Brian Beutler reports that high-rankings figures in the GOP are considering trying to deal with the sequester by giving the Obama administration unprecedented executive powers to choose how its budget cuts are allocated and implemented in 2013. On the merits, it would almost definitely improve the functioning of our government to give the executive branch flexibility in the implementation of the sequester, which is currently set to make broad cuts across government agencies with almost no planning or discretion on how to avoid hurting both government functions and the economy. However, it's a terrible idea.
This proposal gives sweeping budgetary powers to the president outside the purview of Congress, which sets a dangerous precedent. While I trust the Obama administration to be prudent in administering federal programs, it is scary that Congressional Republicans would even consider giving up Congressional oversight over the budget process. Congress has traditionally acted to gain more control and oversight over the federal budget, which is why the president is no longer allowed to impound appropriated funds. The Republicans essentially want to give the impoundment power back to the president, with the explicit purpose of preventing the full execution of budgets that they have already passed. Congress eliminated this power in the 1970's for a reason: it allows the president to override powers that are specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution. It takes away the power of the purse from our elected representatives.
In addition, agreeing to such a deal would subvert the political process by undermining the original intent of the sequester. These budget cuts were insisted on and agreed to by Republicans in Congress, ostensibly for the (incredibly ill-advised) purpose of providing political pressure on both Democrats and Republicans to come up with a compromise that reduces the deficit with a less painful and more reasonable alternative. Granting new executive powers to decide on how the cuts are implemented removes political pressure on Republicans to reach a deal. Instead, they can campaign against the particulars of "Obama's cuts", without being held accountable for the bad consequences of reducing government spending which they demanded.
Republicans have forced a series of crisis points in order to avoid actually having to propose, agree to, and pass compromise legislation. As a result, our government is careening from one self-imposed fiscal emergency to the next. If Republicans want to cut crucial government services in order to fund tax cuts for the rich, they should have to do that through a normal budgetary process where they are forced to own the political consequences for their demands. I am not against sometimes taking a political hit in order to improve Americans' lives. I certainly feel this way about Obamacare, which hurt the Democrats politically but was worth the prospect of improving millions of lives. However, we cannot allow a precedent of letting Republicans avoid political accountability for their own abhorrent ideology. We cannot allow Democrats to appear responsible for the consequences of cuts to government services. We have to make it clear that these cuts are what Republicans want, and that if the American people want to avoid the consequences of these cuts, they should vote more Democrats into Congress. That is the only way to force Republicans to either respond to the political will of the American people by peeling back on their demands, or to face the electoral consequences.
If this proposal becomes part of the conversation, we cannot allow it to pass.