WASHINGTON — "I don't know whether to kill myself or to go bowling," goes the old country song. Official Washington has apparently decided to do both — permitting a self-destructive sequester while heading off on vacation, to bowl or maybe to golf.
For the historical record, all sides bear responsibility for this turn of events. What President Obama now calls a "really bad idea" was generated by his own economic policy team. What Speaker John Boehner now refers to as a "meat ax" passed the House at his urging with 174 Republican votes. All involved would protest that across-the-board cuts were only intended as the unthinkable alternative to a rational plan approved by the so-called supercommittee. "The sequester is ugly," explained Boehner at the time, "Why? Because we don't want anybody to go there. That's why we have to succeed."
But no one loses money betting against the success of the federal government on budget issues. And many in American politics are now trying to find the sequester's inner beauty, which brings to mind another country classic: "She's looking better every beer."
Some Democrats see disproportionate defense reductions as a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity. "You are not going to get another chance to cut the defense budget in the way that it needs to be cut," salivates Howard Dean. For others, it is an opportunity to apply blame to Republicans as TSA screening lines lengthen and meat quality inspectors are furloughed.
Democratic proposals to avoid the sequester are consistent with an aggressive blame-shifting strategy. Replacing a measure that currently consists of 100 percent budget cuts with one that includes 50 percent revenue increases would probably secure zero Republican votes in the Senate. If Boehner were even to publicly consider this approach, he would likely lose his speakership. The Democratic alternative is designed to be unacceptable to nearly every Republican, making it not a plan but a ploy.
On the Republican side, a few of the libertarian/isolationist persuasion are perfectly content with broad budget cuts that also unravel military preparedness. Many more in the GOP are resigned to sequestration as the least bad of the options they have been given. These Republicans have, of course, their own alternative: Replace immediate, indiscriminate cuts with gradual, long-term reductions in entitlement spending. But enacting it would require presidential leadership involving political risk, which is not expected.
Republicans comfort themselves that a 5.1 percent reduction in domestic spending is not as dramatic as a government shutdown — more of a haircut than a scalping. But it is probably not wise to trust in the restraint and sense of historical proportion of the media in covering the resulting dislocations. And not all the pain will be minor.
So Washington has maneuvered itself into a position where doing nothing makes political sense for everyone, at least for the moment. But when all these politically rational decisions are added up, they still amount to an absurd, discrediting way to run a government.
Across-the-board cuts are an ethical abdication. Consider one of many possible case studies: The AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), which provides domestic, need-based treatment. Funding for this program is devoted entirely to purchasing drugs, since benefits are provided through Medicaid and involve almost no administrative cost. But because ADAP is not technically a poverty program, it will be subject to the sequester. Nearly 10,000 Americans will lose access to drugs that would otherwise have been provided. Few individual politicians would choose this program for cuts. But by surrendering their power of choice, they have chosen it anyway. A retreat from governing is not a release from responsibility.
- Top scandals and controversies of each United...
- Top scandals and controversies of each US...
- In our opinion: Scouting success will come...
- Letters: No welfare, ever
- Robert Bennett: With public trust waning,...
- In our opinion: Big screen exploitation of...
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate
- My view: Why moderates lost the caucus vote
- Letters: No welfare, ever 58
- Letters: Deception and government 31
- Letter: The real death panel:... 30
- In our opinion: Reduce the legal... 26
- In our opinion: Big screen exploitation... 25
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate 23
- Letters: Paycheck Fairness Act 21
- Matthew Sanders: Imploding trust in... 20