The Sequester is All Obama’s Fault

Obviously, right? I mean, come on, he’s the President. He’s the one in charge of the budget, right?

What’s that? The House of Representatives controls the budget under Article I?

Well. Um. Sure, but he’s the President. Surely he can do something.

“What more do you think I can do?” Obama asked at a Press Conference recently. “I’m the President, not a Dictator.”

In all seriousness, this is a problem for both sides and any attempt to make it look one-sided is completely partisan.

At the same time, it should be noted that when this whole thing started, Boener said he got “98% of what he wanted” in the deal. So maybe that’s why he’s not willing to compromise.

We’ll see who ultimately takes the blame for this.

3 thoughts on “The Sequester is All Obama’s Fault

  1. Seriously? All we want to see is who gets the blame?

    And aren’t you kinda washing a president’s hand of the whole thing? (Any president; pick one.) So it’s NOT Reaganomics fault? And Clinton DIDN’T balance the budget? Truman was wrong? The buck DIDN’T stop with him?

    And I thought that while that only the House can initiate revenue-raising bills, it must still be approved by both the House and the Senate to take effect. And that the Senate can modify or amend such bills once passed to them.

    Geez… I gotta brush up on my Constitution. And while I’m doing that, maybe President Obama and the US Congress can all give up something and reach an agreement other than, “Let’s put this off some more.”


  2. You have to read my posts with the “sarcasm” button on.

    This post was in response to things I’ve read where people are saying “It’s all Obama’s fault” which is just as ridiculous as saying “It’s all Congress’ fault.”

    As you can see, I clearly said “this is a problem for both sides and any attempt to make it look one-sided is completely partisan.”


  3. If this were merely an ideological battle about the size and scope of Government,
    I’m not sure who the winner was. While spending is curbed, entitlement programs most beloved by Democrats will remain untouched, while military spending, beloved by Republicans will be cut the most sharply.

    Tea Party Republicans and Libertarians may see this as a win, as some spending was in fact finally cut. But who has anything to gain politically from this? I think everyone played their role true to their ideological roots. No one who dislikes Obama will be swayed to think better of him, and most fans of Obama defend how he handled this.

    If I thought Obama was playing a little bit of chess here, I would say that maybe he was using these theatrics to make establishment Republicans look weak, and perhaps fire up more extreme conservative challengers for the Primaries in mid-term elections, and we know that far right candidates have much less of a chance of winning in the general election.

    We know that the Republican strategy, at least by money man Karl Rove is to try to find more moderate candidates who can win elections, so they don’t blow easy win seats like they did in November

    Light a fire under as many Todd Akins as pissible, and perhaps Democrats could win some key seats in 2014 and re-take the House?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s