May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
May 17, 2013 | 9 comments
May 15, 2013 | 15 comments
May 15, 2013 | 4 comments
May 14, 2013 | 7 comments
Had I not missed this op-ed by John Boehner in the Wall Street Journal last night, I would have included it in my column on the sequester. Boehner, like many other Republicans in Congress, isn’t pleased about the looming cuts:
The sequester is a wave of deep spending cuts scheduled to hit on March 1. Unless Congress acts, $85 billion in across-the-board cuts will occur this year, with another $1.1 trillion coming over the next decade. There is nothing wrong with cutting spending that much—we should be cutting even more—but the sequester is an ugly and dangerous way to do it.
By law, the sequester focuses on the narrow portion of the budget that funds the operating accounts for federal agencies and departments, including the Department of Defense. Exempt is most entitlement spending—the large portion of the budget that is driving the nation’s looming debt crisis. Should the sequester take effect, America’s military budget would be slashed nearly half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Border security, law enforcement, aviation safety and many other programs would all have diminished resources.
Boehner and the current crop of House Republicans have fought harder for spending cuts than any Congress since Newt Gingrich accepted the gavel. So why is it that now, when a few measly “cuts” (and they are measly) are finally about to take place, they speak in portentous tones and point the finger at President Obama?
Boehner spends much of the rest of his article exculpating the GOP House. At the end, he tosses the basketball back to the president: “Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?” The answer, as Obama told Boehner in their last round of debt negotiations, is none. The president and his Senate allies have no intention of cutting spending unless they’re forced into a corner. Boehner knows this, which means his question is just political posturing.
Politics is life in Washington. But this particular round is worrisome. The GOP has spent years proposing hypothetical spending cuts that haven’t actually happened. Now we have an actual round (however diminutive and poorly targeted) of cuts in the hopper, and the Republican reaction is to fret and blame the president for how people will be affected. But people will be affected by any set of cuts. Will a GOP that reacts thusly to the sequester really have the stomach to reform entitlements? Even after the interest groups start complaining? It’s one thing to propose cuts; it’s another to actually implement them.
A final piece of advice for Speaker Boehner. You say you’re serious about cutting spending. I hear that Reps. Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash are as well. Perhaps you could consult them?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online