Divided We Stand - United We Fall

Sea Change for The Dividist Papers

2013-04-24T05:42:00.002-07:00

The Dividist Papers will be on hiatus for at least the month of May. We have an opportunity to check off a "bucket list" item and sail across the Atlantic Ocean aboard the Morpheus (pictured above). If interested, our progress can be tracked on my other blog, or the the captains blog. Try to hold the country together until the Dividist returns to these blogging shores.

The First Season of Sequestivus A Time to Air Grievances

2013-03-12T15:29:00.000-07:00

The legend of the origin of Sequestivus*

The great leader Obama, who was dearly loved by (52% of) the people spoke to his minions and said "Hear me! You must fear the great beast Sequester, for if it is loosed upon the land there will pestilence and famine." And the people listened to Obama and wondered.

"Go now!" He pointed "Go to the dark castle on the Hill, where the Congress of Many Heads created the great abomination called Sequestration. Bring your pitchforks and torches! Storm the castle and kill the great beast before it wreaks havoc on the land!" The great leader Obama paused, nodding his head sagely "And if you accidently kill the Congress of Many Heads that lives in the castle on The Hill, well - you know - collateral damage... shit happens... I wouldn't get too worried about it."

The people considered what the dear leader said and asked. "WTF? A 2.3% decrease in the rate of spending increases? Are you f*cking kidding me? Do you have any idea what kind of cuts we've had to make over the last four years? And you're saying can't figure out how to cut a lousy 2.3% out of this bloated governments spending increases?"

And the dear leader Obama's heart was heavy when the people did not heed his warning. Not to mention pissed. So it came to pass that the Sequestration monster was released to prey upon 48% of the people. And the great leader Obama again went to the people and said "I declare this to be the Season of Sequestivus, A time of regret, remorse, and recrimination. Let the Airing of Grievances begin."

And so, as a public service, the Dividist Town Crier herewith offers a selection of public grievances in this the first fortnight of the first season of Sequestivus.

The Airing of Grievances

Jon Stewart has a grievance with the Congress of the United States.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Democrats have a grievance with the public. They warned us all that if sequestration cuts went into effect, there would be a terrible political backlash against Republicans. They were right, except for the Republican part.

Poll: Obama approval drops seven points on sequester worries
"President Obama's approval rating has dipped to 43 percent — a seven-point drop since February 19, as the nation responds angrily to Washington's inability to strike a deal to avert the sequester, according to a new poll from Reuters and Ipsos."

President Obama’s numbers plunge in New York
"President Barack Obama’s approval rating in New York fell precipitously in the past month, according to a poll released Monday, and three-fifths of the state’s registered voters now believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. Obama’s approval rating remains high in New York, at 56 percent, with 41 percent disapproving, according to the Siena College poll.But the president’s approval rating was at 66 percent last month, with only 32 percent disapproval — so the change is a net 19 point decline."

Spring break tourists to Washington D.C. have a grievance with the secret service. Due to the sequester cuts, White House tours were suspended, so that secret service resources could be diverted to guarding the President's golf outings and Michele Obama's 50th birthday.

White House tours stop running, families disappointed
The self-guided tours are typically arranged through a member of Congress. Natalie Cooper had obtained a ticket through the office of a senator from North Carolina for her son's 8th birthday. Standing outside the White House Saturday, shortly before noon, Cooper told the birthday boy, Aaron, that they would no longer be getting a tour. "I was pretty upset about it," she told CNN. "He had his own bucket list and on that bucket list was D.C. and the White House, so it was a little bit upsetting." Aaron had already told his class he was going to the White House and added that he was "sad, very sad." But, he said, they had plans to see more monuments and museums in town.

Paul Krugman has a grievance with Joe Scarborough. Despite being a Nobel Prize winning economist, a prolific New York Times columnist,and every progressive's favorite Keynesian, Professor Krugman got his ass kicked in a debate about spending, deficits and debt with morning talk show host Joe Scarborough in a venue hosted by Charlie Rose on PBS:

Urk, Charlie Rose Edition
"Well, we’ll see how it comes out after editing, but I feel that I just had my Denver debate moment: I was tired, cranky, and unready for the blizzard of misleading factoids and diversionary stuff (In 1997 you said that the aging population was a big problem! When Social Security was founded life expectancy was only 62!) Oh, and I wasn’t prepared for Joe Scarborough’s slipperiness about what he actually advocates (he’s for more spending in the near term? Who knew?)"

In all fairness to Paul Krugman, Joe Scarborough used unfair tactics. He quoted Paul Krugman's own words. Really. That was beneath you Joe.

Jeffrey Sachs and Niall Ferguson have grievances with Paul Krugman. Sachs objects to Krugman's crude and simplistic Keynesian prescriptions and Ferguson to Krugman's uncivil partisanship.

Professor Krugman and Crude Keynesianism
"... crude Keynesians like Krugman believe that we don't have to worry about the rising public debt for many years to come, perhaps well into the next decade. This is remarkably shortsighted. The public debt has already soared, from around 41 percent of GDP when Obama came into office to around 76 percent of GDP today (and with no lasting benefit to show for it). If Krugman had his way, and deficits were not restrained, the debt-GDP ratio would already be above 80 percent by now and would be rising rapidly towards 90 percent and above (as shown in the recent CBO alternative scenario).... In my view the result of this misguided approach, adopted by the Obama Administration, has been a large build-up of public debt with no long-term benefits for an economy that instead needs a public-investment-led recovery. If we had followed Mr. Krugman's long-standing advice to double down on this failed approach the situation would have been even worse. Yes, Mr. Krugman, I believe that you are a crude Keynesian at a time when we need subtler, surer, longer-term policies".

Paul Krugman's Style Of Debate Suggests He May Have Been Traumatized As A Child
"In my view Paul Krugman has done fundamental damage to the quality of public discourse on economics. He can be forgiven for being wrong, as he frequently is--though he never admits it. He can be forgiven for relentlessly and monotonously politicizing every issue. What is unforgivable is the total absence of civility that characterizes his writing. His inability to debate a question without insulting his opponent suggests some kind of deep insecurity perhaps the result of a childhood trauma. It is a pity that a once talented scholar should demean himself in this way."

It's been a rough Sequestivus for Paul Krugman. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

K-Street special interest lobbyists have a grievance with Congress. They didn't want the sequester to cut their special interests and Congress was not listening.

Rules of the Game: Sequester Spells Bitter K Street Failure
"From university professors and scientists to cancer victims, defense contractors and federal workers, hundreds of advocacy, trade and labor groups have lobbied aggressively for months to head off the cuts. They’ve run ads, testified on Capitol Hill, staged demonstrations and hounded lawmakers, all to no avail."

In a related grievance, special interests have a grievance with K Street lobbyists. Why pay them the big bucks if they can't even protect their interests from dumb sequester cuts? Just sayin' Special Interests... there might be a better use for your money.

Glenn Sperling has a grievance with Bob Wodward reporting that: 1) The idea for the sequester came out of the White House; 2) that the President moved the goal post on the sequester after election and; 3) That Sperling threatened Bob Woodward with this email:

The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed
"But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really... I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is different. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously."

Sperling has point about the last - it is hard to see anything that resembles a threat in this e-mail. On the other hand, two out of three ain't bad. And Sperling confesses in the e-mail to yelling at Woodward. A transcript of that phone conversation would be way more interesting than the follow-up CYA e-mail.

Brian Beutler has a grievance with national/beltway media. Apparently they are not following the preferred progressive narrative about the pain the sequester is causing. He is much happier with local coverage.

Outside Washington, Sequestration Begins To Inflict Pain
"If beltway news reflected events in the country at large, the worst consequences of sequestration would amount to griping over politically motivated spending cuts, or programs spared. That kind of coverage stems from a GOP effort to identify unpopular and cynical sequestration cuts and lay them at the feet of the Obama administration lest the public regard them as a direct consequence of sequestration itself. But outside of Washington DC, sequestration is already causing real problems for regular people, and Democrats are engaged in a counteroffensive — highlighting the day-in, day-out problems sequestration is causing outside of the capital."

Nobody said there would be no pain. But after the massive spending federal spending increases of the last four years, the relatively minor reductions in the sequester barely move the needle. If a little bit of pain now can slow down our headlong rush down the unsustainable debt path where we find ourselves, it's worth it.

The Chicago Tribune has a grievance with the administration. After getting caught repeatedly misrepresenting the pain of sequester cuts, they now appear to be hell bent on manufacturing enough pain to match their exaggerations.

Truth-squadding sequester hysteria
"All of us who have to live within budgets know how to economize if we have to get by on 97.6 percent of our income. The White House wants us to believe that Washington cannot do so. But selling that cowflop has been hard: Fact-checkers at The Washington Post, Politifact and Politico have dealt Team Obama one rollicking embarrassment after another. Among claims largely or wholly debunked:
Education Secretary Arne Duncan's assertion that "There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips" in Kanawha County, W.Va., because of the sequester? Wrong, Duncan later admitted.

Obama's threat that federal prosecutors would "have to close cases and let criminals go"? "Mostly False," ruled Politifact.

A White House fact sheet stating that subsidized programs such as Meals on Wheels would serve "4 million fewer meals to seniors"? At best, exaggerated.

"Up to 70,000 children would lose access" to Head Start programs, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asserted? Incorrect.

Our favorite: Officials predicting dreadful airport delays, juxtaposed with TV images of passengers meandering casually through uncrowded airports.

The most brazen fomenting of sequester hysteria came from an arm of the Agriculture Department, which told a federal official in North Carolina that available funds couldn't be spread across several states to minimize the effect of service cuts. The word from Washington: "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else" about the cuts, "So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

Not cool Agriculture Department. Heads should roll.

It is an ill wind that blows no good. So it is with the sequester. Motivated by a common desire to moderate or replace some of the sequester cuts, budget proposals are being prepared and presented by Senate Democrats and House Republicans. Unsurprisingly, they look nothing alike. Surprisingly we may actually get a compromise Grand Bargain that puts us on a sustainable fiscal path this time. The only certainty is that the airing of grievances will continue for the foreseeable future.

*In the Credit Where it is Due Department, I tried to track down the first use of "Sequestivus. I think Kenny Murdock gets the prize:

@dividist @scott_english @the_neokong It is a natural joke but my post on it came right after i though it. So thats my timeline.
— Kenny Murdock (@Murdockreport) March 3, 2013

Postscript: The Dividist also has a grievance. Too many Americans fail to appreciate this fundamental fact:

On Rand Paul, Old-Timey Filibusters, John Brennan and "Libertarian Porn"

2013-03-07T13:42:00.000-08:00

UPDATED

Mr. Paul goes to Washington

Someone on my twitter feed described Rand Paul's epic 13 hour filibuster as "libertarian porn". Not sure if I would go that far, but given we are talking about a CSPAN feed of a man talking at a podium for 13 hours, it was far more engrossing and entertaining than it had any right to be. I watched much of it live. Really. I actually did. I reluctantly tore myself away at the nine hour mark to keep an evening engagement, and was sorely disappointed to learn it was over when I returned.

Rand Paul was ostensibly using the filibuster to block a vote on John Brennan's nomination to run the CIA, but he made it clear the nomination confirmation was not his primary reason for the filibuster. Rather it was administration evasion on a simple question - Does the President think he legally has unilateral authority to launch a drone strike on an American citizen in America? During the filibuster Rand Paul referenced several articles and read them into record. They encapsulate the issue that prompted the filibuster better than I can:

Conor Friedersdorf: Killing Americans on U.S. Soil: Eric Holder's Evasive, Manipulative Letter

