With public on Obama’s side in sequester battle, Republicans need to rethink strategy

Washington : DC : USA | Feb 24, 2013 at 11:04 PM PST

By Punditty

XX XX

Views: Pending

To hear President Barack Obama tell it, everything from the health of the economy to military readiness will suffer if the White House and Congress can’t reach a budget deal by March 1 and deep cuts known as “the sequester” take effect. To hear many Republicans in Congress tell it, Obama is exaggerating.

Exaggerating or not, public opinion is on Obama’s side going into what will no doubt be a tense and perhaps somewhat theatrical final four days of February before Friday rings in the new month.

A Pew Research Center/USA Today poll conducted Feb. 13-18 and released Thursday found that 49 percent of respondents want the automatic spending cuts to be delayed if a deal can’t be reached by March 1, while 40 percent said the cuts should be allowed to take effect. In a separate Bloomberg News poll, conducted Feb. 15-18 and also released Thursday, 54 percent of respondents favored delaying the sequester while 40 percent say Congress should “act now before the deficit gets out of control,” according to Bloomberg.

Pew/USA Today also found that 49 percent would blame congressional Republicans if the sequester occurs, while only 31 percent would blame Obama.

The Pew/USA Today poll interviewed respondents about government spending in 19 different areas. In 18 of those 19 areas, support for increasing spending or keeping it current levels won out over cutting costs. Support for trimming aid to needy countries garnered the most support, with 48 percent saying it should be cut, while cuts to veterans’ benefits garnered the least support, with only 6 percent favoring cuts. Cuts to Social Security were also extremely unpopular, with only 10 percent supporting cuts there. The full list can be found in an informational graphic on the Pew website.

Opinion

With Americans showing little support for spending cuts, the need to raise more revenue seems obvious. This will hold true even if a budget deal is reached prior to March 1. But with so many Republicans ideologically opposed not only to the very idea of tax increases but to many of the government services tax dollars fund, the nation finds itself at an impasse.

As this week unfolds, look for Obama and the Democrats to drive home how the cuts would affect everyday Americans from all walks of life even as the GOP is faced with trying to downplay any negative effects that might arise from the sequester. Republicans may stick with trying to blame Obama, using an unexpected ally in Bob Woodward to emphasize that point, but many Americans are looking past the blame game now and are just hoping the sequester will not occur.

Some in the GOP may think allowing the sequester would help the party politically even if the country suffers economically, but that’s fuzzy logic. If the cuts occur and the economy goes off the rails, Republicans will be blamed. If the cuts occur and the economy holds its own, Obama can make the argument that increasing revenue in the next budget is absolutely necessary in order to prevent full-blown disaster from striking. The increased unemployment numbers that will probably result from sequestration will help the president make his case.

Republicans need to wake up and take a sober look at the situation: The smartest thing they can do this week is to cave, giving Obama everything he wants. Woodward may or may not have been right in saying that Obama owns sequestration, but Obama definitely would own the US economy after March 1 if the GOP gives in to his wishes before then.

Few experts foresee a thriving US economy by the midterms, so by giving in now, Republicans would enhance their chances for taking control of the Senate and maintaining control of House in 2014. But if GOP stubbornness carries the day and no deal is reached by Friday, Republicans would be making a colossal error. As Americans began feeling the sting of budget cuts, they would be looking to place the blame. In almost every imaginable sequestration scenario, the public would continue to blame Republicans.

Republicans have less than a week to clear their eyes and see the wisdom in handing Obama the economy on a not-so-silver platter as soon as possible. Only by giving Obama everything he wants now can the GOP blame him for everything that comes later. That may sound cynical, but blame is a big part of a winning election strategy. If Republicans find themselves being blamed for a weakening economy in November 2014 because of brinksmanship gone bad in 2013, Democrats almost certainly will take back the House and hold the Senate.

If you like to write about US politics, enter Allvoices’ "The American Pundit" political writing contest. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and Nov. 30. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded in December. If you do not already have a free account, sign up here.

The American Pundit on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmericanPundits

Allvoices on Twitter: https://twitter.com/allvoices

Allvoices on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/freelance.journalism

***

Sources and resources embedded in text.

