- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
1,804
2,128
Budget debate shows politics in stark relief
Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do?
The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.
The example was deliberately extreme as an illustration. But, in the real world, the same general pattern can be seen in local, state and national government responses to budget cuts.
At the local level, the first response to budget cuts is often to cut the police department and the fire department. There may be all sorts of wasteful boondoggles that could have been cut instead, but that would not produce the public alarm that reducing police protection and fire protection can produce. And public alarm is what can get budget cuts restored.
The Obama administration is following the same pattern. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, released thousands of illegal immigrants from prisons to save money – and create alarm.
The Federal Aviation Administration says it is planning to cut back on the number of air traffic controllers, which would, at a minimum, create delays for airline passengers, in addition to fears for safety that can create more public alarm.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have offered to pass legislation giving President Obama the authority to pick and choose what gets cut – anywhere in the trillions of dollars of federal spending – rather than being hemmed in by the arbitrary provisions of the sequester.
This would minimize the damage done by budget cuts concentrated in limited areas, such as the Defense Department. But it serves Obama’s interest to maximize the damage and the public alarm, which he can direct against Republicans.
President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.
The sequester creates more visible damage and more public alarm than if the president were given the authority to trim a little here and a little there in the vast trillions of dollars spent by the government, in order to make a relatively small “cut” that still leaves total federal spending higher than last year.
Only in Washington is a reduction in the rate of growth of spending called a “cut.” Moreover, costly boondoggles not covered by the sequester can continue and grow.
Obviously Obama wants public alarm, which he can use to help defeat the Republicans in the 2014 elections, so that Democrats can take back control of the House of Representatives.
When Obama was offered the authority to make the spending cuts wherever he chooses, anywhere in the government’s multitrillion-dollar budget, it was the only power that this power-grabbing president has rejected.
Why? Because with this new power would go responsibility for the consequences of his choices. And responsibility for consequences is precisely what both the Obama administration and the Senate Democrats have been avoiding for years, by refusing to pass a federal budget, as required by the Constitution of the United States.
Democrats prefer to get the political benefits from handing out goodies, while Republicans can be blamed for not subsequently raising enough taxes to pay for the Democrats’ spending spree.
If Obama succeeds in maneuvering the Republicans into positions that cause them to lose control of the House of Representatives in the 2014 elections, then as a president who never has to face the voters again, he would be in an ideal position to create a big spending liberals’ heaven.
But it will be far from heaven for the economy, with Obama-appointed bureaucrats burying businesses in red tape and job-killing costs, while expanding the size and arbitrary powers of government. We could become the world’s largest banana republic.
Thomas Sowell is an author, economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Discussion | 13 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
rlw895March 12, 2013 - 12:45 pm
One only has to look at Fairfield to see that Sowell's whole thesis is wrong. Maybe some government agencies play the game he suggests, but when it comes to the actual governing board of a local government, I don't think so. As for the generous offer by Republicans to dump the whole federal budget mess into Obama's lap, notice they don't give him the power to raise revenues too. Give him that, or just give him the revnues he asks for, and see if he threatens to veto that.
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 12, 2013 - 4:37 pm
RLW: As usual, Sowell is smack-dab on target. And as usual, you and your liberal colleagues can't wait to accuse him of being out to lunch, or worse, spinning the truth. Obama's game-plan is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, and Sowell sums it up nicely. You libs, who are among those paying attention, have little choice but to pretend you aren't seeing what the rest of us are seeing. It is what it is. Oh, and the "senior whitehouse official" who called Obama's latest transparent show of fake bipartisanship "a waste" of everyone's time, deserves a medal for his/her candor and obvious disgust with Obama's cynical approach to presidential leadership and responsibility. Can you say, "Photo op?"
Reply |rlw895March 13, 2013 - 11:48 am
Tom: "The rest of us" is a minority. "It is what it is." What is it? Everything Obama is doing can be interpreted as a response or reaction to Republican tactics. Either that or a preemptive strike. This is politics at a high level with an observing public that “is what it is.” If we want better, then we have to be better. The last election shows we’re getting there. But with Republicans still in control of the House and more than willing to abuse the filibuster rule in the Senate, Obama has little choice but to do the best he can. Sowell does nothing more than try to distract the public from our real problems, chief among them is that the Republicans have sold out to a small cadre of very rich people who are willing to ruin the country to preserve or enhance their position.
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 13, 2013 - 1:54 pm
RLW: "It is" as I said, a sham photo-op put forth by Obama to hoodwink the sheeple into thinking he is trying to get along with those nasty Republicans in congress. A man of virtue would not stoop to such tactics, because it shows a lack of well, virtue. Instead, the POTUS has chosen to establish a fake record of bipartisanship to refer back to somewhere down the road--perhaps the 2014 elections? Is this what you mean when you say Obama is forced "to do the best he can?" Simple common sense and minimal observation of current events tell us what he is up to. Those of us who aren't blind, that is.