"Any thinking person can see that Holder's letter is non-responsive, evasive, and deliberately manipulative in its sly reassurances, right down to the rhetorically powerful but substantively nonsensical invocation of 9/11. (Being more subtle about it than Rudy Giuliani doesn't make it right.) To credulously accept this sort of response, on an issue as important as this one, is behavior unfit for any citizen of a free country, where safeguarding the rule of law is a civic responsibility. Rand Paul deserves tremendous credit for eliciting this response. In its wake, he needs help from his colleagues and his countrymen. The time to discuss the appropriate scope of the president's authority is now, not in the aftermath of a catastrophic attack on the nation, as Holder suggests. The fact that he disagrees speaks volumes about Team Obama's reckless shortsightedness."

Kevin Gosztola: Attorney General Eric Holder: US Government Has Authority to Target & Kill US Citizens on US Soil

"Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who sent three letters to CIA director nominee John Brennan requesting an answer on “whether the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil,” finally received an answer from Attorney General Eric Holder. The answer indicates the administration of President Barack Obama does, in fact, believe it has the power to assassinate US citizens on US soil with lethal force.... There may never be a targeted killing of a US citizen on US soil and the question of whether a US citizen could be targeted and killed on US soil may remain a hypothetical question for some time, but the fact that the Obama administration has told a US senator there is a circumstance where the government could target and kill someone, who is a citizen, on US soil without charge or trial is a stark example of the imperial presidency. It is an example of how there is, for the most part, no power to violate civil liberties or human rights the president won’t claim in order to respond to “threats” however it chooses."

As interesting as the filibuster itself, was the reaction from the punditocracy. Rand Paul received positive commentary on the filibuster from across the political spectrum. The most withering criticism came from his fellow Republicans.

Ezra Klein - A great day for the filibuster, and for filibuster reform

"Wednesday’s filibuster is actually an old-school talkathon — exactly the kind of filibuster Merkley wanted to encourage. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went down to the floor of the Senate and used his prerogatives as a senator to mount a sustained, public argument against John Brennan’s nomination to lead the CIA. Now Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is picking up the argument. This is the highest purpose of the filibuster: Allowing a passionate minority to slow down the Senate and make their case to both their colleagues and the American people. If more filibusters went like this, there’d be no reason to demand reform. And if there is reform, it needs to hold open the possibility for filibusters like this."

Steve Benen - Opportunistically Standing with Rand

"Regardless, yesterday was quite a spectacle and brought legitimate questions about the scope of executive power to the fore -- and the floor -- in a way Americans haven't seen in quite a while... Filibusters are supposed to be difficult, which made yesterday's display a refreshing change of pace. It was not at all uncommon for even Paul critics to watch his endurance test and say, "Good for him." ... For the record, I don't question the senator's sincerity in the slightest, and I believe Paul would be raising the same questions and concerns if a member of his own party were in the White House. The same is true of Democrats like Ron Wyden of Oregon, who talked to Rachel last night, and probably even other Republicans like Mike Lee of Utah."

Nick Gillespie - 3 Takeaways from Rand Paul's #StandwithRand Filibuster About Drone Strikes

"The filibuster succeeded precisely because it wasn't a cheap partisan ploy but because the substance under discussion - why won't the president of the United States, his attorney general, and his nominee to head the CIA explain their views on limits to their power? - transcends anything so banal or ephemeral as party affiliation or ideological score-settling... The chills started early in the filibuster as Paul said things along the lines of, "If you're gonna kill people in America [as terrorists], you need rules and we need to know your rules," and "To be bombed in your sleep - there's nothing American, nothing constitutional, about that" (these quotes are paraphrases). Those are not the words of a career politician trying to gain an advantage during the next round of horse-trading over a pork-barrel project. They are the words of a patriot who puts his country first and they inspire accordingly."