1 of 3

With the public supporting President Obama on delaying spending cuts set to go into effect March 1, Republicans might be smart to consider giving the president everything he wants now so they can point the finger at him later. (Image: White House Flickr account/Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Punditty is based in Santa Cruz, California, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.

Report Credibility

Credibility
Reach

More News From: Washington : DC : USA

Post a Comment Comments: 24

Posted By

Rosco1776 | 3 months ago

On Obama's side? Really? It's a spending problem clear and simple!! Cut foreign aid, stop the wars, cut the size of government!!

Posted By

gorilla1964 | 3 months ago

All you do is lie, people are not on Obama's side. The sequester is a scam that with not effect anything.

Reply By

WeimMom | 3 months ago

Ditto, not to mention it was Obama's idea! Only ones on Obama's side are the UNinformed!

Posted By

MikeDar | 3 months ago

"..on Obama’s side". I would not go with Pew Research or Blomberg as the both are extreme supporters of Obama. The best I've seen of polling shows 51% at best and is questionable in the persons polled as many are inane enough to support, simply because they voted for Obama... mostly on issues not pertaining to fiscal matters.
The fiscal house Obama perpetuates, has the least strong support of all his policies, by all voters regardless of who polls... independently.

0

With public on Obama’s side

Posted By

tylertxsteve | 3 months ago

the ones that are on his side are people that dont have a clue and eats the propaganda that comes from his mouth.first of all the CBO is saying it is more like 45 billion. If our government cannot cut two or three pennies out of every dollar it spends we will bankrupt this nation. We are at 16 1/2 headed to $17 trillion a year in debt. We are spending 3 1/2 trillion dollars a year. We are taking in 1 1/2 trillion dollars in revenue. And we cannot cut 45 billion out of are spending. There may be a lot of people would agree with the president on sequester, but were not all idiots. Articles like this goes to show you what propaganda is alive and well in America. he was the one that come up with the sequester and then blamed it on the Republicans. If the liberal media would get out of bed with this man …. Maybe we could save this nation.

Posted By

tylertxsteve | 3 months ago

Did you know we spent more on hurricane Sandy than what this cut will represented. If what president Obama (a.k.a. chicken Little) says is true, then the money that would put out on hurricane Sandy would cause, 100,000 teachers to lose their jobs, 272,000 and head start kids Go home sit on the sofa and etc. etc. etc. NOTE: notice that the money cuts never affect their paychecks.

Posted By

Cyberiante | 3 months ago

What still amazes me - and I have to applaud them - is the Dems have the MSM and thus the message fully in hand. Even the blatant and easily disproven lies coming from Obama on this matter are believed by the unwashed (low info voter) masses. The thought that having to REDUCE THE GROWTH OF (NOT cut!!!) spending on the budget will lead to long lines at TSA, police being laid off, etc, is typical leftist propaganda.

Ever notice that when ANY small drab of spending cut is proposed, it is AUTOMATICALLY claimed to hurt the least among us. So instead of cutting waste, trimming a bit here, they threaten to take the punishment right to the people. Just like when the fiscal cliff occurred and they said that "well, we're just not sure Social Security checks will go out" - thus threatening seniors. When in reality SS is NOT ON THE BUDGET but is funded from the famous "lock box", so the money is there. And Obama knew that lie at the time it was passing his lips.

Recall to get the fiscal cliff, Obama promised spending cuts. Now he's saying that not only can't he provide those cuts and is reneging on that promise, but also wants MORE taxes. What chutzpah!!

More and more Americans are seeing the light of this lying bozo. Perhaps one day, enough people will wake up to what the democrats have done to this once great country. At least most understand what the MSM is all about now, which is a start.

Posted By

urbisoler | 3 months ago

That's not saying very much for the intelligence of the American people who seem to have lost the American enterprise spirit. They would rather the Government take care of them. Well, folks, it doesn't work that way. Sooner or later the Governement will run out of YOUR money, then what will you do? We have drained the pot. There ain't any more. The folks blindly think there is gold at the end of the rainbow. Obama is spinning you fairy tales and you believe him. Just hope you're old enough not to witness the denouement.

Posted By

patsne | 3 months ago

Very encouraging that all those posting on this so far see through the baloney. Can't agree more with everyone. This is a tiny fraction of the deficit we are running, not near enough cuts. They can easily find this much money in areas that are wasteful, foolish and unnecessary spending - but they try to use the same old scare tactics that they will have to release murderes, no 911, no police, no teachers, etc if you don't keep paying higher and higher taxes. Everyone was screaming about the greed of Wallstreet, how about the greed and highway robbery of these out of touch, rich, fat cat, elitest bueaurocrats. STOP WASTING OUR MONEY!!! The truth is that the amount of cuts needed will also involve a lot of pain and these fools are unwilling to do the things or stop doing the things that would really allow growth and a true ecomonic recovery.

Posted By

mackie | 3 months ago

For Pete' sake, you can't "cut" the economy to development.

It is not about "smaller" government, I doubt you want fewer teachers, but about cheaper government. It is the pay that needs to be cut from your local government up to the top- the pay and benefits, particularly pensions are obscene at all management levels, private and public, and we pay it all from overpriced goods to taxes.

We are leaving the wars behind, we can't cut all foreign aid because we will face overpopulation and wars for food and massive immigration as well as disease spread.

We need to tax the overpaid, over benefited 14% of population- if you cannot live on a million, too bad, no one is worth even half of that.

Our small, right wing, racist and prejudiced town, ruled for generations by the same clique just beat the entrenched powers by passing a law prohibiting anyone in the city government from earning more that 3times the average salary for the area and limiting the term of city manager to 3 years.

It cuts the pay to half.

Do the same.

Posted By

patsne | 3 months ago

Mackie, I agree with cutting government pay - start with Congress. Don't agree with limits on the private sector as they create wealth, jobs and prosperity - if you get government out of the way, reduce unecessary rules and regulation - which largely serve to limit the small entreprenuer - the big boys can afford to hire a team of lawyers to help them comply - you can stimulate growth, and you need to reduce spending and the size of government at the same time. Politicians don't go for that because it reduces their power and perks - at the end of the day it is really about power. I want the kind of America where the little guy can make it based on hard work and his own merits, not have to depend on government handouts.

Posted By

tylertxsteve | 3 months ago

tidbits. Salary of a retired US president $450,000 per year for life. Salary of Senate members are $174,000 per year for life. Salary of Speaker of the house the house to her and 223,500 per year for life. Minority leader $194,400 per year for life. When you lose your job will your employer pay you the same salary for life? Don't tell me the government out-of-control.

Posted By

mackie | 3 months ago

Yeah, all that prosperity that the housing bubbles, three since 1987, caused.

All those tax haven as well. All those bonuses for bankers whose banks needed to be bailed out at the cost of jobs of people. Private sector did not bring any wealth to working people since the end of seventies.

It truly never will again since the earth and its natural resources are limited and private sector exists to endlessly expand.

Posted By

patsne | 3 months ago

But government - no expansion, greed or wasteful spending of our money there? It is the governments interference in the private sector that led to the housing bubble. I'm not saying the private sector is never out of line - but when it comes back to bite them let them fail - the government steps in and picks the ones to bail out. We are blocked from accessing most of our natural resources by government - but I know you won't be convinced Mackie. We have plenty of revenue for government, just no physcal responsibility.

Posted By

mackie | 3 months ago

Honestly, the level of education is deplorable.

We had no taxes until the beginning of 20th century ( the wars got too expensive), we had 60% of population living in dire poverty at the same time and crime was rampant. The entire economy was in the hands of 1% of the nation and we live with the damage they caused until today. Such as the dust bowl( the land did not come back yet) and the lack of water and the dried land in the west,

In the 20s the first unions appear. They, not the business, had the revelation of 8 hours work day, vacation, medical help and housing. People like Carnegie hired tugs to hunt the unionists down and torture them to death. Carnegie was so afraid of going to hell for his part in this that he donated millions to buy his way to heaven.

After the World War II we had strong union and very large, post war markets that allow the corporations expansion while the unions kept living standards up for working people.

Since 70s we have targeted effort by all corporation to undermine both, the unions and the social net, it works- corporations buy politicians and those pass the legislation that gut our rights- all our right , including privacy and freedom.

Living standards are therefore falling, we had 5% drop in pay since the year 2000 but huge, as much as 30% rise in prices.

