Monday, February 25, 2013

THE BIG BLUFF---SEQUESTER SCARE!!

Who's  bluffing who with the latest political catch word and cliff crisis. Ho hum---wake me when it's over, but here we go again--down the rabbit hole of Washington politics. It's really getting old, this game playing, and should we, the UNITED states of American not be able to do better?? Should our leaders be allowed to get away with this childish finger pointing, and should we continue to be played
like a hapless audience, privy only to what the media decides to tell us, and hear only what our president blasts with his huge microphone, condemning, instead of leading?

 "Sequester" is the name, and "squeeze" is the game, according to Mr. Obama who is blatantly employing the old by now scare tactic to bring the Republicans to heel,  and the public once again around to his way of thinking--- to keep spending and tax the rich one more time. Put the squeeze  on the opposition, play on their emotions of an already fearful, jumpy public, and scare the daylights out of everybody--it goes like this:  If the sequester happens, the sky is going to fall, and we will have only the Republicans to blame. The bluff is on, and if the Republicans don't cave this time, on March 1st, we will face major cuts to the tune of $800 billion to both domestic and military programs---the irony is that Obama himself suggested the sequester back in 2012, as a way to force some sort of agreement on the budget crisis. It was his baby---not the Republicans.  Or was it his gamble, his bluff, to force the Republicans into submission? After all, something had to be done, and if nothing has been done,
by now, how about we make the punishment so severe that everybody will have to suffer, and the blame once again falls to the Republicans?  Perfect.

We've seen it before from Obama, but this time the smell of demagoguery and strong arming the opposition is beginning to look and feel like dirty pool. a set-up, and victory at any cost. The misrepresentation of the facts, and blatant attempt to intimidate and bully the Republicans into submission are hallmarks of a man hell bent on getting his way, regardless of principle or fair tactics. Life and politics aren't always fair, but manipulating and exaggerating the facts are not only beneath the presidency, but dangerous to a democracy which relies on the truth, and a tendency to believe that presidents are above dirty politics. So,  March 1st is the deadline---Obama has offered no hint of compromise, insisting on more tax revenue,  and the Republicans are showing no signs of folding this time, feeling they have already met the president's demands, having agreed to $620 billion in taxes during the last cliff go round,  and that he is once again moving the goal posts, pushing the envelope and them around, by  asking for the elimination of tax loopholes and deductions. They have presented two alternative plans to the sequester, which Obama ignored. His proposal mantra is no further taxes equal no further cuts---except, across the board ax cuts, which were his idea.  Uh, did you hear me guys? Don't make me do this! I really mean it! And guess who's going to look bad?

 So are we headed for the final show down, the really bad, back- breaking cliff? President Obama wants us to think so.  He has warned that we will suffer major job losses, weakened military security, children will go hungry, fires will be left to burn, meat to rot, crimes will run rampant, planes may not fly, and on and on. It's beginning to sound like white noise and worse, manipulation. One gets the feeling that Obama has seen the movie "Lincoln" too many times and fancies himself a similar do good crusader---only we're not talking black slavery here. It's about our debt crisis and how to solve it. All who oppose him, chiefly the Republicans, are bad, thoughtless, shallow, and uncaring. It is an absurd argument that all this calamity is even possible under a capable, reasonable government, and ridiculous to blame it all on the opposing party.

 It is true, however, that if the sequester goes through, there will changes and there will be pain, but it is highly doubtful that there will be consequences as dramatic as Obama would have us believe.  Cuts, after all, do finally have to come, if we are ever to climb out of our debt and begin to balance it. There is plenty of waste in both the military and domestic budgets, and preparations are already being done to deal with less revenue coming in. Adjustments will be made that perhaps should have been made long ago, just as all of us have had to do with our personal finances. And unless everyone panics, compliments of Obama's dire predictions, we will survive. The stock market seems to think so---it's doing just fine, in spite of the president's doom's day proclamations.  Perhaps the market knows what we all intrinsically know---bluffs are usually over blown,  puffed up threats to produce a desired result----and regardless of the outcome, life and the economy will keep percolating along. Could it be the market place, the barometer of our capitalistic confidence, is stronger than the political voices which are constantly shrieking at our ears, and is having less and less influence?? We could use some of that
confidence.

We are oh so tired of cliffs, crises, bluffs, and threats.  We want peace, quiet, reason, and balance again---not one sided governance, dictatorial attitudes, and leaders who speak only in terms of their own self interests and ideologies.  There were, after all, almost half of us who voted
against Obama and his policies---should he not realize this, and learn to temper his partisan outbursts? But why change what's not broken?  He obviously thrives on chaos and battles, having mastered the art of appearing calm and wise while trying to make others appear obstructive and lost headed?? It seems to be working---Obama is winning at the moment, according to the polls. He stands on the nation's stage and bellows his message of government welfare. It is hard to argue against such things as education, infrastructure, research and development, clean energy, and childhood programs. But at some point, perhaps now, we will have reached a tipping point---who will pay for it all?  Obama's believers believe he will find a way---others are convinced he doesn't care, that he is focused on fixing America, not the budget.

The sequester looms large, and either will happen or not. The bluff may not work, and Obama may regret his giving birth to what he wants to avoid---- major cuts, without major tax hikes.  But, the bonus is the blame game, so he wins this round either way.

 But here's the final hooker, the sting of a sting operation--- and it is much worse than the sequester----are you ready for this? Perhaps it is we who are being bluffed, distracted from the real problem. The debt crisis is so deep and growing at a faster rate than our economic growth at a frail 2%,  that neither Obama's proposed tax hikes or the sequester will help much ---medicare, medicaid, and social security are the biggest drains and must be addressed, along with a tax over haul. But no voices are heard for these things---or allowed to be heard over the din of pettiness and politics.

 Are we actually believing to spend more is the answer? Or are we simply procrastinating and handing our ills and bills to our children and grandchildren? It all adds up to irresponsible leadership and a trusting public willing to follow. Isn't it time we demand more than political gridlock, campaign style speeches, bluffs, and sequesters---which by the way, the dictionary defines as "to set apart" or "to seclude".  Right---we're getting really good at setting aside the hard stuff---or being bluffed.




 

25 comments:

  1. Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" at work here!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment---could you elaborate a bit? I've heard of the book, and cringe to think it may be a playbook of sorts. What rules do you think are in play here??

    ReplyDelete
  3. BO uses Alinsky's method of win at all costs, degrade your opponent, lie, etc. You saw that in the election.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since Friday is the deadline, we shall soon begin to see if this has been a bluff or not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It has always been a bluff, no matter which way it goes---Obama meant and called it that way, and the Republicans accepted it as such. It's simply a question of who blinks first----what's unfortunate is that cuts could have been done with much more thought and precision---a scalpel, as they say---not a meat cleaver. And now, Obama seems to be throwing a tantrum, freeing Arizona prisoners, and threatening more disasters every day---shameful and outrageous!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now that we have exhausted the hyper-partisan issues, may I suggest a conversation about one that crosses party lines: The mass incarceration of Americans, especially African Americans and Hispanics, since the declaration of the "War on Drugs"? Overt references to race are taboo since the '70s, but facts on the ground indicate that racism is alive and well today, certainly in our criminal justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We have come a long ways, but certainly not far enough. The war on drugs will rage on until people finally tire of the destruction it pours down on us all---the scourge of the earth, and who needs plagues? But to your point- Justice is only as fair as the judges who meet out the penalties for crime. Unfortunately, people's hearts change much slower than legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is the legislation that needs to be updated! As it is, the law disfavors people of color and takes away the discretion of judges placing it in the hands of prosecutors and granting law enforcement agencies incentives for over-zealous searches. Mandatory sentencing is a worse scourge than the behaviors it's supposed to correct. By far, more families are destroyed through unfair imprisonment than from illegal drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What do you mean by "mandatory sentencing"? We need more facts. I don't doubt that prejudicial judgment is going on within our legislative branches---but how to stop it? What does your research suggest? It would seem there should be oversight against overt actions of discrimination.

    On the flip side, and there's always that--the culture of crime, and particularly drugs, starts in the homes and neighborhoods, and until the cycle of poverty, broken homes, little or no parental guidance, poor educational opportunities is broken, we will continue to treat the symptoms, not the cause. Society can do only so much---the people themselves, must decide to cure themselves of their own plight---not easy, sometimes almost impossible to rise above life's circumstances, but it is sometimes the only way out of misery---ask those who have done it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mandatory sentencing is a form of punitive sentencing in which a judge has little or no control over a sentence that is enforced for a crime but must instead give a set mandatory sentence. It does not allow any leeway for consideration of specific factors and circumstances regarding a particular case. Since the early '80s when legislation of this type became widespread, mass encarceration of between two and three million Americans has occured, making the USA the nation with the most of its people behind bars than any other country on earth or in history. Moreover, the practice has led to a disproportionate number of minorities to be sentenced, even though whites abuse drugs and commit other crimes as much as blacks and Hispanics. Poverty seems to have little to do with it but does influence the quality of advocacy for defendents. Moreover, the punishiment does not end with jail time served. In most states felons are stripped of their rights to fair employment practices, housing, food stamps and voting, to name a few--for life. They are locked into an underclass with almost no options to live a normal life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We're a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website offered us with valuable information to work on. You've done a formidable job
    and our entire community will be thankful to you.

    Also visit my web page :: topsportsmodel

    ReplyDelete
  12. What do you think of Rob Bell and his disbelief in hell?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Have not read his book nor studied his entire statements on the subject of hell---but he sounds not much different than many who have dismissed this Biblical warning as simply symbolic or parable story telling---which is why he apparently is a popular so called religious leader of a "new" order---people don't like being scolded, threatened, and most especially , damned to hell for their actions. The risk of following such a "modern" preacher is like any other attraction to a charismatic and appealing message---it's only his opinion, his translation, his view point, not any more proven than those who claim there is no God. One could go so far as to say it's his word against God's---or would that be too simplistic??

