Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been under fire the past few days for his role as one of the leading front men for the president’s effort to scare Americans about the sequester. There are good reasons to fear the impact of these across-the-board spending cuts, especially to defense, as Max wrote last week. But the manner in which the administration is attempting to claim that the country’s business will grind to a halt is prompting some skepticism about the sequester as well as the government’s credibility.
There’s no doubt the sequester will inflict real pain on the Department of Transportation and other government sectors. But Republicans are publicly wondering whether that pain will be disproportionately applied to services that will directly affect the public as opposed to other, far less vital expenditures that might well be eliminated without creating the sort of havoc that the White House has been warning us about. Who is right? We’ll find out soon enough, as at this point either side of this argument can say anything it wants without fear of being proven wrong. But once the sequester starts going into effect it will be possible to see whether the government is being straight with the public or not. That’s the danger for the White House.
Up until this week, the contest to see who will get the lion’s share of the blame for the sequester has been the main event in Washington. Part of that was involved in the White House’s effort to disavow the paternity of this awful idea. But now that Bob Woodward has blown that up, they are back to their main task of arguing that any suffering or inconvenience that stems from the measure will be due to the GOP refusing to accept the president’s demands and raise taxes. While talking about the long-term impact of layoffs or lower allocations for programs can certainly drive the argument about the sequester, Democrats also know that the way the cuts impact the daily life of Americans will be even more influential.
That’s why the focus this week has been on things like the possible travails that travelers will experience at airports when the sequester goes into effect. In theory that ought to create tremendous pressure on Republicans to give in to the president, evoking the spectacle of aggravated passengers as canceled flights and long security lines bring air travel to a grinding halt.
But if it comes out that these delays have been as much the result of manipulative decisions by the authorities that are geared toward maximizing inconvenience rather than just cutting expenditures, it could cause some real blow back for the administration. Figures such as LaHood need to be very careful in the way the sequester is administered. As much as the president is the beneficiary of a largely complacent press corps, any monkey business aimed at making things look even worse than they are could erase any temporary advantage the president might get from this dustup.
"But if it comes out that these delays have been as much the result of manipulative decisions by the authorities that are geared toward maximizing inconvenience rather than just cutting expenditures"—true, but it will never "come out."
This is similar to a local School District killing bus service for students when the local community votes down a tax increase. Hit them where it hurts. Unfortunately it works on low information voters.
and as bizarre as it may sound, the GOP now wants to give Obama the full authority to direct the cuts. n n
It is called "Washington Monument Syndrome", as in close the monument to the public at the first hint of budget cuts. It was done extensively back in the 1990s during episodes of budget fights. The most visible services were always cut first. So yes, I expect chaos at airports, closed national parks, meat rotting on the hook uninspected, etc… It will be worse than the 1990s because Obama is more determined (and so is his opponents), and the media is totally on Obama's side.
Lets not forget who's idea the budget cut's are. If I remember correctly the last Congress came up with this idea in exchange for extended unemployment and extended payroll tax reduction. nIf we are going to lay blame here, it belongs solely with the 112th Congress. Which belongs solely in the lap of John Boehner and the Republicans.
"There’s no doubt the sequester will inflict real pain on the Department of Transportation and other government sectors. " nActually that is total and complete bulls##t. nEven after the sequester, the federal government will spend $15 billion MORE than it did last year, and 30% more than it spent in 2007. nSpending on non-defense discretionary programs will be 19.2% higher and spending on defense will be 13.8% higher than it was in 2007. nThe only pain here comes from reading moronic nonsense peddled by Obama and mindlessly repeated by the likes of Tobin. nWouldn't you rather write about Miley Cyrus' latest wardrobe malfunction, sunshine?
The whole goal of Obama is make the public suffer to show they can't do without big government to decide everything for them and protect them. 85 billion is 2.3% of a 3.6Trillion budget. They have targeted vital services to convince the Republicans and taxpayers that raising taxes is necessary. A 2.3% cut is not drastic and it could be done with non vital services such as Dept of Ed, Commerce, Treasury, Environmental Protection and DHS. For a start DHS could cancel all the ammunition orders they placed. The WH could cut some of the czars and Obama's travel budget (heaven forbid). Alternatively there is 1 trillion in overseas corporate profits that companies will not bring back at 35%. But they might at 10% and we could stipulate not used for stock buybacks, but growth in the US. A 10% tax would bring in 100 billion. More than we needed for this year. The US Corp tax rate is 35%. Yes effective rate is lower but not all companies get rebates, tax breaks, writeoffs. Lower the rate to boost investment in the US. Why not have a minimum corp rate of 15% that everyone pays even with breaks. Canada has reduced their rates and we can't compete. We are the only country that taxes overseas profits. Get rid of that to boost investment in the US.