Wednesday, March 06, 2013
SMOKING GUN: Obama Administration Artificially Making Sequester Difficult
With obnoxious decisions such as cancelling
White House tours and threatening to cancel Blue Angels air shows, the Obama
Administration seems to be making a point of making the sequester unpopular.
One might even wonder if the Obama
regime is artificially making sequester “cuts” difficult for political reasons,
in order to make those evil Republicans look bad. But surely a U. S. President and his administration would
not willfully engage in bad management of spending restraints in order to sow
political discontent, right? Right?
An e-mail exchange makes it clear
that it is indeed policy within the Obama regime to make the sequester “cuts”
noxious, even to the point of more or less ordering administrators not to engage in sensible prioritizing.
He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this
reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever
else that ‘APHIS
would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife
damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover
the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you
need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.” [Emphasis mine.]
This is a smoking gun, and there
may be more to come. The Obama
regime wants the sequester to be
difficult for the public, and they are taking measures to make it that way.
This e-mail exchange is a small
part of a big picture. Instead of
actually governing and negotiating, Obama flies around campaigning and saying
the sequester will be horrible
because of those eeeevil Republicans.
(Never mind that the sequester was Obama’s idea in the first place and
that he insisted on it.) And then,
lo and behold, word goes down through the bureaucracy that underlings have darn
well better be sure that the sequester is indeed horrible.
"The worst-case scenario for us," a leading anti-budget-cuts
lobbyist told The Washington Post, "is the sequester hits and nothing bad
Think about that. Worst case? That a government drowning in debt should
cut back by 2.2 percent [The sequester doesn’t
even do that much, but I’m nit-picking – ed.] -- and the country survives. That a government now borrowing 35 cents
of every dollar it spends reduces that borrowing by two cents "and nothing
bad really happens." Oh, the humanity!
A normal citizen might think this a good thing. For reactionary
liberalism, however, whatever sum our ever-inflating government happens to
spend today (now double what Bill Clinton spent in his last year) is the
Platonic ideal -- the reduction of which, however minuscule, is a national
Or damn well should be. Otherwise, people might get the idea that we can
shrink government, and live on.
Hence the president's message. If the "sequestration" --
automatic spending cuts -- goes into effect, the skies will fall. Plane travel
jeopardized, carrier groups beached, teachers furloughed.
The administration has every incentive to make the sky fall, lest we
suffer that terrible calamity -- cuts the nation survives. Are they threatening
to pare back consultants, conferences, travel and other nonessential fluff?
Hardly. It shall be air-traffic control. Meat inspection. Weather forecasting.
Exactly. And now we have hard evidence that is indeed what the Obama
regime is doing.
Labels: Obama, sequester