Laura Ingraham - Rand's stand: principle and persuasion gives GOP reason for hope

"As a gaggle of GOP senators were returning from a cozy dinner with President Obama Wednesday night, the junior senator from Kentucky was in the midst of a marathon filibuster giving CSPAN2 what must have been its best ratings ever. I couldn't turn it off... The Attorney General's failure to categorically rule out such Executive kill lists is unconscionable. It is the duty of the legislative branch to check and challenge such blatant and dangerous over reach by any president, regardless of party.... Rand Paul didn't eat for much of the day himself, but with his filibuster he fed an electorate hungry to hear from a politician of principle. For almost 13 hours, Paul put the Constitution in the front seat, and his own convenience and comfort in the way back. Let the record reflect the names of those who stood with him in the early hours of his effort--Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio."

Taylor Marsh - Rand Paul Makes Democrats Look Feckless on Civil Liberties

"DEMOCRATS should be ashamed today. While Senator Rand Paul led a filibuster on the importance of civil liberties, fan politics and propping up their people in Obama administration gagged them into irrelevance on the issue... It was a very good day for Senator Rand Paul. He helped Republicans find some meaning on an issue that matters... By comparison, the Democratic party looked petty, small, and hyper-partisan. That they yielded the floor on civil liberties should embarrass the entire congressional delegation, but it won’t. Fan politics always wins out to principle today, which it does on the Republican side as well most of the time. But at least there is one honest man in the Senate, even if I rarely agree with him. Senator Rand Paul is a man to watch."

Doug Mataconis: Rand Paul Filibustering Brennan Nomination

"Paul says that he will continue this filibuster until he gets an answer from the Obama Administration regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil that is far less ambiguous than the one that Attorney General Holder issued late yesterday. He’s spent a good deal of his time pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this issue, arguing quite convincingly that their silence over drone strikes under President Obama is starkly different from their justified criticism of the Bush Administration’s extraordinary tactics in the War On Terror. He’s also raised legitimate concerns about the use of military force on American soil, something that ought to be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act. Given that fact, it would seem as though the answer to Paul’s original question to Holder is crystal clear, which just makes it even more strange that the Administration has chosen to be so ambiguous about what ought to be an easy question....Paul’s filibuster can’t last forever, of course, and Brennan is likely to get confirmed at some point. However, the Senator is raising important questions that we deserve answers to from the Administration. For that, at least, he deserves some thanks."

UPDATE:
This morning Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to the floor to attack Rand Paul and his filibuster. I'd like to believe they represent the last gasp of the discredited old guard neocon faction in the Republican party. OTOH, there is no reason the neocons should still be gasping at all, yet there they are. I'll conclude with the hope I tweeted during the filibuster.

@politicallogic The Old Guard Senate Neocons are dead. Long live the young libertarian guns.
— The Dividist (@Dividist) March 6, 2013

As I finished this post the debate on the Brenner nomination was winding down. Rand Paul took to the floor to confirm he finally received the unambiguous response from Attorney General Holder to the question that prompted the filibuster:

White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’

"White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.” Paul said that was good enough for him. “I’m quite happy with the answer,” he said during a CNN interview. “I’m disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer.”

The Senate voted to confirm John Brennan as Director of the CIA 63-34. Rand Paul voted against.

Well done Senator Paul. You got the answer you were looking for and our country got the debate we needed.

UPDATE: 08-Mar-13

Rand Paul responds to John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Newt’s got his back (whether he wants it or not).

Like father, like son.

Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice weighs in on why the filibuster resonated across partisan lines.

And if you missed any of the 13 hours, the full transcript is linked here.

Cross-posted at Donklephant and Centrist Rising

Who Debt? Obama Debt!

2013-03-03T00:28:00.003-08:00

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently updated their analysis of the underlying causes of our debt and deficit problems. Their key findings are summarized in these two charts.

As you can see, they arrive at a stunning conclusion. Four years after he left office, the deficit is still all George W. Bush's fault:

"Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies. (See Figure 2.)"

In fact, the CBPP project the debt and deficits will continue to be George W. Bush's fault for as far as the chart can see - throughout President Obama's second term, through the next president's first term, to 2019 and beyond. Before we take a look under the covers, it's worth reviewing the history of their thesis.

