Obama lacks integrity to accept consequences of his proposal
by Jerry Landers
Columnist
February 28, 2013 12:00 AM | 1013 views | 4 4 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
By the time you read this, Congress and the president may or may not have taken action to avoid the latest “Fiscal Cliff,” “Budget Armageddon” or whatever epic title you want to attach to the March 1 effective date for the now infamous “sequester,” which requires substantial across-the-board spending cuts to the overbloated federal budget. If you have forgotten, this sequester of funds was the result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 which, among other things, was a bipartisan compromise to allow an increase in the federal debt ceiling.

I noted with interest (and mild surprise) what Rep. David Scott (D-south Cobb) had to say in this newspaper the other day (Feb. 21) about the sequester, calling it “a human tragedy of soaring magnitude.”

“We’ve got to look at it in human terms. This will cost jobs. Our first responders, people that protect us, people that teach our children, our Armed Forces,” he sputtered.

To justify his position, Scott lapsed into the same, tired Democratic rhetoric about closing tax loopholes in order to pay for the sequester. And yes, he trotted out the predictable, well-worn talking points like “corporate jets” and “the Buffet rule,” which is not a rule at all.

Scott’s comments about the effects of the sequester are similar to the gloom and doom being preached by President Obama and his cabinet about the potential negative effects of the sequester. Brushing off questions from the media about “scare tactics,” the president said that he found it “troubling” that Congress was not working harder to stave off the cuts, given that “these cuts are not smart; they are not fair; they will hurt our economy; they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment roll.”

Obama also declared that “If Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job creating investments in education and energy and medical research; it won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day. It doesn’t make those distinctions.”

In politics, memories can be very long, but for good or for ill, the attention span of the electorate is usually very short. Also, the successful politician is the one who can accept the most credit for the good things and deflect blame for the bad things. The president is doing his dead level best to deflect the blame for the sequester to the GOP.

However, what the president wants you to forget is that the sequester, this “meat-cleaver approach” with all of its dire consequences, was his idea in the first place. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney admitted earlier in February that the sequester was proposed “by the president’s team.”

On the other hand, Rep. Scott can actually claim some of the moral high ground that the president is giving up, since Scott voted against the bill which contained the sequester when it came before the House of Representatives for a final vote in July 2011. Given Mr. Scott’s record on increases on the debt limit (he has voted to allow the increase six out of seven times since 2000), my cynical intuition tells me that since Scott’s vote was not necessary to pass the bill, he voted against it, giving him the cover that he needed to decry the negative effects of the sequester now that it is coming home to roost.

If the sequester is such a bad thing, why was it such a good idea when Obama proposed it in 2011? He should have the courage and integrity to accept the political consequences of his proposals.

Jerry Landers is an attorney in Marietta.
Comments
(4)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Too funny
|
March 02, 2013
President Obama's mistake was assuming that Congregational Republicans had enough sanity to deal with the budget before the cuts kicked in. That's clearly not the case - these guys are nuts.

They remind of the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, lopping off limbs while claiming there's nothing wrong.
Off Balance
|
February 28, 2013
Good article, Jerry.

President Obama's lapdog Foley. of course, had to attempt to ameliorate the President's part in this. Good dog. Kevin. whoever you are!
Kevin Foley
|
February 28, 2013
Right Jerry. It's all Obama's fault. Those poor little House Republican lambs had nothing to do with it. Please.

Sequestration, which both sides agreed to, was designed to force compromise. Obama has said, repeatedly, he's prepared to forego spending. The GOP meantime, has steadfastly refused to compromise on revenues, i.e., closing loopholes like deductions for corporate jets.

This whole "crisis" is the result of GOP intransigence. End of story.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides