Obama's Phony Sequester Outrage

Threatening public services while corporate fat cats sit on taxpayer money is offensive.

President Obama has been jetting around the country, warning of untold pain and suffering starting today when the sequester budget cuts kick in. But if he really buys his own gloom and doom, there is a way he can avoid major cuts for the rest of the fiscal year: Recall the outstanding Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout money that General Motors and his Wall Street pals are still sitting on.

The sequester deal, as Bob Woodward has reminded us, was proposed by the president 18 months ago to persuade congressional fiscal hawks to raise the debt ceiling. Meanwhile, Congress had an opportunity to find alternatives to the automatic, across-the-board cuts (or sequester), but it failed.

America's annual trillion-plus deficit is almost equal to the entire 1985 federal budget. Its cumulative national debt is $16.5 trillion—more than the nation's GDP. That's not counting the nation's unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities. Count those, and the debt adds up to $80 trillion—about eight times the GDP.

The $44 billion in sequester cuts for this fiscal year amount to what the government borrows every two weeks. (The sequester actually requires about $85 billion in cuts this year, but about half can be rolled into subsequent years.) This is chump change that any fiscally responsible president could shake out of his back pocket. Indeed, a 2011 Government Accountability Office report identified about $100 billion worth of government waste and duplication that could be eliminated without affecting anyone outside Uncle Sam's employ. But instead of doing the responsible thing, President Obama has taken to the stump and made the sequester a social justice issue.

He warns that if Republicans refuse him another tax increase and prevail with their "meat-cleaver" approach to the budget, there will be no first responders to help disaster-struck communities recover; prosecutors will be unable to put away criminals; schools will have to lay off teachers; parents will lose child care; and kids won't get vaccinations. As a warning shot, the administration began releasing detained illegal immigrants—a move that will not help the cause of immigration reform.

But if Obama wants social justice, how about recovering the bailout money before sticking it to taxpayers yet again?

In contrast to all the dithering over the measly sequester cuts, look back four years. Two different presidents and the Congress hammered out the nearly $500 billion financial rescue package within a matter of weeks, pumping huge infusions of taxpayer dollars into auto companies and Wall Street banks—some of whom didn't even need or want the money.

But according to ProPublica, a website dedicated to tracking the bailout, about $60 billion has still not been paid back. Nearly $6 billion is in the form of housing subsidies, and that is never coming back. But the rest is "invested" in company stocks and bonds and is therefore recoverable.

Consider General Motors, whose executives had the chutzpah to request multimillion-dollar raises a few weeks ago. Taxpayers still "own" about 19 percent of the company's stock. Asking GM to buy back that stock at the current stock price of $27—plus the 8 percent markup that it paid when the government sold its first tranche of GM shares—will raise close to $8 billion. Taxpayers will still have to swallow a loss, but they'll have to do that regardless of when the government sells. The same is likely to apply to other bailed-out entities. The recovery of this money will more than cover what Obama wants to raise through new "revenues."

It is offensive to hold basic government services hostage to tax increases, while at the same time lavishing billions on corporate entities. To be sure, at some point, these services must be cut, since this year's sequester is just a tiny down payment on what's needed to restore America's fiscal health. But it will go down much easier if taxpayers have confidence that corporate fat cats are not living it up on their dime.

Instead of exaggerating the dangers of the sequester, President Obama should be minimizing its pain. A good place to begin would be by chasing down the outstanding bailout dollars.

This column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • fried wylie||

    how about recovering the bailout money before sticking it to taxpayers yet again?

    Why not both?!

  • wareagle||

    you're asking Obama to step outside of his comfort zone. All he knows is campaigning; hence, all you see is him flitting about hither and yon, bleating before the adoring crowds. Asking him to do the job of POTUS is a bridge too far. Have you learned nothing the past four + years?

  • grey||

    Someone should enumerate the job of POTUS to him, it might come as a shock.

  • fried wylie||

    for (LegitimateTask *task in tasks)
    {
    NSLog(@"Task #%d: %@", [task indexOfObject], task);
    }

    return;

  • grey||

    Phony. Obama. Phony. Obama. The words have a certain synchronicity.

    I can't imagine how the federal government will ever choose to cut itself, look at this microscopic cut and the reaction? I flipped past MSNBC and you'd thought we'd cut back to 1901 level.

  • Virginian||

    We haven't cut at all. The government will spend more money this year then it did last year.

    What's stupid is that the GOP doesn't simply propose cutting back to 2006 spending levels. I would hope any attempt to demagogue that as a harsh cut would be laughed at. I don't remember 2006 as a Mad Max style wasteland.

  • grey||

    Good point, I meant something like:

    ...look at the microscopic change to the increase in spending...

    Pervasive political speak is part of the problem, there it is in my own writing.

  • dstarke||

    Right! Stop calling the sequester a cut. Do not feed into this doublespeak.

  • wareagle||

    1) you are presuming the GOP actually wants to cut to '06 levels and no evidene hints at that.
    2) been a lot of dependency-building done since '06. Witness the hysteria over these non-cuts. Dropping to '06 levels would trigger a new level of mania.

  • fried wylie||

    Dropping to '06 levels would trigger a new level of mania.

    Can you imagine how much the gov't would have to spend on healthcare to cure all that resulting mania?

    Increasing spending by cutting spending.

  • Brandon||

    Fauxbama?

  • fried wylie||

    He is, unfortunately, all too real.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Damn you!

  • fried wylie||

    nearly half and hour without refreshing? For shame.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fauxbama.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama has to conduct phony campaigns to counteract the phony campaigns from Republicans.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 3.5.13 @ 10:59AM |#
    "Obama has to conduct phony campaigns to counteract the phony campaigns from Republicans"

    BOOOOOOOOSH!
    Dipshit, don't you ever get tired of repeating the same lies?

  • grey||

    He does, have to?

  • ||

    "I have to beat you; it breaks my heart but I'm doing it for your benefit."

  • Jordan||

    Tu quoque. Fail.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttplug,

    Obama has to conduct phony campaigns to counteract the phony campaigns from Republicans.


    Oh poor, poor president Obama! Destiny rules his life! He's like a cork in the middle of the ocean!

    Fool.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Well, as long as we're all in agreement that Obama is full of shit and this is a purely political issue.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    You've got some O-jizz on your chin, there, Shriek. Might want to wipe that off.

  • Wine Commonsewer (TWC)||

    Awesome

  • iheartliberty||

    I (big heart) this article. Thank you for saying what many of us true capitalists have been crying about since TARP was passed.

  • ygsrf||

    thank you for your New post on that site.which is the best blog for us.we are enjoy it and will show them to everyone.

  • Rhino||

    a president who cuts teachers and unleashes criminals onto the streets instead of recovering bailout money is surely a tyrant. he's doing it to teach the proponents of fiscal responsibility a lesson. "Don't mess with my gravy train or i'll stick you where it hurts."

  • abercrombie brussel||

    Thank you for the information ! abercrombie brussel Very interesting!

  • lucasw908||

    Lauren. although Johnny`s comment is neat... last monday I got a gorgeous Lancia after having made $8137 this-past/month an would you believe $10 thousand this past-month. this is certainly the most financially rewarding I've ever done. I started this seven months/ago and practically straight away made more than $75, per hour. I use this web-site,
    http://qr.net/ka6n

  • juliabraon||

    like Marjorie explained I'm impressed that someone can get paid $6637 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this link

    http://fly38.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement