Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85â€‰billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.
What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?
The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. â€śThe sequester is not something that Iâ€™ve proposed,â€ť Obama said. â€śIt is something that Congress has proposed.â€ť
The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.
â€śThere was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,â€ť Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It â€śwas very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.â€ť
The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book â€śThe Price of Politicsâ€ť shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors â€” probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.
Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, â€śWe didnâ€™t actually think it would be that hard to convince themâ€ť â€” Reid and the Republicans â€” to adopt the sequester. â€śIt really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.â€ť
A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didnâ€™t even initially know what a sequester was â€” because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.
At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lewâ€™s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: â€śWoodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?â€ť
â€śItâ€™s a little more complicated than that,â€ť Lew responded, â€śand even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.â€ť
â€śDid you make the suggestion?â€ť Burr asked.
â€śWell, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.â€ť
In other words, yes.
But then Burr asked about the presidentâ€™s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it.
Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: â€śSenator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.â€ť
That statement was not accurate.
On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a â€śmeat-cleaver approachâ€ť that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.
At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.
â€śThe sequester was something that was discussed,â€ť Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, â€śand as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.â€ť
This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong.
Why does this matter?
First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)
Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lewâ€™s point, a senior White House official said Friday, â€śThe sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.â€ť
In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nationâ€™s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.
So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.
I'm mobile so can't post link. I snagged it from someone who shared it on FB.