From the first public argument about the sequester, the overwhelming attitude from both sides in the commentariat has been acceptance that the approach to cuts within it are inherently unwise and unfair, cutting fat and muscle alike. But is this really true? Consider that we live in an era when there is enormous disagreement about what is muscle and what is fat between right and left, and even within right and left, isn’t the fairest thing to do to cut in a common sense across the board manner? Of course it would be preferable to prioritize agencies to get rid of permanently, but only if you favor smaller government. If you don’t, then recognize that the budget priorities of prior agreements are already baked into the sequestration approach – this haircut is just coming on top of those agreements.
It’s time for a family budget tightening, and everyone’s getting the first dollar knocked off their allowance. Stop the talk of how “draconian” the sequester is – it isn’t. But even if it was, a broad-based cut is the only fair way to do things if we can’t agree on which spending cuts to prioritize. Now, there’s a point to be made that Defense is getting a bigger drop than the rest, but the doomsayer tactics they’ve used to defend such cuts with promises of apocalypse simply aren’t real. But even if they were real, Karl Rove’s argument – that Republicans should simply give the power to the president to decide what’s important and what isn’t – is absurdly wrongheaded. His “better” sequester strategy would involve some assumption that Obama knows best how to split up cuts, when in reality the White House would just use this as anotheropportunity for leverage to split their foes. Have Republicans learned nothing from Rove’s other failed strategeries? I’m sure nothing will bolster their standing with their base or the American people so much as seeming so desperate to avoid cutting government spending that they’ll leave the choices up to the
No comments:
Post a Comment