In 2010 it became important for Democratic strategists to explain to the electorate that exploding federal spending and the consequent mushrooming deficits and debt were really not the fault of the unified democratic rule in place since the 2008 election. Voters were laboring under the mistaken impression that two trillion dollars of new spending passed in just two legislative acts ( Porkulus and Obamacare) on purely partisan votes in only two years of one party democratic rule might have had something to do with it. Au contraire mon ami.

The bones of this CBPP analysis were initially unveiled three years ago in February 2010, shortly after passage of Obamacare. The first version of the above charts made an appearance in an updated analysis in June that same year. Post mid-term election the GOP took control of the House restoring divided government and in 2011 the CBPP updated the analysis again. Variations of this analysis were picked up by MSM, embraced by the left-o-sphere and used as ammunition for the "Grand Bargain" negotiation. The same negotiation that ultimately failed and spawned the bipartisan "sequester" cuts just implemented.

I was dubious about the argument at the time, finding it to be - charitably speaking - disingenuous:

"Let’s think this through – the basis for the chart is that all costs for all time are attributable to a new policy that is enacted during the term of that president. Okay…Then how about we add a bar for FDR and load 70 years or so of total Social Security costs to this chart exclusively under his name? Or how about Truman who must bear the burden of all costs for maintaining US Troops in Korea for the last sixty years, and I guess Europe too with the Marshall Plan and NATO. Then we can move on to LBJ who gets all of the accumulated fifty years of costs for food stamps, welfare, medicare, and medicaid. Stack these three up, and neither GWB or OHB will show up as a rounding error. Now that I think about it, a standing army was a new policy enacted by George Washington – Once we pile up 200+ years of defense spending on George, I guess we finally have tracked down the real culprit for our deficit and insane spending."

Dubious premise notwithstanding, as noted above the CBPP published the same argument yet again last week. They are still calling the tax cuts and war expenses a "Bush Legacy" and attributing most of our current and future debt and deficit to Bush. But the world has changed and policy has changed since they started publishing this thesis three years ago. Simply stated, they are not acknowledging the facts in their graphic presentation. The argument itself, the dubious premise - those are exactly the same as when first presented three years ago. What has changed are the facts about ownership of the policies they are tracking. And by ignoring these facts, the CBPP has moved from a dubious, "disingenuous" argument to outright misrepresentation and falsehood.

The Bush policies invoked by the CBPP in their chart had expiration dates, negotiated terminations, or were superseded by completely different policies explicitly advocated and implemented by the Obama administration. So to help the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities get the facts straight, I've hacked up and repaired their deficient deficit graphic to make it accurately reflect what I like to call reality:

Some facts supporting my new improved CBPP chart:

~~Bush~~ Obama Tax Cuts:
The Bush Tax Cuts were never permanent. They had a sunset provision that expired in December 2010. In 2010 they were extended unchanged for two years over President Obama's objection. Let's be generous and call those two additional years Bush Legacy Tax Cuts. But on December 31, 2012 those tax cuts and that law and that legacy expired. It was replaced by new policy and new law that was strong-armed through Congress by President Obama. President Obama promoted, fought for and signed this new policy into law. He took full credit and praised this new permanent policy of tax cuts for the 98%. His supporters insist that the cuts should be know for all time as the Obama Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts are dead. Long Live the Obama Tax Cuts. The Center on Budget and Policy is promoting a lie.

The Bush Iraq War is over:
In December 2008 President George W. Bush signed an agreement with Iraq to withdraw all U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011. President Obama honored and executed that agreement. Iraq was a Bush Policy. The costs were a Bush legacy. But that policy and legacy ended with the agreement to withdrawal in 2011 signed by George W. Bush. The Iraq War was a mistake. The Bush administration negotiated our exit before he left office. Obama executed that agreed exit. As a consequence Iraq is not driving our debt and deficit anymore.

