The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Woodward: Why Is Obama Lying?||Date: 2/23/2013 10:26 AM|
|Author: 2828||Number: 672714 of 762001|
A: It's what he does.
My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.
Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”
In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.
So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.
Now he's crying about devastating cuts, the very cuts he proposed. Domestic spending is up over 80% in Obamas first 4 years and the sequester makes a "modest growth rate reduction". The whole thing is a joke. Instead of playing politics, if he was really concerned, he would put the cuts he's willing to make on the table that would replace the, "draconian, meat ax" cuts that are unpalatable....but he doesn't, because he isn't interested in governing.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|