Unchecked corporation are now international and really have no interest in domestic economy or well being of its population , and facing shrinking natural reserves which mean that only rise in profit is lower wages.

The most profitable corporation live off government welfare- military contracts and all kinds of behind the door awarded building contracts, it is vastly more expensive and wasteful than the entire help for poor.It is also the largest part of our budget- 47%.
We, the working people, pay for this waste out of taxes and we have no control over it because it is done on "private contracts", say body scans for 93 millions a year to Chertoff's company.

As long as growing consumption is what they want, we will face increase in lower living standards because the earth is limited.

They will always come up with another body scan to skim the government and us from money we need for health care or education. That is how the "create wealth".

If anyone thinks that corporation will face the necessary change in the economic policy- from consumption to service and preservation- that you also believe in Santa Claus and good luck to you.

Posted By

patsne | 3 months ago

Santa Clause is here and his name is Barak Obama - but this Santa Clause will ultimately lead us to the wonderful prosperity experienced by the average person in the old Soviet Union and Greece. We have current examples of where excessive growth in government, entitlements, etc lead - look to Europe, Spain and Greece - they are sinking fast. That is our future. The roaring twenties, under the conservative policies of Calvin Coolidge led to an econmic boom which we might reproduce if we followed his example - sadly history has been re written by the progressives who don't want the truth exposed.

Reply By

mackie | 3 months ago

I do hate to rain on your parade but: the Soviets inherited a country after 4 years of World War and another 2 years of civil war paid fro by the West that was losing enormous markets. They inherited a country that every 10 years experienced hunger of the sort we know now from Africa, where syphilis and tuberculosis were plague to majority of the poor, where slavery was longer in use than in USA and 10 people living in one room was common.There was practically no industry and the country could not feed itself in peace much less in and after wars.

19 years after they took power the World War II devastated most of the country.

We had never had anything like that.

Nevertheless, by 1980 everyone in USSR had health care that was less glossy than ours but more effective, everyone had an apartment, doubling was unknown, there were no beggars, all old people had pensions and illiteracy was unknown. Greater part of population had the so called dachas in the country and drove small cars.. No excesses for the working but no starving either.

We have never achieved that.

The problems were by then not economic but political. Fear of losing personal freedom to being jailed for years, difficulty in getting to university or good job if one was politically unsound, the wiretapping, possibly interrogations, the controlled mail- well, we have most of it under the Patriot Act- and the war in Afghanistan- fear of losing one's freedom, that was what broke USSR, not hunger.

Greece is different, again it was not social welfare but derivatives and military budget that broke Greece.We pushed both on them, derivatives to "develop" country older than most and military by showing them threats of Turkey.

Europe is surprisingly well off by comparison, amazingly majority of EU does not have either debts of the magnitude we do or poverty in comparable levels.

They seems to have more freedom as well. Gee they even have universal medical care and free education.

There is unfortunately no empirical evidence that corporations "create wealth" unless we mean wealth of public debts.

Corporation devastate for short time profit of very small group. Where is the "wealth" created by land mining using water to get on silver and gold?
We are short on water and blighted by dust of destroyed soil- and where is all that silver and gold? What did it create?

Just an example.

The unholy alliance between money and government, the one sanctioned by US Supreme Court needs to be broken.

I repeat, education in public schools is deplorable.

Posted By

tylertxsteve | 3 months ago

What that you are saying Mr.President it may not be that bad after all.... well your going to make a lot of the media look stupid.

