« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP should pass sequester transfer authority bill

Yesterday, this column denounced President Barack Obama’s extreme fear-mongering attacks on the supposed consequences (including the action he has already taken in delaying the deployment of the usual second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf) of the automatic across-the-board “sequester” spending cuts totaling less than 3% of the federal budget, scheduled for March 1, 2013.

At no time during his 19th Hole demagoguery did the Chief Executive demand that Congress grant him “transfer authority” that would allow him to move available funds between defense and non-defense accounts in order to avoid the supposed draconian cuts made inevitable by the sequester that he proposed to Congress in 2011 but now denounces as irresponsible and extreme.

We don’t believe that spending cuts so puny mandate reductions in national security, emergency response, air traffic safety or any of the rest of the litany of horribles spewed forth by the Commander-in-Chief yesterday. But to “know” for sure what is and is not the state of budget affairs before and after the scheduled 2+% cuts, one would have to devote oneself to a study of the equivalent of Egyptian hieroglyphs to follow the rat holes one has to travel down in budget bills and executive branch accounts.

But luckily, Charles Krauthammer has time on his hands:

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer says President Obama could easily reduce the fear and panic engendered by the looming sequester if he would simply push Congress to pass a bill allowing a transfer of funds from less important federal accounts to more important federal accounts.

“And the president is the one who ought to propose it,” Krauthammer told Fox News on Wednesday. “He won’t, of course, because he is looking for a fight, and not a solution.”…

…Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, said unless Congress gives federal agencies transfer authority — and lawmakers could pass a bill to do that — layoffs may happen, because agencies won’t be able to shift money from less important accounts to more important accounts.

Holtz-Eakin told Fox New’s Brett Baier on Wednesday that the sequester requires indiscriminate, across-the-board reductions in the growth of spending, half of them affecting the Defense budget and half affecting non-defense spending.

“But when you get underneath the surface, the federal budget is divided into thousands of different accounts,” Holtz-Eakin explained. “Each account gets cut by the same amount, regardless of what’s in it. So, we have some accounts that are payroll, some accounts that are conferences, travel, whatever it may be. They’ll get the same cut, regardless of what’s in there.”

Without transfer authority, “you can’t shift the money around…There’s no ability to ship money to high priority projects, and you know, low priority takes the cut. Everybody gets a cut regardless.”

Fine, House Republicans should go ahead and pass a transfer authority bill to better defend themselves from the sure-to-be media-assisted blame game after the sequester. They should not wait in silence for President Obama to ask for it. Of course, the GOP House has already passed  legislation with specific spending cuts to replace the sequester that eliminate the ability of the President to claim impending disaster. But, again, of course, the President is refusing to let the 24/7 crisis aka his presidency go to waste and using the impending sequester as yet another opportunity to demand that “the rich” pay more in taxes. No word yet on why the tax hikes already passed this year are no longer their “fair share”.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Editor of Hillbilly Politics

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist at Examiner.com

Front page columnist for Liberty Unyielding and Western Free Press

COMMENTS

  • eltuba

    Who would decide on how the money is shifted, the agencies themselves or the House?

  • rosenstern

    I support across the board cuts. I think it sends a signal to every government employee and agency that we no longer have the funds to pay for so much government. We need to cut Defense, we need to cut entitlement programs, we need to pay down our debt. I do not believe either congress or agency heads have the ability to cut government spending or “micro-manage” the process via the proposed transfer authority. We’ll end up with clever gimmicks and bureaucratic obstruction. The only way to really cut back on the size of government is to legally mandate across the board cuts every year for the next 10 years and not flinch. Cuts are necessary for the long term health of our government and if we stand fast in the face of the pending wailing from the Democrats I believe our principled stand will win tremendous support across the nation.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Apparently, unless Congress grants transfer authority, the executive’s a discretion is greatly limited by previous budget control acts. Probably that were passed after a confrontation Nixon had with Congress over impoundment

  • joshinca

    This is an absolutely horrible idea.
    Congress has already delegated way too much of their responsibility to the executive (which is unconstitutional imo) which is one of the reasons that the country is in such a mess.
    Further, the idea that Obama would use this power to responsibly cut spending, instead of using it to maximize the Washington Monument effect is just plain delusional.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Yes, I doubt Obama would use the authority to avoid the particular cutbacks he has threatened, and therefore would be more exposed as intentionally harming national security etc.

  • joshinca

    The problem is that he’s an expert at blaming others for the damage that he causes, especially with the media covering his butt.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Yes, Obama and the media are problems.

  • RonsBoy

    Republicans can be nihilists and take co-ownership of this catastrophe of a recovery and risk being swept out of office. Swept out for .5 reduction in the growth of government spending and protecting small, targeted loophole-closing that’s just meant to torment the dread rich. It’s Crazy to think this fight isn’t over who owns the economy.

    As for me I want to conservative to stand for something more solid and comprehensive. Meaningful spending cuts which include entitlement spending and a broad and coherent tax-reform plan. That’s not what republicans are standing for but to take co-ownership of the Obama Recovery. A result where the debt and the deficit grow, economic malaise continue and deepen and Obamanomics spread and grow. It’s just Crazy!!!