Whose idea was the sequester? And does it matter?
| Washington
Debate is raging in Washington over the origins of the 鈥渟equester鈥� 鈥� the deep, almost-across-the-board federal spending cuts that go into effect March 1 if Congress doesn鈥檛 act.
Exhibit A is Bob Woodward鈥檚 book, 鈥淭he Price of Politics,鈥� which describes how top aides to President Obama brought the idea to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada in the summer of 2011, when Congress was grappling with the debt ceiling.
The sequester proposal became part of the agreement that allowed the government to keep borrowing to pay its bills 鈥� and, as has been repeated ad infinitum, it was never meant to go into effect. It was supposed to be so beyond the pale that it would force the White House and Congress to come up with a deficit-reduction deal that was more finely honed.
But Republicans have latched onto Mr. Woodward鈥檚 book as the smoking gun.
Aha, they say, the sequester is Mr. Obama鈥檚 baby. They鈥檝e tried to get people to call it the 鈥淥bama sequester鈥� or even the 鈥淥bamaquester.鈥� It doesn鈥檛 exactly trip off the tongue, but it鈥檚 more than the Democrats have devised.
Exhibit B is a July 31, 2011, PowerPoint presentation found by John Avlon of The Daily Beast in an old e-mail, reported on Wednesday. The slideshow was put together by House Speaker John Boehner鈥檚 office and the GOP鈥檚 House-based think tank, the Republican Policy Committee, and describes a 鈥渘ew sequestration process鈥� that would cut spending across the board if the cuts weren鈥檛 made by other means.
So there, say Democrats, the sequester is really a Republican idea.
The bottom line, concludes FactCheck.org, is that it doesn鈥檛 matter. Both parties are responsible for this puppy, the fact-checking site鈥檚 report says, because they both voted for it.
鈥淭he reality is that the pending cuts would not be possible had both Democrats and Republicans not supported the legislation that included them,鈥� FactCheck says.
The sequester was part of the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, which passed the House with 269 鈥測ea鈥� votes 鈥� 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats. In the 100-seat Senate, Democrats made up most of the 74 "yea" votes, but there were 28 Republicans in that majority, as well.
Still, reminders of that bipartisan vote haven鈥檛 stopped the blame game. In an opinion article in Wednesday鈥檚 Wall Street Journal, Speaker Boehner asserts once again that Obama 鈥渋nvented鈥� the sequester, and that the president鈥檚 warnings about its fast-approaching implementation are ironic, given that it is a product of the president鈥檚 own 鈥渇ailed leadership.鈥�
Boehner acknowledges that both congressional Republicans and Democrats 鈥渞eluctantly鈥� went along with the sequester, as part of the BCA, which kept the nation from defaulting on its debt. Furthermore, the sequester would not have come into play if Congress鈥檚 bipartisan 鈥渟upercommittee鈥� 鈥� another creation of the BCA 鈥� had fulfilled its task: coming up with $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.
Boehner and Obama have put out conflicting versions of what each proposed behind closed doors in the summer of 2011, creating an endless loop of 鈥渉e said, he said.鈥� The public is left with little to go on in assessing the mess.
The reality is, most Americans don鈥檛 get what鈥檚 going on. The word 鈥渟equester鈥� is hardly a part of everyday discourse. A poll published by The Hill newspaper on Feb. 11 found that only 36 percent of voters know what the sequester is.
Another 38 percent thought they knew, but picked the wrong answer. Twenty percent thought it had something to do with the debt limit. Eight percent thought it referred to a forthcoming ruling by the Supreme Court on the federal budget.
鈥淪uch a case would come as news to Chief Justice John Roberts,鈥� the Hill quipped.
This widespread public confusion creates a big opening for public relations. Thus the Boehner op-ed. Ditto Obama鈥檚 event on Tuesday at the White House, where he surrounded himself with emergency responders and called on Congress to take a 鈥渂alanced approach鈥� that includes additional tax revenues 鈥� and keeps federal programs running and workers on the job.
The Republican effort to brand the latest Beltway crisis as the 鈥淥bama sequester鈥� 鈥� by repeating that phrase over and over 鈥� should not be dismissed, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Ms. Jamieson agrees that it鈥檚 a game, but it鈥檚 still important.
鈥�The Democrats have not effectively developed a line and repeated it as often [in a way] that offers the alternative narrative,鈥� she says. 鈥淭he nature of repetition is such that when we hear something repeated and unrebutted, we鈥檙e likely to believe it.鈥�
