Sequester Is Obama’s Perfect Solution

Imagine the President contemplating the start of his second term in office, after a first term where the economic devastation of a global depression was averted.  The cost to bail out banks and auto companies, and create stimulus was very high, objectionable to most of us, but necessary and it worked.  The cumulative budget deficit now is nearing crisis mode and everyone understands it must be dealt with.  Any temporary deal is described by the Republicans as another “kick the can down the road” ploy.  It is impossible today to actually sit down and have the two parties negotiate a real long term solution.  The issues facing this President are many and all impact the long term future of the country and deficit that must be addressed during his final term.

This President may be recognized as one of the greatest ever, if he is successful in reshaping the financial future of the U.S., following the game saving moves of his first term.  His public position includes leaving entitlement programs untouched based on rationale that it is a past commitment that must be honored.  He favors tax revenue creation over spending cuts, exactly the opposite of Republicans.  This is the classic scenario of both are right and neither are right.

Unsaid is that military reductions need to be a large part of a deficit reduction solution.  To say that would suggest he is soft on national security.  His public position is that the military must modernize, which is code for don’t spend money on large weapons programs, but rather focus on cyber-war and other less expensive military issues.

Knowing he must force action to reduce the deficit, preferring to leave entitlements alone, understanding that tax increases will be all but impossible to get Congress to pass, and causing the general populace to become engaged in the issues that will affect them directly is what the Sequester provides.

The Sequester was created in a 2011 budget battle, with both sides envisioning the actual implementation as highly unlikely, given the depth and arbitrary nature of the cuts.   The Sequester leaves entitlements untouched, and forces budget reductions equally from military and domestic programs.  The President is not obligated to identify where the cuts take place, which leaves him without blood on his hands.  He has already exempted military pay and veterans’ affairs, which leave the large weapons and logistical support programs as the targets to cut.  Unfortunately, these hardware programs support U.S. manufacturing given they could never be outsourced and offshored.

The President does not want to see air traffic control and safety, grants for scientific and medical research, education, food safety and homeland security, and other domestic standards compromised.  To engage the people, he is willing to let this happen and create a little chaos.  He probably feels we need to disrupt the average person’s life to get them to pay attention.  When the people become engaged, then true and needed tax reform can be created, allowing for the revenue increase the country must have to help reduce the deficit.

The Sequester is a political strategy the President is willing to play.  It is high stakes and risky, but given the likelihood he would be otherwise unable to reduce military spending, increase tax revenue and leave entitlement programs unscathed, it is a risk he feels is worth taking.