-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Many on the right side of the political aisle are properly making fun of the sky-is-falling claims of the Obama administration regarding the sequester.
I believe that if we have competent managers within the executive branch (which we probably mostly do among the high-ranking career civil servants, but most certainly don’t among Obama’s direct appointees), the sequester need not have a major impact on the operations of government, possibly excepting the Department of Defense.
Of course a major question remains whether Obama will give marching orders to his henchmen to cut the most visible and popular government services and try to blame the Republicans, but that is an extremely high-stakes game which even this Chicago-thug crowd might not risk.
So, I believe that the sequester will soon be forgotten, but none of the above is the main reason I think it will be forgotten.
The main reason is that coming up in less than four weeks, March 27th to be precise, the government’s current funding will expire.
The navel-gazing and hand-wringing about what will certainly be a furious political debate, along with the pros and cons of even seriously threatening a government shutdown, will make the sequester debate seem small. In fact, it will make the sequester actually be small.
One thing that will come up regarding the sequester will be Democrat cries that the sequester fulfills any promise or responsibility they have to cut spending, and they will use the upcoming funding debate to argue for higher taxes.
Republicans will somehow, and I’m not optimistic that they have the skill to do this, make a solid case to the American people that what must be done now is neither tax hikes nor major discretionary spending cuts (though there is certainly more room to cut there as well), but rather entitlement reform.
They must make a case that is not just based on numbers and spreadsheets and terminology that would put an accountant to sleep, but a practical and moral case based on the actual impact on actual people of a gargantuan government devouring economic opportunity and our children’s futures.
In less than a month, I expect almost nobody will be talking about the sequester…
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/03/01/what-sequester
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 3.1.13 @ 5:06PM
It's March 1. What sequester?
CJW| 3.2.13 @ 8:26AM
Senor Pete
Since these are reductions in the projected increases in spending, then we should stop calling them "cuts" and call them "smaller increases." It is more accurate.
RJ| 3.1.13 @ 5:39PM
Four years without a budget and annual deficits over a trillion dollars is the product of an irresponsible government. What is Boehner going to do when the continuing resolution expires and Harry Reid prevents his Senate from doing anything? Please, no more playing along with that nonsense. Why isn't the GOP hammering this point much more frequently?
And when the debt ceiling hits again, the GOP should at least insist upon another immediate sequester with more significant reductions and this time defense spending should not take more than its share of the hit. I really wish the House GOP would start a list of the ridiculous things the government spends money on and insist that they be eliminated as part of any new debt ceiling deal. It is a target rich environment.
DRed| 3.1.13 @ 5:51PM
"Of course a major question remains whether Obama will give marching orders to his henchmen to cut the most visible and popular government services and try to blame the Republicans, but that is an extremely high-stakes game which even this Chicago-thug crowd might not risk."
This is not how the sequestration works. All departments and programs get across the board cuts. Nobody in the executive branch gets to choose what gets cut and what doesn't. Everything gets cut the same amount. Granted, that's a stupid way to cut spending, but that's essentially the point.
CJW| 3.2.13 @ 8:23AM
Why then release the illegal aliens?
If it is a stupid idea, why did the Dem Senate pass the bill and Obama sign it into law? Obama is against the bill to give him discretion on the cuts.
The Only Good Democrat| 3.1.13 @ 7:27PM
"Granted, that's a stupid way to cut spending, but that's essentially the point."
Of course it is a stupid way to cut spending, it was an Obama idea. No fear though. There are far worse cuts ahead. It is not painless to turn a whole country into the progressive paradise of Detroit.
DRed| 3.1.13 @ 8:56PM
I think the idea was that Republicans would be willing to negotiate, rather than going along with a dumb idea. Which, to be honest, was also pretty dumb of Obama.
The Only Good Democrat| 3.1.13 @ 9:21PM
Obama and progressives in general don't negotiate in good faith. Trolls like yourself are representative of your whole movement, dishonest, greedy and not that bright. Detroit is what Obama has for all of us. Lots of promises on our way down.
DRed| 3.1.13 @ 11:54PM
So Obama's plan was to put negotiate in bad faith so that the cuts he didn't really want would happen. Sure, that makes a whole lot of sense. I mean, Obama is trying to make America into Detroit by cutting the budget. After all, everyone knows Detroit became a crime ridden shell of it's former self because of too many budget cuts. Derp derp derp.
CJW| 3.2.13 @ 8:27AM
Why did Detroit become a crime ridden shell of its former shelf?
The Only Good Democrat| 3.2.13 @ 8:43AM
Yes, Obama's plan was to negotiate in bad faith. Nothing could be more obvious. Like you he plays political games at the expense of his country. Detroit didn't get to where it is by cutting anything. It got to where it is by following the progressive road map. Now the piper must be paid. At the end there will be massive cuts. There is a point where your bs can't cover up the mess anymore. Detroit is there and we are all not far behind.
The Only Good Democrat| 3.2.13 @ 9:35AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/ad.....op-support
Obama doesn't want a deal and never wanted a deal. This wasn't an accident. It was planned and supported by the rank and file. A cursory look at the rank and file is enough to easily explain Detroit and Washington. They will run the country into the ground while making promises about a wonderful future all the way. Somebody might ask are they sincere or corrupt? Who cares?
aware| 3.1.13 @ 7:31PM
"I believe that if we have competent managers within the executive branch (which we probably mostly do among the high-ranking career civil servants..."
Yeah, bureaucrats are quite "competent" when it comes to protecting and growing their strain in the corrupt disease called the State but it's nice to see you have plenty of confidence in the hirelings of the ruling elite to efficiently cram down the decrees on the hapless and clueless public. Bet the German bureaucracy in the '30s was highly competent carrying out their "duties", too.
Reform? Good God!! Once, back when we had a Republic and government, instead of democracy and Empire, a great president said he saw no provision in the Constitution for soldiers pensions. Then the "Reformers" came along and found not only that, but largess aplenty for all and sundry. Reform is pointless with the State. Where has it ever retreated when once it entered?
Repeal the 16th amendment if you want government back. Everything else is just hot air.
Oldefarte| 3.1.13 @ 7:45PM
Our King will probably just phone Wolfman Ben and tell him to open up the vaults of the Fed. Insane? Not with this administration, as anything is possible!!!!
The Only Good Democrat| 3.1.13 @ 9:16PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....1-05-37-55
The sequester hits Europe hard.