'Obama's Sequester?' Pure Nonsense

[mfcorey1]

Jared Bernstein Fmr. Obama administration economist; CNBC and MSNBC contributor


For my sanity and yours, I rarely get into the silliest corners of politics, but this conservative talking point that the word "sequester" must actually be called "Obama's sequester," like they had nothing to do with it, is really beyond the pale. I get that both sides are trying to position themselves to not get blamed for this totally preventable, self-inflicted wound, but here are some facts that belie this ridiculous Republican disowning of a policy they supported.

-- The sequester was part of the Budget Control Act, passed in 2011 with bipartisan support. In fact, a larger share of House Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats: 174 (73 percent) voted for it and 66 against, while Democrats were split 95-95. In the Senate, 28 Republicans voted for it and 19 against, while Democrats supported it 45-6.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/republicans-sequester_b_2735912.html

[djean111]

1. Every Democrat, from Obama on down, would do well to start referring to things like this as

"The Republican sequester (or whatever) " until it is fixed in the public's mind as well as "Obamacare".
I tried to explain to an honestly bewildered tea-party person yesterday that Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritage Foundation = people like Kochs - but the information is just not processed.
Explanations about the profit factor - more bewilderment.
And it is set in stone that the federal government cannot do anything right at all - and this on the heels of reeling off facts and figures concerning imminent retirement and collection of veteran benefits and social security.

Facts don't register - I also tried mightily to explain that the insurance premium amounts that show up in a paycheck box are not taxable, but I think the average tea partier has the same response I got - "But, no, They said I am going to be taxed, because that is part of my salary now". And that it isn't fair, people who don't work get free health care better than theirs, and people in other countries with single payer die like flies due to denied care and wait times.
Not sure what will work, but just countering with facts will not work at all.
Maybe simple charts or something.....the lies have been repeated so much they are firmly truths to many now.
So Dems need to start playing the same game. Only with simple truths. Somehow.
Rachel can explain and vent or whatever 24 hours a day, with Soledad helping out - but tea partiers are not going to be watching, there is much preaching to the choir going on, that's about all, sadly.

[kentuck]

2. 73% of House Repubs voted for sequester while only 50% of House Democrats voted for sequester.

Tell me again how this is "Obama's sequester"??

[djean111]

9. The facts do not matter in the least.

Voters are going to hear "Obama's sequester" on TV and the radio - they are not going to start fact checking, very few ever do.

[badtoworse]

3. Anyone who wasn't prepared to live with it, shouldn't have voted for it.

The fact is that both sides in Congress supported it, as did Obama. They all should wear the blame for being unable to resolve the conflict.

[gcomeau]

4. Um, bullshit?

The GOP held the national economy *hostage* to get that sequester. They refused to allow the debt ceiling to be raised until they got guarantees of spending cuts to buy their votes. The sequester was the GOP's price for not tanking the economy.

[badtoworse]

5. But guaranteeing spending cuts was the deal

Where are they?

[gcomeau]

6. You know what the sequester does, right? -eom

[badtoworse]

7. There is no way to cut spending without pain somewhere,...

but the reality is that we can't keep spending at current levels indefinitiely.

[gcomeau]

8. umm... ok.

That wasn't remotely related to my question, but whatever. I'm just going to call it established that the original statement that all sides were responsible for the sequester was total bullshit since there has been no attempt to challenge the mind numbingly obvious fact that the GOP was completely responsible for it.

[badtoworse]

10. We'll just have to disagree about this.

[gcomeau]

12. That would be easier if you tried disagreeing substantively.

You know, provided an actual *reason* you disagree?

[badtoworse]

13. Try this

Bob Woodward lays it out pretty well and It looks worse for Obama than I thought. It would seem that he's reneging on the deal that he proposed and agreed to in 2011.

I don't see how you can say that it's all the Republicans' fault when a.) Obama proposed the sequester; and b.)he won't stand by the deal he agreed to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

[gcomeau]

14. I repeat. Bullshit.

Saying "Obama proposed the deal" acts like he initiated.

Sequence of events was

1: Debt ceiling approaching
2. GOP declares they will refuse to allow it to be raised and force the US into defaulting on it's financial obligations unless they are given large scale spending cuts.
3: Negotiations, GOP refuses to back down.
4: Obama finally says fine, we'll give you spending cuts. YOU work them out in congress and so you know they'll happen we can let you put this automatic trigger in there just to make sure things don't get kicked down the road forever? Happy? Take the gun away from the head of the American Economy now?
5: Budget control act gets passed, debt ceiling raised.

Nothing in Woodward's article alters that. He simply ignores steps 1 through 3 and acts like everything started at step 4.

Do You Deny Steps 1 Through 3 Occurred?

Saying Obama was responsible for the sequester is like saying the person signing the ransom check is responsible for the loss of cash. The GOP FORCED that. All Obama or the Dems were asking for was to raise the debt ceiling. That's it. The GOP were the ONLY ones demanding spending cuts.

[napkinz]

11. they built it

[woo me with science]

15. The scam was bipartisan from the start.

It was deliberately set up so that the only possible outcome was austerity. We were there, remember?

Of course they are against it now. The two parties take turns being against and for things. It is all political, but the goal is austerity...and they will achieve that together after we get our little Kabuki negotiation show.

D vs. R fervor is being USED by corporatists who have bought into both parties. It is being used as a scam to divide us and make sure half the country will always circle the wagons and defend the predatory policies when it's our guy's turn to be implementing them. They want us to hate each other so much that we will never, ever unite against what they are doing to all of us.

D vs. R is a smokescreen when it comes to economic issues. They are all working for the banks now. The real game is the one percent against the rest of us. And the predation will continue as long as we keep falling for the partisan propaganda and reflexively tolerating or even defending anything our side proposes - like cutting Social Security - even when it is indefensible.