Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Has John Boehner Been Called to Be a Hero?

Recently, instead of trying to come to terms with the looming sequester, Washington has been pointing fingers at either President Obama or the Republican House as its author. Famed Washington Post journalist and associate editor Bob Woodward seems to have put the argument to rest. Woodward says that despite President Obama’s insistence that Republicans are to blame for the sequester, it is the President and his White House that are to blame. “The president and (Treasury Secretary Jack) Lew had this wrong,” Woodward wrote last Friday. “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,” according to Woodward. “They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.” Woodward also cited comments attributed to Nabors. “Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid,” Woodward said. The President and the House have been battling over budget spending and the national debt ever since the GOP took control of the House in 2010, with help from tea party activists who champion lower taxes and an end to deficit budgets. House Republicans refused to raise the nation's borrowing limit in 2011 without major deficit cuts. To resolve the stalemate, Congress passed and Obama signed the Budget Control Act, which temporarily allowed borrowing to resume, set new spending limits and created a bipartisan "supercommittee" to recommend at least $1.2 trillion more in deficit reduction over 10 years. When Republicans and Democrats on the supercommittee failed to compromise, it led to the package of across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts called the sequester. This week the argument has shifted to how to stop the sequester from kicking in or to at least how to re-organize where the $85 billion in annual budget cuts will occur. And, of course, the finger pointing goes on - but now it is in an effort to show just how deep the pain will be because "the other side" won't compromise. The truth is that the effects will not be as bad or immediate as some members of the Obama administration suggest. But the cuts have the potential to be significant if the standoff drags on. The immediate effect will be that 2 million long-term unemployed people could see a $30 cut in benefit checks now averaging $300 a week. Federal subsidies for school construction, clean energy and state and local public works projects could be reduced. Low-income pregnant women and new mothers may have more difficulty signing up for food aid. Much depends on how states and municipalities prioritize the budget cuts. Furloughs of federal employees are a month or more away, when they might have to take up to a day off per week without pay. That's when airport delays, meat inspection, fewer services at national parks and similar cutbacks would kick in. If the sequester continues into autumn, cutbacks will reach farther, probably reducing Head Start slots. But much of the federal budget is off-limits to the automatic cuts : Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, Pell Grants and veterans' programs. The Defense Department warns of a hollowed-out military capability, compromised border security and spreading deterioration of public services if the sequester continues. It's "like a rolling ball," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. "It keeps growing." And, dear readers, Napolitano ought to know because her department has just authorized the release of 300 criminal illegal immigrant detainees in Arizona, in order to stay within the budget. Homeland Security says they are low risk detainees who will be monitored. Arizona law enforcement officials say the whole affair is a bad joke because those released have spent years avoiding detection as illegal immigrants and because the sequester hasn't even kicked in yet. For the most part, Americans are taking the sequester in stride. A poll last week by the Washington Post found that less than a third think the budget cuts would deeply affect their own financial situation. Sixty percent, however, believe the cuts would have a major effect on the US economy. Perhaps the major worry among Americans is that uncertainty about future government spending is causing businesses to hold back on investment and hiring, and so consumers are less confident about their own spending. And as the sequester inches closer, becoming effective at midnight on Friday, there's still no deal. Neither side shows signs of blinking - or even negotiating. President Obama has scheduled a meeting of key congressional leaders for Friday afternoon, but that is within hours of the sequester becoming effective -- and far too late to stop it. The President seems to be staging his latest political theatre piece. It is GOP House Speaker John Boehner's steely refusal to be bullied that is most telling. It may be that the world is about to see the final act of America's fiscal crisis. Boehner and the House GOP may now be ready to stand firm against the continuation of the Obama $1 trillion annual budget deficits. There have been times in American history when ordinary politicians have been called to heroic action. It may now be John Boehner's time.

3 comments:

  1. Well, Ollie, I certainly hope so...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's all remember that within the legal range of the sequester action it is the PRESIDENT who has the final approval on all budgetary cuts made. And examining the first cuts that were made prematurely this week by Homeland in Arzonia these cuts will be all Public Relations in scope and direct to get the maximum political "fright & scare" impact with the press that will with great bias report them to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As I see this whole problem it is "much todo about nothing". Obama's budget is not really a budget it is a free for all spending action. But in relationship to a $85 Billion mandated spending cut itis$1.00 Dollar out of an $100,000.00 annunnal income . .. Or better5cents out of a $20,000.00 annunnal income. What in the world can you buy for 5 cents today - NOTHING AT ALL. To get air for your tires cost $1.00 at the gas station.

    What reall needs addressed is No Budget in the last 5 years from Obama. With the BASE LINE BUDGETING that Washington DC follows this means that the Base Line is what the Obama administration spent last year not a much smaller number that a factual budget would create as the Base Line Factor.

    I hope and pray the Boehner stays the course and his GOP Congressmen follow his lead.

    What I'd like to see from the Speaker is an action p,an that would be something like ... Mr. President give us a budget and then we can talk about taxes and future spending . Budget discussion with no budget is like sending a child on "time out" and there's no corner for them to stand in, or worse sending them to their room with all the electronic games and toys to suffer with ... My oh My

    ReplyDelete