A+ A A-

Obama could have helped negotiate a ‘sequester’ alternative

To the editor,
President Obama and the fawning mainstream media want you to think that the "sequester" and the harsh "sequester" cuts are being forced on him by others. These are deliberate falsehoods.
The "sequester" was President Obama's idea to pretend concern, in anticipation of his re-election campaign, for our huge deficits by agreeing to future (small, less than 3 spending) spending cuts.
Are the drastic cuts that President Obama chooses to make today the ones he envisioned when he proposed the "sequester"? Or, when he promised to veto any attempt to avoid it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crt5J3XM_zk)? If yes, then the "sequester" was a bad idea. If he envisioned less severe cuts, he should implement those cuts now.
Every businessman and family can handle a 3 percent budget cut without cutting essential services, why can't President Obama? Just eliminating the $125 billion that Obama's GAO says is WASTED annually exceeds the "sequester's" savings. Or, Obama could reduce the $50 to $100 billion in annual Medicare and Medicaid fraud. He could cut less important services and rein in excessively expensive programs. President Obama refuses to do any of these.
President Obama could have helped negotiate an alternative to the "sequester". He could now direct Senate Democrats to do what the House Republicans recently did and create a less painful alternative to the "sequester". But, now President Obama feels that the friendly media will help him win either by backing out of his "sequester" agreements or by successfully blaming Republicans for the harsh "sequester" cuts that he actually chooses.
Even after the "sequester" cuts, President Obama plans annual deficits (borrowing) exceeding $1 trillion for the foreseeable future. President Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and most economists agree that this level of borrowing cannot continue.
Either this borrowing ends in a planned way which minimizes the impact, or it ends suddenly and catastrophically, causing terrible pain for everyone (except the rich).
President Obama could work to avoid this catastrophe, but he doesn't. Unfortunately President Obama only cares about attacking Republicans and advancing his class-warfare, tax the rich agenda despite his agreement that new taxes would not be part of the "sequester" deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html). And, even taxing away every penny earned by millionaires and billionaires only raises enough money to run the government for a month or two. (The amount potentially raised is a small part of our deficit, you only get it the first year, and it cuts future tax revenue.)
President Obama's obsession to defeat Republicans is so fanatical that he is willing to impose unnecessarily harsh "sequester" cuts and to ignore the certain disaster that continuing $1 trillion deficits will cause current and future generations of Americans.
Don Ewing
Meredith
 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN