I am fairly new to the world of politics, and was thrust into it in 2008 when my then husband-to-be (the geo-political junkie, as I call him) challenged me to identify where I was on the major issues. Politics was something that was important to him, so I thought it should be something that I, at least, took a look at – especially since it was an election year. I was surprised to learn that most of my ideology was conservative-leaning. Why had I believed otherwise, I thought? My husband shared some other media resources with me that I did not know even existed, and realized that there was a discrepancy in what information was being reported, and the slant with which it was presented. I kind of felt duped…but I accepted responsibility for my ignorance because I never really took the time to educate myself in the realm of politics – it just seemed yucky to me!
Maybe it was the ‘fear’ produced by my graduate thesis on dystopias that made me mad and fearful of what was transpiring in our society right beneath the surface of what our culture perceived as the norm in reporting. Were the government controlled attempts at eutopia in 1984, Anthem, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, and Atlas Shrugged really starting to manifest in our freedom-minded, liberty-loving United States of America? In all of those fictional societies, people were discouraged from seeking information and questioning authority. Collectively they were of one mind (group-think) and were more easily controlled that way. I started to wonder if as a society, were we becoming complacent when it came to seeking out primary sources and authenticating facts; and what would the result of that be as a culture? I began seeking out alternative media sources and trying to discover the whole picture of things.
Politics intrigued me not only because it’s effects reached into every corner of our lives (no matter how much we try to avoid or ignore it), but also because this was when I was heavily studying leadership development. I became very passionate about how our elected ‘leaders’ were carrying out their duties and what consequences it had for my community and my family. For me, politics is about leadership and liberty NO MATTER WHAT “PARTY” YOU AFFILIATE WITH, so I hope you will understand that is the lense through which I present information and resources. In fact, my goal is to help introduce people to sources of information, and ignore the sound bites and talking points. To be quite frank, our biased media outlets are a little too 1984 / Orwellian for my taste.
So here we go. Here is my first political post. It is a story from Dick Morris that compares President Obama’s handling of the congressionally mandated budget cuts to two former Democratic presidents – this was originally pubished on thehill.com on April 23, 2013. It was interesting to me because it contrasts leadership styles. And it addresses the issue of class warfare which I believe is completely Anti-American. DISCLAIMER: I realize that I might turn off my blog readers by expressing my political opinions. Hey, if you can’t accept differing opinions or are not willing to engage in a non-emotionally charged conversation then you have bigger issues than simply disagreeing with the info I present Take it for what it is worth. ~ Hollis
Obama’s Revenge by Dick Morris
So many of the unattractive parts of the personality and presidency of Barack Obama are evident in how he has handled the sequestration issue — and it’s worth looking at for what it tells us about our president and his administrative style. Let’s start with his detachment from the business of government and administration.
Confronted with a congressional mandate to cut about $40 billion in spending this year from a total non-defense discretionary budget of about $600 billion, he just ordered across-the-board reductions in proportion to the legislative totals. When former President Truman faced a need to trim spending, he set up a commission headed by former President Hoover to scour the government and make specific recommendations, most of which he implemented. When former President Clinton felt the weight of congressional pressure to cut spending, he empowered then-Vice President Gore to set up a vast effort to evaluate the procedures of every federal agency as part of his program to “re-invent government.” Gore produced hundreds of suggestions, most of which were implemented by a willing chief executive. The result was that Clinton and Gore cut the size of the federal workforce to lower levels than existed during the Eisenhower years.
But when Obama faced the same task, he took the easy way out and just required proportional cutting. Rather than use the cuts as an opportunity for prioritization and streamlining, he lopped off the appropriate sum and called it a day. The bald fact is that the president either could not or did not want to be bothered to spend the time to identify $40 billion of waste, fraud and duplication in a $600 billion budget. It was too much effort for him.
But then, one wonders why he didn’t just tell his Cabinet secretaries to make the cuts and delegate them to do the research and scouring? Why go with the furlough system for cutting spending? Why not lay off the people we don’t need? If we could get by with 7 percent less work by federal employees, why not just fire 7 percent of them?
The answer is that Obama wanted to prune federal spending in such a way that it could easily grow back again. Rather than close programs or shutter agencies, he elected to ask everyone to take off one day in 10. Once the sequester ends, they could go back to getting paid for all 10 days. He never envisioned a cut in the size of government — just a temporary, short-term need to reduce spending for a few months before it resumes its upward trajectory. And, by refusing to prioritize, he ensured that the sequestration cuts would affect everything, not just the optional areas of federal activity.
Instead of closing unnecessary jobs or eliminating some of the duplicative agencies and functions the Government Accounting Office has identified, he just furloughs everyone. But most distressing is his insistence that furloughs operate to cripple the most vital federal program: control of the skies through the Federal Aviation Administration. With its thumb on the pulse of commerce in America, the FAA’s air traffic control function is probably the single most important federal regulatory task. But the 13,000 air traffic controllers have to take the same furloughs as the lowest inspector or bureaucrat because of Obama’s across-the-board cuts. The resulting air delays will impede commerce and inconvenience millions of people.
Is this happenstance? Or is the president deliberately targeting the movers and shakers of our economy for delays and hardship? Is this his revenge against the 1 percent that denied him their votes and support in 2012? Is he inwardly relishing their torment as the just reward for insisting on cuts in federal spending in the first place?
Is this Obama’s revenge?1 Comment