    None of us know our ultimate fate---or the full picture of how we fit into the universe and the balance of good vs. evil. One can only hope that we are in good hands and that this divine and mysterious God, will be not only just, but loving, forgiving, and spare us the hell of any kind ---based on the fact that we are only human,but his children, after all, and if we stray, it's because we lost our way,, perhaps never even knew the way---and need to be found, not cast
    away. But who am I to say---and who is Rob Bell??/?

    ReplyDelete
  14. You and Rob Bell are actually in agreement. I'm impressed! Have a happy Easter!

    ReplyDelete
  15. You must have some opinions about the Supreme Court's deliberations on California's Proposition 8. It looks like it all hangs on Kennedy's swing opinion. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am getting very weary of hearing other people sit in judgment as to the personal issue of whom we may choose to live with---even the Supreme judges are not wise enough to clearly know what's right---they will either punt, choosing not to rule, pass the burden on to the states as in Calif. and seven other states , or go with the growing number of people who are ready to concede that this is a right whose time has come. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" is up to the individuals involved and their belief system---not up to the government or anyone else. I personally come down on the 3rd option--

    ReplyDelete
  17. I fear the Court will refuse to rule on this case, throwing it back on the Federal district court, which has scotched Prop. 8 in California, but that will still leave the rest of the country vulnerable. This is an important case that will affect millions of US citizens. It is not just a romantic notion. It involves over a thousand rights and legal responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What's your take on North Carolina's attack on student voting rights?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well---don't have much to say on this. Voting is a right and a privilege, and hopefully an informed one. But of course the Repubs. are being accused of repressing, rather than protecting the electorate from ill informed voters, who are still forming their views, and very vulnerable to the views of their professors, who tend to be very liberal.

    The effort of the Dems to "get everyone out to vote" is hard to look at without suspecting self serving interests---perhaps they should also try to get older, more mature citizens out of their homes, rehab or nursing homes, etc.---and while we're at it, perhaps we should require that everyone hears all sides of the issues, video style, before voting, a real town hall presentation of both sides, not just a presidential partisan speech parading as the truth. That's probably unrealistic, but so is the illusion that things are getting better, and that one party has all the right answers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good rebuttal! Have you ever considered that professors tend to be liberal because they are more educated and informed?

    ReplyDelete
  21. What do you think of Obama's concession to the Repubs on reducing the formula for Social Security for the elderly?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Need more information, but sounds like he's beginning to bend a little.
    No, I don't like money that we've put into S.S. for years and years not returned to us-- but don't know at what age this begins to affect. Something has to give with not only S.S., but with medicare, pensions, and other "entitlement" programs as well---or there will be nothing left to entitle anybody to. For now, It's probably a moot point, as Obama's budget is not expected to pass.

    Re your other comment---educated people are not necessarily the most informed or brightest people. It's been said that the smartest, most savvy among us are in the business world, working and applying their skills to entrepreneurship or simply operating a good business, providing jobs for others, supplying products and services, or simply being an excellent employee--making the wheels of our economy turn and work. Many have been to school, achieved good degrees and put them and their brains to good practical use. Teaching is a wonderful and noble thing to do, and there are many find educators, but high academia can be a rather insulated ivory tower, often inhabited by those who have not experienced the real world, and are working from theory, rather than hands on experience. What seems wrong is that too often those who are charged with the responsibility of teaching our children how to learn, to become educated people in any given field, cross over the line of teaching to indoctrinating---they inculcate students with their own set of beliefs, values, and
    world views. And who are they to do so?? It's a form of brain washing,in my view, and sometimes students who dare to disagree find themselves punished with intimidation, a lesser grade than they deserve, or humiliated in front of others for their differing opinions. It would seem schools and teachers could educate without espousing their own opinions--showing both sides, and letting the students decide for themselves---to think for themselves, thereby creating truly educated, not persuaded people. But everything seems political these day, and personal agendas trump true examination. The infiltration of liberal thought in our schools and media today is rampant--and not necessarily due to enlightenment, but the takeover of one philosophy over another in places of influence--a shame, wrong, and possibly the reason for the huge change taking place in our country. Doesn't mean it's right---just the heavy handed use of power over a group of people--our young, the most vulnerable and easiest to convince of idealistic principles---and those who believe that the media is an objective source of information.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suppose FOX news is an "objective source of information".

    ReplyDelete
  24. I was focusing on our higher education system.

    But thank goodness for Fox--a lone voice in the wilderness, though I do think they try to show both sides at least to an extent, as evidenced by their very high ratings.

    All media is biased to a degree, but the major channels and most of the newspapers are so transparently over the top liberally slanted that one wonders if they even care that people question their journalistic ethics and charge to bring all the news in a non spin manner, not that which they deem harmless to their agenda. Well, Al Jazeera will soon be here, and that will be another spin---from another angle. Maybe it will be less biased than our own media---but surely, not pro American. Thank you Al Gore.

    ReplyDelete