Posted By

patsne | 3 months ago

Yes Mackie - communism a wonderful solution - we are headed there, and I'm sure it will be so much better - look at all the trouble the old Soviets had, Cuba, North Korea with keeping thouse pesky illegal aliens out as everyone wanted to live there in that Paradise - no wait, machine guns patrolling the Berlin wall - were shooting those trying to ESCAPE communism - people in home made rafts braving shark infested waters - not to get TO Cuba but to escape it. In order to acheive these wonderful Utopian examples they had to break a lot of eggs. The killing fields of Cambodia, the bullets to the heads of countless dissidents. People experiencing massive starvation during the Communist Revolution in Russia when the Communists confiscated the farms from the evil, greedy rich land owners and gave them over to the peasants who unfortunately didn't have a clue how to grow food. Women were eating their own babies. For years they could not tell time because they confiscated all of the clock shops and threw the owners into the Gulag, so no one knew how to make clocks. Look at a nighttime picture of North Korea compared to South Korea - vast darkness because they have very little electricity - lots of starvation though, the people there are several inches shorter due to decades of malnutrition. Here under the evils of Capitalism - we have a big problem keeping people out? If it is so unfair and horrible, why has that been the case for many years? Under the leadership of the Left it will soon reverse - we'll all be looking for another country where there is freedom and the hope of some level of financial prosperity for the average person, not just the top Party leadership. Doesn't the hypocrisy of the Obama's living like Royalty off the Tax payer's dime, while constantly railing about the private sector rich buiness owners who don't pay their fair share bother you just a little? But keep thinking how wonderful things are in Europe and head to Cuba for some of that "free" health care and government education - I guess since it's free - there is not cost somehow?

Reply By

mackie | 3 months ago

You have no idea what you yapping about.

I, unlike you, have actively fought totalism and USSR at a dear price to myself.

It does not prevent me from seeing reality, nor does it make me to buy propaganda crap doled by anyone.

For your information the only communist country in history is Israel, I have a great respect for 6 million people fighting 360 million enemies around them.

USSR was a totalitarian country similar to Franco's Spain, so is North Korea.

People like you are no different from those Stalin paid to write in Pravda.
What has Korea today to do with USSR in 1920? Nothing.

Diversion because you have no facts to preset. Peasant did not know how to work the land? Who do you think worked that land? Kulaks? Land was owned by landed gentry in 90% and worked by peasants sold and bought like cattle.

Private sector? Yeah, Britain just cut all the banker's bonuses to most of year's salary because otherwise there is too much temptation to steal.

Yeah, people steal, torture and deceive in private sector and make others to pay for their greed. You cannot un-elect them and we do not even prosecute them.

And what the heck, has Obama's living to do with the basic inability of our current economy to do with this? You looking for a country with freedom and prosperity? Norway comes to mind.

EU is neither communist nor socialist.

Reply By

patsne | 3 months ago

Have fun in Norway. Obviously peasants knew how to do the physical labor - but not how to do all the operation of running a farm to make it produce. The point is that in order to impose any kind of central planning or Communism, totalitarian control is required, that's why it always eventually leads to that. Always the mantra - it just wasn't done right, it wasn't true communism. Sorry - but I prefer as much individual liberty as possible, self reliance and do not hate the other guy because he is wealthy due to his hard work, willingness to take risk and put a good idea into practice and produce a good or service that others'want and will pay for - I say good for him. I have a strong distaste for the manipulation of the useful idiots - the government continues to increase their power and control, scream how the answer is always more regulation, higher taxes, and it is never enough - they point the finger at the "greedy rich" as they confiscate more and more of our money to pay their high salaries, private jets, health care and pensions as well as the wasteful silly spending (turtle tunnels and studies on the effects of viceo games on the elderly) - we need to focus on them not on someone who is well off because they worked hard and built a business - that's not where the real greed is -it is in Washington - on both sides of the eisle. They manipulate people with envy, pure and simple. I don't buy that because my neighbor has a nicer car, bigger house and more money, it came out of my pocket. Now when Washington keeps raising the amount they take out of my paycheck and how much tax I pay on every gallon of gas - that IS coming out of my pocket and they have not been good stewards of our hard earned money.

Posted By

mackie | 3 months ago

You must be illiterate so much of your "answer" makes no sense.

I wish you good luck with your own private army, highways, schools, health care, including medication research, police, airplanes and firemen.

As long as the too big too fail banks fleece you, you'll never have the funds to have any of it anyway.
But these are the rich , private guys your money bailed out.

It was the total lack of planning and cooperation that drained our water supplies and create our dust bowl.

Posted By

mackie | 3 months ago

Eh - the peasants could not do the planing but you deplore planing?

