« Marco Rubio is still drinking water |
| Lars Hedegaard in the Wall Street Journal »
February 21, 2013
'Obamastration' is premeditated incompetence
Sequestration. No. It is "Obamastration." And it is premeditated incompetence.
Just listen to House Speaker John Boehner writing in the Wall Street Journal:
During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement. Unfortunately our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue--50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.
It was a disappointing decision by the president, but with just days until a breach of the debt limit, a solution was still required--and fast. I immediately got together with Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to forge a bipartisan congressional plan. It would be called the Budget Control Act.
The plan called for immediate caps on discretionary spending (to save $917 billion) and the creation of a special House-Senate "super committee" to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings. The deal also included a simple but powerful mechanism to ensure that the committee met its deficit-reduction target: If it didn't, the debt limit would not be increased again in a few months.
But President Obama was determined not to face another debt-limit increase before his re-election campaign. Having just blown up one deal, the president scuttled this bipartisan, bicameral agreement. His solution? A sequester
With the debt limit set to be hit in a matter of hours, Republicans and Democrats in Congress reluctantly accepted the president's demand for the sequester, and a revised version of the Budget Control Act was passed on a bipartisan basis.
Make no mistake, Obama is the architect of "Obamastration." And the American people should be outraged at the administration of the cuts. They are wholly and entirely--backwards. Unlike cuts made in business, with a focus on eliminating nonessentials, government bureaucrats begin their cuts with the essentials. We all know that this is simply a ploy to do away the cuts and return to spending as usual.
But here, conservatives must show outrage at the negligence and incompetence of the administration. For instance, in an attempt to prevent a few layoffs will the president curtail his lavish vacations? Of course not. Layoff some more firefighters and teachers. Don't fuel the aircraft carriers. We'll show them.
Let's compare Mr. Obama with Mr. Mulally of Ford. No doubt he hated every layoff and every plant closure. But, Mr. Mulally didn't turn to his colleagues and say, "Here's the plan. We'll make cars without steering wheels. And then charge extra to install them after purchase at the dealerships. We'll take that extra money and use it to prevent the cutbacks and maintain the status quo!" Mr. Mulally was faced with competition, so--like any businessman-- he was forced to prioritize and reduce unnecessary expenses...and as we've seen, save a great American company.
Mr. Obama has been riding quite high lately. But there is a profound difference in agitating for change as a community organizer and being an effective administrator. Mr. Obama's second term inexorably puts him in the latter position. The president is, after all, the chief executive. Consider Obamacare. Arguably the battle will prove simpler than the victory. Here's betting that by 2014 American's will affectionately refer to the president's crowning achievement as that "!#%&!..ing Obamacare."
The President's handling of "Obamastration" may leave many house and senate democrats feeling "Obamastated" in 2014. And angry voters have been known to "throw the bums out."
E. Lansing, MI
FOLLOW US ON