Sunday, February 24, 2013

It's finger pointing time on the Potomac.


And the boys and girls are out pointing and blaming with a villainous zeal that they seldom bring to their designated tasks. Indeed, if they worked that hard on their real jobs can you imagine where our country would be?
First the White House and Congress created a potential fiscal crisis, agreeing more than a year ago to once-unthinkable governmentwide spending cuts in 2013 unless the two parties agreed to alternative ways to reduce budget deficits.

Now that those cuts are imminent — because compromise is not — they have created one of Washington’s odder blame games over just whose bad idea this was.

The battle lines over cuts that are scheduled to begin on Friday, known in budget parlance as sequestration, were evident on Saturday in President Obama’s weekly address and the Republican response, by Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota.

“Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising, instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans, they would rather let these cuts fall squarely on the middle class,” said Mr. Obama, who proposed a substitute mix of spending cuts and revenues from repealing some tax breaks for wealthy people and corporations.

He added: “Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the Border Patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?”

For Republicans, who oppose any tax increases, Mr. Hoeven countered: “He blames Congress for the sequester, but Bob Woodward, in his book ‘The Price of Politics’ sets the record straight. Woodward says it was President Obama who proposed — and promoted — the sequester.”

What makes this debate over blame so odd is that both sides’ fingerprints — and votes — are all over the sequestration concept. The point of sequestration, in fact, was to define cuts that were so arbitrary and widespread that they would be unpalatable to both sides and force a deal.
Apparently nothing is unpalatable to the Republican/Teabaggers. Either that or they all get their rocks off pointing and blaming.

Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]