The take no blame Obama.
Obama Could, And Should, Manage His Sequester
Posted 02/21/2013 06:42 PM ET
Sequester: Faced with
suddenly being forced to cut 3%, a business would manage the challenge
effectively — or go out of business. "America's CEO" prefers politicized
chaos and he should be held accountable.
Someone who claims he has spent trillions of dollars of other people's money wisely should be able to manage a pittance in spending cuts without falsely claiming that the sky is falling.
How many times have we heard President Obama tout his ability to spend smart? "Making smart investments in our people that we pay for responsibly is the only proven way to both cut our deficits and create a thriving middle class," he claimed earlier this month in a campaign-like brochure titled "The President's Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America" — two things we were told he would achieve in his first term.
The same document touts Obama's "smart spending cuts." In the past, he has told his now-defunct "Jobs Council" (which never figured out how to generate jobs) of his knack for "distinguishing between smart investments and dumb investments."
Presumably, "smart investments" wasn't a reference to the infamous waste of a half billion dollars in taxpayer money on the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra.
Or $43 million for Beacon Power, a green energy storage company the Obama Department of Energy knew had a "CCC" Standard & Poor's seal of nonapproval when it gave it the cash, as CBS News reported. Or the at least 10 other loser firms in the energy sector alone that Obama bet on to win with billions in taxpayer cash.
Today, as he blames Republicans for a budget sequestration scheme his own White House spokesman Tuesday admitted was Obama's idea, the president is frightening us about devastating cuts to the government — from border patrols to emergency responders, from schools to medicine, from the FBI to air traffic control.
"These cuts are not smart," he claimed, standing before a blue wall of law enforcement officers Tuesday.
"They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls," he added, a subject on which he is an expert. "There is a smarter way to do this ... a smart, thoughtful way."
The major press would never let a GOP president get away with such shameless, fraudulent exploitation. This is the man who runs the executive branch.
Why can't someone who spent $3.6 trillion last year manage cutting $85 billion, about a 3% reduction?
Instead, the media report kids being denied access to views of the Grand Canyon thanks to the sequester, and the loss of ranger programs at national parks. In fact, during government shutdowns nature lovers have been able to drive through unmanned national park entrances without paying fees to mother-hen park rangers.
These tall tales of the sequester bringing the world to an end are illustrative of all the various federal government entrenched bureaucracies operating on automatic pilot to defend their far-ranging, ever-expanding fiefdoms.
President Obama could have planned "a smart, thoughtful way" to manage the sequester he promised during last year's campaign would never happen.
But why would the biggest spender in history do that?
Someone who claims he has spent trillions of dollars of other people's money wisely should be able to manage a pittance in spending cuts without falsely claiming that the sky is falling.
How many times have we heard President Obama tout his ability to spend smart? "Making smart investments in our people that we pay for responsibly is the only proven way to both cut our deficits and create a thriving middle class," he claimed earlier this month in a campaign-like brochure titled "The President's Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America" — two things we were told he would achieve in his first term.
The same document touts Obama's "smart spending cuts." In the past, he has told his now-defunct "Jobs Council" (which never figured out how to generate jobs) of his knack for "distinguishing between smart investments and dumb investments."
Presumably, "smart investments" wasn't a reference to the infamous waste of a half billion dollars in taxpayer money on the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra.
Or $43 million for Beacon Power, a green energy storage company the Obama Department of Energy knew had a "CCC" Standard & Poor's seal of nonapproval when it gave it the cash, as CBS News reported. Or the at least 10 other loser firms in the energy sector alone that Obama bet on to win with billions in taxpayer cash.
Today, as he blames Republicans for a budget sequestration scheme his own White House spokesman Tuesday admitted was Obama's idea, the president is frightening us about devastating cuts to the government — from border patrols to emergency responders, from schools to medicine, from the FBI to air traffic control.
"These cuts are not smart," he claimed, standing before a blue wall of law enforcement officers Tuesday.
"They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls," he added, a subject on which he is an expert. "There is a smarter way to do this ... a smart, thoughtful way."
The major press would never let a GOP president get away with such shameless, fraudulent exploitation. This is the man who runs the executive branch.
Why can't someone who spent $3.6 trillion last year manage cutting $85 billion, about a 3% reduction?
Instead, the media report kids being denied access to views of the Grand Canyon thanks to the sequester, and the loss of ranger programs at national parks. In fact, during government shutdowns nature lovers have been able to drive through unmanned national park entrances without paying fees to mother-hen park rangers.
These tall tales of the sequester bringing the world to an end are illustrative of all the various federal government entrenched bureaucracies operating on automatic pilot to defend their far-ranging, ever-expanding fiefdoms.
President Obama could have planned "a smart, thoughtful way" to manage the sequester he promised during last year's campaign would never happen.
But why would the biggest spender in history do that?
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022113-645289-reports-of-the-sequester-are-greatly-exaggerated.htm#ixzz2LeP6tOYn
No comments:
Post a Comment