Reply |rlw895March 13, 2013 - 9:58 pm
Tom: And as I said, Obama is only responding to the Republicans. If you can remember back, Obama started out naively, in the opinion of more aggressive liberals, believing he could take community organizing to the national level when he was first elected. Ah, for an LBJ! Meanwhile, Republicans were saying—out loud—that their first priority was to make Obama a one-term president. Obama kept turning the other cheek and getting slapped twice. It’s my Jackie Robinson analogy. He did well, but had to suffer the insults. Then we had the 2010 elections. What wool was pulled over who’s eyes then? Obama has learned a lot about playing hardball in the intervening years. When the overconfident Republicans nominated a plutocrat for president, the nation finally stated to get it; we had the 2012 awakening. The Republicans are now only getting the president they created and deserve. You seem to ignore the Republicans’ role in the present state of affairs and the growing understanding of more and more people. Your 2014 election theory doesn’t hold much weight, as Obama isn’t running. So who’s blind?
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 14, 2013 - 9:39 am
RLW: Obama isn't running in 2014? Seriously? My reference (as you probably knew) was to the potential carry-over effect on the congressional elections. Replacing those nasty Republicans with Dems because they refused to accept Obama's attempt to work with them in 2013, thus increasing the misery index for the "middle class."
Reply |rlw895March 14, 2013 - 11:11 am
Tom: I was thinking 2016 actually. Oops. But as for your point, what I said is still relevant. Republicans refuse to work with Obama in 2013. Yes, and they also refused to work with him in 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009. What is different now is the passing of the 2012 elections. He and we hoped the Republicans would be chastened and give a little. But the 2010 election results that the Republicans manufactured with their Tea Party alliance are entrenched. In addition, the status quo serves the Republican rich masters just fine. So we get impasse with the debate over who's to blame. The system is broken because there are no moderate Republicans anymore. That's a fact. The Republicans still have a majority in the House because of shameless gerrymandering after the 2010 election and census. That's a fact. And the Republicans in the Senate have abused the filibuster rule out of recognition. That's a fact too. Now let's add another fact: The blatant attempts to throw the 2012 election by disenfranchising Democrats in temporarily Republican domintated states (due again to the 2010 elections). Karl Rove embarassed himself on national TV because he knew the polls whould not show the results of disenfranchisement and he expected it to work. The facts all add up. What facts do you have? That Obama is fighting back the best he can? We Democrats don't want the Obama that shows the other cheek anymore, and don't expect whining from Republicans to change that. Republicans are reaping what they sowed, and there is more to come. The country is moving forward. It's up to the Republicans to change or be left behind.
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 14, 2013 - 2:19 pm
RLW: Republicans aren't "whining" about Obama's most recent display of cynicism, lack of character and poor leadership--they are pointing it out. As was I. You missed my point entirely. Why would the GOP willingly cooperate with a president--any president--who openly vows to "fundamentally change" the United States of America into a socialist nightmare? As for your statement that The country is moving forward, I have just one word for you--HAH!
Reply |rlw895March 14, 2013 - 2:49 pm
Tom: Well if we keep at it, maybe I will get your point. I'm going to have to ask for your source for "openly vows to 'fundamentally change' the United States of America into a socialist nightmare." Golly, who could be in favor of that? It's just not true or I would be with you. So our disagreement is founded on whether that is true or not. I say no, but give me your facts; I can be persuaded. Certainly the Republicans have a motive to make people THINK it's true so they can be our saviors. But I think the Republicans are our saviors only in Republican-bubble-world.
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 14, 2013 - 5:21 pm
RLW: We all saw and heard Obama promise to "fundamentally change" America as its new president one day on TV. Did he mention at that moment the socialist society he envisioned? No. We now know what he meant, however, after watching and listening to him for the past four years. Was he elected to "fundamentally change" America? Is that why those who voted for him did so? I really doubt it. If you want to quibble with my "socialist" label, fine. Whatever his vision is called, however, is repugnant to me as an American, based upon what I have observed thus far.
Reply |rlw895March 14, 2013 - 6:01 pm
Tom: So, "openly vows to 'fundamentally change' the United States of America" was Obama's and "into a socialist nightmare" is your invention. Did it occur to you that when Obama was first elected, he intended to fundamentally change what America had become under the eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration? That's what I figured he meant, and thanked goodness for it. Wherever you're getting the "socialist nightmare" stuff, try something else. It's causing you to hallucinate.
Reply |Tom ChalkMarch 14, 2013 - 10:08 pm
RLW: So who should I believe--you, or my own lyin' eyes (and ears)? Did you not see that I am not bound in cement to the "socialist" terminology, but cannot give your president a pass regardless of how you and your fellow Obama defenders choose to characterize his so-called administration? I guess I'm not the only one who is hallucinating--you still see clothes on your emperor, apparently. The rest of us are grossed out. Try to think of it this way: Remember how much you liberals despised W? That's how my fellow conservatives and I feel about O. So where does that leave us?
Reply |rlw895March 15, 2013 - 3:43 am
Tom: It leaves us trying to figure out why. Yes, I guess I did “despise” W. I guess you didn’t. But this is a false equivalency. It wasn’t personal; W gave me reasons to be critical of him. Let me list the top reasons, and I believe history will agree with me: 1. W chose Dick Cheney as his VP (or did Cheney chose himself?), then delegated and deferred to him too much. 2. W/C recklessly led the country into the war in Iraq on what turned out to be false pretenses (WMDs being passed on to terrorists who would strike in the US). 3. W/C, using secret legal opinions, used 9/11 as a pretext to expand executive power at the expense of congress and our freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights. 4. W/C cut taxes and raised spending, taking the country off the path of solvency and onto the path of ruin. No hallucinations there. What do you have against Obama?
Reply |