Front Page
NMJ Search
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google noted that the same percentage cut will impact all programs, with managers having "a fair amount of discretion" on what to cut within them.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Obama Administration's Sequester
'Dooms Day' Rhetoric Called into Question

FOX News
With just four days remaining until automatic budget cuts kick in, Republicans are looking to call President Obama's "bluff" -- by giving him the flexibility to spread around the budget-ax pain in a way that would prevent the kind of fiscal doomsday his administration is predicting.

The White House on Sunday evening ramped up its campaign to pressure Republicans, releasing state-by-state reports detailing the purported impact of the cuts. For days, top Cabinet officials have taken to the media to warn about the widespread damage if Congress does not agree to avert the cuts with an Obama-endorsed blend of spending reductions and tax increases.

But Republicans have recently questioned whether the president might have more flexibility than he's letting on. The $85 billion in cuts on tap for this year, they note, amounts to a little more than 2 percent of the federal budget -- enough to be felt, but not enough to necessarily herald a crippling of government functions. The Pentagon would be hit disproportionately, but some hope that with a little discretion, the administration could spare the military and other departments from a devastating budget blow.

Republicans reportedly are working on a bill this week that would grant Obama's Cabinet more leeway to target the cuts in a responsible way.

In an interview with Fox News, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker seemed to get behind the plan.

"Why not empower the president and his administration, give them the authority within their budgets to make those changes?" Walker said Monday.

Walker said he thinks some of the administration's warnings amount to scare tactics. "There's no doubt about it, that's why I said call the bluff, give them the authority to do this," Walker said. "There's always a better way, there's certainly enough waste to be cut in this town. Why not give the president and his Cabinet...the authority to do that."

On "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), said Obama was "absolutely" exaggerating the impact of the cuts.

"They have plenty of flexibility in terms of discretion on how they spend money. There are easy ways to cut this money that the American people will never feel," he said.

There is an ongoing debate over how much flexibility the Obama administration currently has. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Friday, warning that FAA cutbacks and furloughs would lead to delays at airports across the country, adamantly denied that Cabinet secretaries such as himself had the flexibility to target the cuts., examining these competing claims, noted last week that the cuts are largely across the board, in that the same percentage cut is supposed to impact all programs within a budget.

However, the fact-check site said federal managers do have "a fair amount of discretion" on what to cut within specific programs.

According to The Washington Post, Republicans are looking to draft a bill giving the administration more leeway to target the cuts.

However, it's unclear whether any such bill could clear the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Democrats have a bill of their own that would blend tax hikes and spending cuts, along the lines of what Obama has recommended. Both parties are expected to push their respective plans, but so far little headway has been made toward a bipartisan compromise.


Editor's Note: Remember the Alinsky rule and what then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." This basics Alinsky rule, as employed by the Obama Administration, is augmented to be understood as, "Never let a manufactured and marketed crisis go to waste."

The informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by is copyrighted. supports and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Media © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server