The Obama Afghanistan War has just started:
Candidate Obama campaigned on expanding our military presence in Afghanistan. As President he "surged" and expanded the scope of that war far beyond anything envisioned or intended by the Bush administration. Whether that decision was right or wrong remains to be seen. Regardless, it was a new policy that extended and expanded our military commitment in Afghanistan. Hence, our Afghanistan policy is Barack Obama's policy and not George W. Bush's policy. The cost of our continuing expanded presence in Afghanistan belongs exclusively to the Obama administration.

To use one or our president's favorite phrases - Let me be clear. Legacy Bush policies no longer are a meaningful contribution to our debt or deficit. Our deficit is driven by Obama administration policy. Our debt is driven by Obama administration policy. If there was any question before, it does not exist now. President Obama's policy is primarily responsible for, has significantly contributed to, and is the primary reason for the debt and deficit problem our country faces.

The legacy of the Obama administration will be the debt and deficit he leaves behind. He still has time to fix it. A Grand Bargain negotiated in the next 30 days may be his last best chance.

Sequestration is not the problem. Sequestration is (part of) the solution.

2013-02-18T15:37:00.002-08:00

UPDATED: 2/20/2013

Find the sequester

The steady drumbeat in the mainstream media about the sequestration "crisis" is getting louder by the day. With less than two weeks until the cuts go into effect it is already approaching an absurdist crescendo.

The sequestration is coming!

Let's be clear. The "sequester" is not a crisis. The "sequester" is not the problem. The real problem is the massive growth in federal spending creating unsustainable deficits and debt that will be shouldered by generations to come. The "sequester" is a solution to a real problem facing America.

That said, the "sequester" is not a great solution. It's not even a good solution. The sequester cuts are not a smart way to address the spending problem. The sequester cuts are also not adequate to solve the spending and unfunded liability disaster that looms in our entitlement programs. But the odds of getting anything smart out of this administration or this congress that even makes as little impact on the real problem as do the sequester cuts are vanishingly small. Since it's a bad bet to rely on our leaders for smart significant cuts, let's at least take the cuts they already passed.

This is what "gutting" the defense budget looks like.

The across-the-board sequestered spending cuts that go into effect March 1st were proposed by President Obama, passed with a bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate, and signed into law by President Obama. The president even threatened to veto any changes to the sequester. The hypocrisy of the principal architects of the legislation from both parties trying to undo it now borders on farce.

Obama supported sequester before he opposed sequester:

Ryan can't decide whether he likes the sequester or not:

Nancy Pelosi then:

"Pelosi also on Thursday became the latest leader to say that she will oppose any efforts by members to undo the $1.2 trillion across-the-board spending cut that will go into effect in 2013 if the supercommittee fails.“The sequester is what it is,” Pelosi said.

Nancy Pelosi now:

"Well, I think that the sequestration is a bad idea, all around. It is something that is out of the question. The fact is, we have had plenty of spending cuts..."

The Dividist says F*ck 'em. They passed it. If we can't get the cuts we love, love the cuts we've got. The Dividist is not alone in that assessment.

Howard Dean:

"We should let it happen," Dean said of $1 trillion in domestic, defense and Medicare spending cuts set to be triggered on March 1. "I’m in favor of the sequester. It is tough on things that I care about a lot, but the fact of the matter is, you are not going to get another chance to cut the defense budget in the way that it needs to be cut."

Cato Institute:

"Sequestration likely won’t be as bad as special interests and those in favor of ever-increasing military spending claim. The reductions would only apply to FY 2013 budget authority, not outlays. The Pentagon and Congress will then have greater flexibility starting in FY 2014 to adjust the reductions under the BCA spending caps. In the meantime, many programs could continue on funding already authorized. We must also keep the cuts in proper perspective. The DoD base budget under sequestration would total $469 billion, about what we spent in 2006, which was not exactly a lean year for the Pentagon. And as for the claim that the military cuts will result in perhaps one million lost jobs, that seems implausible considering that the cuts would amount to less than three tenths of one percent of GDP."

