The Republican playbook reads pretty clear: allow sequestration, then swoop in, savior-like, to restore defense cuts--but defense cuts only, which Democrats will be loathe to oppose.
For Republicans, who believe a sabotaged economy is good GOP politics--and they just might be right--this playbook has it all: an uptick in unemployment; a downtick in GDP; a panicked workforce; declining consumer confidence; payback for the fiscal-cliff deal; the sadistic delight of Democratic squealing; the ruthless shafting of a detested president; and a long, electorally forgetful two years until reelection time, at which point they'll hammer Democrats for the lousy economy.
And Republicans still have the continuing resolution and debt ceiling to play with--for bonus points, should they so opt.
It's the perfect plan for politicians who see other people's lives as mere abstractions for solid political gain.
In a well-informed democracy, those abstractions would hurl the sociopathic bastards out of office at election time; but for once the sociopathic bastards are employing a bit of empirical knowledge. They know two very important items: the abstractions are not well informed, nor do they tend to vote in midterm elections.
Like I said, the playbook seems pretty clear.
We, the abstractions, are going to vote this time.
Posted by: Daniel Francis | February 19, 2013 at 08:53 PM
This does not seem to me the fait accompli that you believe. Yes defense spending is diffuse and affects a large number of districts but so too will the other cuts. In fact they will affect more people. I'm sure you are right about their intentions but I will wait to see how this lays out.
Posted by: Peter G | February 19, 2013 at 09:22 PM
It is the perfect playbook ... for 1980.
Democrats are no longer seen as peaceniks and apeasers. The question is no longer, "Are the Democrats weak on defense?" The question is, "Are Republicans blood-thirty war hawks?" I am sure that Obama knows this.
Also, a large majority of Americans think the military is long overdue for a pretty short haircut.
I am drifting towards Howard Dean's position of letting it happen to capture the cuts to the military. I would modify that phasing it in over a period of 3-4 years to minimize the impact on the economy. I heard reports this morning that the Tea Party is drifting towards the cuts in the military as a means of proving to their base that they are serious.
Again, timing and sequencing of the implementation seem to be open to negotiation.
As far as cuts to Medicare, I am on record for wanting to cut costs - while maintaining benefits.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | February 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM