I'm growing quite tired of all the sequestration kabuki.
The bottom line is the Great Betrayal is in full implementation mode.
Democrats--I'm talking REAL DEMOCRATS--need to take a good look at what Gene Sperling actually wrote in his email to Bob Woodward.
This is from just the past few days! Don't tell me what Obama's "saying." F*ck the status quo, centrist Democratic focus upon the pie fight over this bullshit!
Look at what his KEY people are DOING and communicating to the press (not what the President "says" in public), when they think they're communicating in private with them. (Reference: Paraphrasing Meteor Blades, etc., etc. "It's not what you say. It's what you do.")
Sperling: Obama Wanted Sequester to Force Democrats to Accept Entitlement Cuts
By: Jon Walker
FireDogLake
Thursday February 28, 2013 8:41 am
“The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start.”
The way Obama has handled basically every manufactured crisis from the debt ceiling, to the Bush tax cuts expiration, to the sequester has been about trying to force both Democrats and Republicans to embrace his version of a “grand bargain.” While it is clear this has been the driving force behind Obama’s decisions, if you pay close attention to his actions is is rare than an administration official will directly admit this. This is actually what I think it most interesting about the recently leaked email exchange between Bob Woodward and Gene Sperling up on Politico. Sperling wrote:
But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
(It's time for Democrats everywhere to cut the crap, IMHO! Ignore the pie fights and the theater. Let's focus upon what's REALLY happening.)
Just sayin'...