceiling consumed Washington in the summer of 2011, with Republicans refusing to agree to raise it unless spending was cut by an equivalent amount. Obama pressed but failed to get an agreement on raising revenue as part of the package. Woodward’s book details the efforts to come up with an enforcement mechanism that would make sure the cuts took place — and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.

Page 215 (July 12, 2011):

They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.

“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.

“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.

“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”

“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

 Short version: The White House proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, with Sperling calling it an “automatic sequester,” though initially it was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Boehner was “nervous” about using it as a budget tool.

Page 326 (July 26):

At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.

“We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.

“What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically.

“Sequestration.”

Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”

Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.

What would the impact be?

They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.

Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.

“This is ridiculous,” Reid said.

That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.

“I get it,” Reid said finally.

 Short version: Once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that only had spending cuts and sold Harry Reid on the idea.

Page 339:

 Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seems tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from Defense, and the other half from domestic programs. There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense.

 Short version: This is the third reference to the White House putting together the plan for sequester. Granted, they are using language from a congressional law from a quarter-century earlier, but that seems a thin reed on which to say this came from Congress. In fact, Lew had been a policy advisor to then House Speaker Tip O’Neill from 1979 to 1987, and so was familiar with the law.

Page 344 (July 30):

 The president and [White House chief of staff William] Daley were on the patio outside Daley’s office with [adviser David] Plouffe, [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner, Lew and Sperling when they got word that Biden was making progress with [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell. It looked as if Republicans were ready to agree to a Defense/non-Defense sequester in the trigger.

Plouffe couldn’t believe it. These guys were so afraid of increasing revenues that they’re willing to put Defense on the chopping block? Republicans’ revenue phobia was so intense that they would sell out the Pentagon.

“This is a deal we can probably live with,” Obama said, willing to do almost anything to salvage something and prevent catastrophe.

 Short version: Republicans agreed to the White House proposal for a sequester.

Page 346 (July 30):

 At 9 p.m. on Saturday night, Boehner’s staff got their first real look at the proposal negotiated by Biden and McConnell.

[Boehner policy director Brett] Loper had been in regular contact with [McConnell deputy chief of staff] Rohit Kumar about the progress of the negotiations, but now he had paper, so he drafted the Republican staff from the House Budget Committee and they pulled an all-nighter trying to understand the plan and to identify its shortcomings.

It was a challenge, because nobody in the office had operated under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings rules, which dated back to the 1980s. Loper spent the night trying to get his arms around the proposal.

 Short version: Republicans had to work through the night to understand the White House proposal.

 We asked the White House if officials disputed any part of Woodward’s narrative and did not get a response. Spokeswoman Amy Brundage issued the following statement:

 “The only reason that a sequester is in place is because both sides in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — voted for it in the Budget Control Act to force Congress to act. In fact, 2 out of 3 Republicans in Congress — including Congressman Ryan — voted for it and many praised it at the time. The President was making the point that the sequester was never intended to be policy, and that Congress must act to replace it with balanced deficit reduction. They can and should do that.

 “In addition, the notion that we wanted the sequester is false. The fact of the matter is that we wanted a trigger that included balance and specifically asked more from the wealthiest individuals on the revenue side. Congressional Republicans refused.”

The Pinocchio Test

 No one disputes the fact that no one wanted sequestration, or that ultimately a bipartisan vote in Congress led to passage of the Budget Control Act. But the president categorically said that sequestration was “something that Congress has proposed.”

 Woodward’s detailed account of meetings during the crisis, clearly based on interviews with key participants and contemporaneous notes, make it clear that sequestration was a proposal advanced and promoted by the White House.

In sum: Gene Sperling brought up the idea of a sequester, while Jack Lew sold Harry Reid on the idea and then decided to use the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman language (which he knew from his days of working for Tip O’Neill) as a template for sequester. The proposal was so unusual for Republicans that staffers had to work through the night to understand it.

 Oddly, Lew in Tampa on Thursday, publicly asserted the opposite: “There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger…. [It] was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure at the end.”

 This prompted Woodward to go over his notes and interviews once again, to make sure he had gotten it right.

 “After reviewing all the interviews and the extensive material I have on this issue, it looks like President Obama told a whopper,” Woodward said.  “Based on what Jack Lew said in Florida today, I have asked the White House to correct the record.”

THEN…

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

But I guess, Like Josef Goebbels once said, “Tell a Lie often enough…” especially 24/7/365 on The Ministry of Truth…

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s