Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Congressional Republicans are considering a proposal that would give the Obama administration authority to choose what gets the axe under the automatic spending cuts required by sequestration. The measure is intended to negate the “across-the-board” nature of sequestration while still maintaining the size of the spending cuts, sources said.
“Those conversations are happening and they’re happening at a leadership level,” a Senate source told The Washington Examiner. “The bill would not try to replace the cuts, [but] it would instead give the president maximum authority to prioritize.”
Such legislation would address Obama’s complaint earlier this week, that sequestration takes a “meat cleaver” approach to spending, without yielding to his demand for more tax increases. It might also pressure him to start with cuts that do not have an immediate impact on military readiness — for example, the clean energy program that has the Navy paying $16 per gallon for biofuels.
The liberal Center for American Progress wrote approvingly in a November report about a change to the law such as the one Republicans are now contemplating. “(The) amount of cuts to the Pentagon budget mandated by both parts of the debt deal is readily achievable with no sacrifice to our security,” the report said, “if the cuts are done in a thoughtful manner over the next decade.”
the cuts as scheduled may be worse than anything Obama would do. And if Obama used this newfound authority to protect expensive pet projects, Republicans could “then pin any wasteful defense spending program on him,” the Senate source said. On the other hand, there would be a tradeoff, as Obama would receive credit for making subsequent budget cuts. Lawmakers might also see the cuts fall on defense programs in their states and districts
Obama doesn't want the responsibility of making the cuts himself. He would then have to take the blame if it goes south. He will get the credit in either case so why take the rsponsibility if it goes badly?
He would have to be really stupid to take it. Its a big risk of failure when he can float and take credit for any positive outcome and blame the negative on the GOP. If he takes the responsibility then the GOP can blame him. In chess this would be a "Check" move. The games not over but you have to do something to get your king out of harms way.