Posted By

patsne | 3 months ago

I believe in the proper functions of government being more at the local level - as much as possible (no, I don't mean the military, so don't go there) I did not say there is no function for the government - just that they are out of control, have too much power and are wasting our hard earned dollars. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Donald Trump are not the ones confiscating our money, then wasting it and using it to live high on the hog - I really don't understand people that are not outraged at the hypocrisy and greed of Washington. That means - stop telling us that the sky will fall if the sequester goes through because the govt needs every penny or there will be catastrophe and then turn around and send tons of money and state of the art weaponry to Egypt which is now under the control of tyrants - the Muslim Brotherhood who are out and out religious fanatics dedicated to Sharia law and Jihad ( and I don't think they just mean a personal struggle) - they mean to establish a world Islamic Caliphate, but hey - I'm just an illiterate no nothing - so pay no attention to that. I'm sure if the government had controlled all the farms as collective enterprises run by the State there would have been no Dust Bowl - because of course you have some evidence that the government saw that coming and knew what would happen but just didn't have the necessary central planning control to prevent it?

News Stories

White House denies staffer threatened Watergate journalist Woodward

Fox News

FoxNews.com The White House is denying reports an unnamed aide threatened famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward after the Washington Post reporter challenged President Obama's version of events on the looming sequester last week. Woodward claimed...
White House tells Woodward he'll 'regret' criticism

KTUV

Sponsored Links Veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward says a senior official from the White House told him he will regret a claim he made in an op-ed piece. Last week, Woodward wrote that President Obama is moving the goal posts by demanding...
Oh, Please, The White House Didn't 'Threaten' Bob Woodward

BusinessInsider

The country is in an uproar because people are saying that a senior White House official "threatened" legendary journalist Bob Woodward because of something he planned to publish. Now, I haven't seen the video of Bob Woodward talking about this...
Did Bob Woodward invent the President's supposed ‘threat'?

Canadian Free Press

I ran this piece regarding Bob Woodward's claim that the White House threatened him over his reporting on the sequester. About half an hour later, The Politico ran what it claims are the emails in question and it seems Bob is, at best,...
Journalist Woodward said he received White House warning

Chicago Tribune

A prominent Washington journalist said in interviews on Wednesday a senior White House official warned him he would "regret" publishing a story challenging the White House's account of how the idea for automatic spending cuts originated. Bob Woodward...
Five myths about the sequester

Washington Post

Identifying the origins of the sequester has become a major Washington fight. Bob Woodward weighed in recently with a Washington Post op-ed making the case that the idea began in the White House. He's right in a narrow sense, mainly because he...

Blogs

Sequester: White House Warns Of State Cuts - Business Insider

www.businessinsider.com

Less than a week before across-the-board cuts start to kick in as a result of the sequester, the White House warned on Sunday of the state-by-state effect of the cuts. The White House released reports outlining how the cuts would affect each of ...
White House Releases Dire State-by-State List of Sequestration ...

www.theblaze.com

On Sunday, the White House continued its effort to prevent the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts known as "sequestration" from starting this Friday, releasing a dramatic state-by-state list of how they claim each state will be impacted
White House Releases Dire State-by-State List of Sequestration ...

www.theblaze.com

On Sunday, the White House continued its effort to prevent the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts known as "sequestration" from starting this Friday, releasing a dramatic state-by-state list of how they claim each state will be impacted
Bob Woodward On The Sequester - Business Insider

www.businessinsider.com

He also accuses Jack Lew of not being entirely truthful in his testimony.
Sequester facts: What happens next, what gets cut

blog.constitutioncenter.org

The actual tool to cut government spending for the military and social programs, across the board, dates back to the eras of President Ronald Reagan and President Bill Clinton. The current sequester threat is part of the Budget Control Act of ...
Sequester Cuts Are a Common Sense Approach | RealClearPolitics

www.realclearpolitics.com

Stop the talk of how “draconian” the sequester is – it isn't. But even if it was, a broad-based cut is the only fair way to do things if we can't agree on which spending cuts to prioritize. Now, there's a point to be made that Defense is

More Related Blogs

Images

Obama in driver's seat

Obama in driver's seat

Image Source: allvoices

With the public supporting President Obama on delaying spending cuts set to ...
Barack Obama warns spending ...

Barack Obama warns spending ...

Image Source: www.afp.com

Barack Obama warns spending cuts would hurt educaiton
The union say the spending ...

The union say the spending ...

Image Source: www.afp.com

The union say the spending cuts are "intolerable"