Charles Krauthammer:

If they do nothing, the $1.2 trillion in cuts go into effect. This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything. Get them while you can. Of course, the sequester is terrible policy. The domestic cuts will be crude and the Pentagon cuts damaging. This is why the Republican House has twice passed bills offering more rationally allocated cuts. (They curb, for example, entitlement spending as well.) Naturally, the Democratic Senate, which hasn’t passed a budget since before the iPad, has done nothing. Nor has the president — until his Tuesday plea.

Senator Tom Colburn

“We’re gonna have a sequestration. we’re gonna have some pain because the politicians on the Hill aren’t going to make cogent, smart decisions about alternatives to this until they start feeling some pain,” Coburn said on Wednesday’s Morning Joe. “It’s a stupid way to govern, but that’s the way we’re doing it right now. I think the blame lies on everyone’s shoulders including the president’s. Then we’re going to start coming around and picking and choosing what’s important and eliminating what’s not of great value and what we can’t afford.”

Dave Cote - CEO Honeywell

"We need the reduction," Cote said. "You could argue that the reduction would make more sense if we did it thoughtfully and spent a lot of time on it. I'm not sure that's a real option, though. The options seem to be let it happen or take it away." Cote remains a leading voice in the corporate "Fix the Debt" group, which spent months last year lobbying the Democratic White House and Republican lawmakers to reach a deal to reduce the national debt and avoid a year-end "fiscal cliff." of spending cuts and tax increases. Having seen that deadline quickly replaced by the March 1 sequester deadline, Cote said that allowing the cuts previously agreed to take place may be the most practical way to start trimming the debt."

Professor Jeff Bergner - Georgetown University

"The most likely way to achieve significant reductions in spending is by across-the-board cuts. Each reduction of 1% in the $3.6 trillion federal budget would yield roughly $36 billion the first year and would reduce the budget baseline in future years. Even with modest reductions, this is real money. …let’s give up the politically pointless effort to pick and choose among programs, accept the political reality of current allocations, and reduce everything proportionately. No one program would be very much disadvantaged. In many cases, a 1% or 3% reduction would scarcely be noticed. Are we really to believe that a government that spent $2.7 trillion five years ago couldn't survive a 3% cut that would bring spending to “only” $3.5 trillion today? Every household, company and nonprofit organization across America can do this, as can state and local governments. So could Washington."

Liberal Democratic Blogger:

"As I said, cuts would hurt, and not just for those of us in the Federal government. It’s a horrible time to cut spending, given that the economy is finally just getting back on its feet. Economists have stated the sequester would likely reduce GDP by a full percentage point for the next few quarters. But the pragmatic side of me states that across-the-board spending cuts would force agencies to streamline, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The pragmatic side of me says a short-term hit to the economy is worth it, IF it gets the U.S. to take a more realistic look at our military spending. Sequester? Just let it happen."

Conservative Republican Blogger:

"This sequester is a political test for those of us who want to cut the size and scope of government. Here we have $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts set to take place. All Congress has to do is nothing for them to happen. If we can’t get Congress to do nothing and let $1.2 trillion in cuts take place, how are we going to pass the deeper spending cuts and entitlement reforms we need to rescue our country from financial ruin? Finally, here is a chance to take on the sacred cow that is defense spending. If we cannot make these modest defense spending reductions, how are we going to take the hard look at our foreign policy that we desperately need? This is one time where Congress can help the country by doing nothing. They should not act and let the sequester happen as a small first step to getting the nation’s financial house in order."

Let's start fixing the real problem. Take the bird in the hand. Let the sequester go into effect.

Politically the sequester evens the score. Democrats got some tax increases in December. Republicans get some spending cuts now. The stage is set yet again for another run at a "Grand Bargain". Both tax and entitlement reform will be on the table while negotiating the Continuing Resolution and Budget in March. Perhaps our last best chance in this administration to solve the problem.

The Dividist chooses to be optimistic.We can only...

UPDATED: 2/20/2013

Fixed typos and added relevant links after Obama uppercut and Boehner haymaker and the new Simpson-Bowles plan.

X-Posted at Donklephant