If you're reading this it means that you weren't instantly vaporized in the cosmic catastrophe of sequester as prophesied by the Dear Leader, Barack Obama. Naturally this is disappointing to Dear Leader because if the people are not experiencing soul-crushing despair at the slight reduction in the automatic spending increase for 2013 then they won't come after the GOP with flames and pitchforks as he has intended.
In his column for National Review, Charles Krauthammer spells out what Dear Leader was hoping for and how the GOP now have the upper hand:
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. And a shortage of junk-touching TSA agents.
The Obama 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.
A 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.
Are these on the chopping block? No sir. It’s firemen first. That’s the phrase coined in 1976 by legendary Washington Monthly editor Charlie Peters to describe the way government functionaries beat back budget cuts. Dare suggest a nick in the city budget, and the mayor immediately shuts down the firehouse. The DMV back office, stacked with nepotistic incompetents, remains intact. Shrink it and no one would notice. Sell the firetruck — the people scream and the city council falls silent about any future cuts.
Krauthammer's not the only one noticing that the lack of Sequestrocalypse has made the cynical hysteria strategy quite problematic for Dear Leader. National Journal’s Michael Catalini says Obama’s political gamble on sequestration is backfiring big time:
But even as Obama proclaims dire consequences from the cuts, he is already hedging his bets.
"The impact of this policy won’t be felt overnight, but it will be real," the president said.
This was a key concession. With further skirmishes over the debt ceiling and government funding not far off, the White House finds itself in choppy political waters for the first time since Obama won reelection. Its best-case political course hinges on the economy screeching to a halt, assumes that Republicans will again cave on revenues, and relies on the public being on his side. It’s a political gamble that could go bust. …
"There's real risk in saying that the sky is falling … especially if you consider that sequestration is structured to come in slowly," said William Galston, a former adviser to President Clinton who is now with the Brookings Institution. "If after three weeks people look around and the sky is where it traditionally has been. … he has to be careful he doesn’t get too far out on that limb."
As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out:
With the "fireman first" approach wobbling, a bill granting Obama authority to adjust allocated funding within departments to cover higher priorities will drive a stake through its heart. If Obama vetoes it or the Senate refuses to pass it, House Republicans can rightly say that Democrats want to damage those efforts for cheap political gain. If Obama signs it, then he owns the pain that results from a "fireman first" strategy.
It's waaaaay past time for our Dear Leader to experience some real pain. He proposed the sequester. He refused to do anything to stop it and chose instead to demagogue the GOP to the max. This needs to blow up in his face because: karma.
This guy is utterly shameless:
During a news conference on Capitol Hill held on the eve of implementation of the cuts, known on Capitol Hill as "The Sequester," a reporter asked Reid: "Can you understand the frustration of the American people that you're blaming the Republicans, the Republicans are blaming you and nobody is talking until the day that these cuts kick in?" Reid replied:
"You know I read an editorial today, and I don't know whether it was the Times or the Post, where the op-ed writer said, 'You know, let’s call it the way it is. The Republicans aren't willing to deal with the Democrats.
"So all this stuff -- Democrats aren't doing anything, Republicans aren’t doing anything --I believe that you guys have an obligation to report it the way it is," he said.
"This isn’t something that happened yesterday, we've been fighting this for a couple years," Reid added. "They're unwilling to do what the American people want done. And it's as simple as that."
There is a kernel of truth in what Reid says. This really isn't something that happened yesterday. This latest farce - like other manufactured farces such as the debt ceiling and fiscal cliff - has been the direct result of Reid's deliberate refusal to even allow a budget to be proposed in the Senate, let alone passed.
It has now been 1,402 days since the Senate passed a budget back in April 2009. The budget passed was for Fiscal
Year 2010 and it was done at a time when the Democrats held all the
cards. Obama in the White House, Reid controlling the Senate and Pelosi
controlling the House of Representatives. Reid had a filibuster-proof majority to do his bidding. He's been using that Democrat-approved spending baseline ever since through a series of continuing resolutions.
Since the historic Tea Party-fueled GOP midterm victories in 2010 that brought the House back under control of Republicans, Reid's no-budget strategy has also been useful in setting up repeated confrontations designed to demonize House Republicans in the eyes of the public. The Republicans, according to The Narrative that has been promoted by the Dems and their media allies, are the "Party of No" and the lunatics who are "holding the economy hostage" in order to protect the "evil 1%..."
Once the Republicans had control of the House they passed the so-called Ryan budget on April 14, 2011. That was for FY 2012. On March 29, 2012 House Republicans passed a budget for 2013 called the "Path to Prosperity." Meanwhile, Reid has refused to let a budget proposal come out of committee in the Senate and also refuses to vote on House budgets. So who is the obstructionist here?
UPDATE: I had a proglodyte on Twitter try to tell me that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was "budget." This was in response to my criticism of Harry Reid for his obstructionism in not allowing a budget proposal, let alone a resolution, to come out of the Senate that he controls. This same clown also tried to claim that - thanks to the GOP - Reid couldn't get 60 votes to move a budget along. I got no response when I pointed out that nobody filibusters a budget proposal. Anyway, the issue of whether or not the Budget Control Act qualifies as a "budget" came up last fall in the New Jersey Senate race between the incumbent, Bob Menendez and his challenger, Joe Kyrillos.
In a heated debate Wednesday on New Jersey 101.5-FM, the Democratic
incumbent and Kyrillos argued over whether the U.S. Senate has passed a
budget in the last three years. The two candidates will face off in the
Nov. 6 general election.
"The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in three years," said Kyrillos, who
represents part of Monmouth County. "That’s just a fact, hasn’t done
it."
But Menendez said that wasn’t true: "Secondly, there is a budget. It’s
called the Budget Control Act and you should look it up. You’d
understand then that your statement about not having a budget for the
last three years would be wrong."
Who was right? PolitiFact left no doubt about that:
During last week’s debate, Menendez claimed Kyrillos' statement was wrong and that the Senate has passed "a budget" in the last three years, "called the Budget Control Act."
That Act set limits on discretionary spending, but it is missing other features of a "budget resolution," which is considered a budget plan under the official congressional budget process. The Senate hasn’t passed such a plan in more than three years.
We rate the statement FALSE.
