Why aren’t these impeachable offenses?
Aside from the fact that the Republicans are terrified of what would be said of them were they to go after an “historic” President (pro tip: bring articles of impeachment only against his white half!), and aside from the fact that Senate Democrats are lockstep with the President in favor of his violations — or at the very least, find it in their best interests to lend him cover.
By now you’ve all heard of the release of illegal immigrants as part of the phony notion that the US government has no room for spending cuts, lest potentially violent offenders need be released back into the population. This is a dereliction of federal law enforcement duty — though I’m sure John Roberts would remind us that the President doesn’t have to do his job, and no one else can step in and do it for him, it being his duty and his alone.
And of course you’ve all heard how Obama’s own sequester plan, which he is now against, railing tirelessly at those who had the temerity to agree to it, will lead to terror in the skies, with the furloughing of air traffic controllers, TSA agents, etc. (even as the government continues to hire federal workers in other departments, and of course with cuts to the compensation of any non-furloughed federal employees off the table), not to mention a rash of homelessness, starving children, anarchy from the suspension of law enforcement, et al — even though the modest “cut” is about a third of what the government itself notes it loses in waste, fraud, and abuse each year, and about an eighth of what is expended in redundant programs and departments, again according to the government’s own accounting.
But today the demagoguery has reached new heights — and this particular gambit to pressure likely surrender targets like John McCain into caving is, I must say, stunning in its brazenness, and unprecedented in its potential for danger to US interests.
From US News, “Navy to pull aircraft carrier from Persian Gulf over budget worries”:
Budget constraints are prompting the U.S. Navy to cut back the number of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region from two to one, the latest example of how contentious fiscal battles in Washington are impacting the U.S. military.
According to Defense Department officials, the USS Harry S. Truman, which was set to leave for the Persian Gulf region on Friday, will now remain stateside, based in Norfolk, Virginia.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the change to the department’s “two-carrier policy” in the Persian Gulf region early Wednesday.
The U.S. has steadily kept two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf for much of the last two years. In 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a directive to keep two in the area given the volatility of the region.
The cutback is largely a result of automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration, passed by Congress during the summer of 2011. Congress has failed to pass a budget for the fiscal year, and has instead opted on passing legislation that will keep spending at the same level as last year. But that means the Pentagon has been operating with less money and is unsure of what the future holds for its bottom line.
Under sequestration, the Navy would lose $4 billion over the next six months, the last half of fiscal year 2013. The Navy was already $4.6 billion in the hole for this year because the continuing resolution for 2013 was budgeted at 2012 rates.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells NBC’s Chuck Todd if a sequester is allowed to happen it will “badly damage” the readiness of the U.S. military.
This is, of course, horseshit — Obama will gut the military with or without sequestration — but it shows once again just how progressives are willing to try to harm US interests, and US citizens, in order to blackmail taxpayers into surrendering more and more money to the government.
Obama could move to curtail waste, fraud, and abuse; he could move to strike redundant programs. But the truth is, he doesn’t care about cutting spending, and in fact is demanding even more revenue in the form of new tax increases. He is stressing the system to bring about its collapse — and the sequestration, while hardly anything more than a pitiful stop gap — delays those plans.
We now know that Obama believed that when the time came he’d be able to demagogue the sequestration until the GOP folded. And they still may. So the deal itself was predicated on the President’s belief that he was dealing with a weak GOP, and that the press would provide cover for his reversal, pinning blame on Republicans for “draconian cuts” that are not and never were.
That the GOP has not yet folded is causing our Narcissist-in-Chief to step up the blackmail and the tantrums both. This latest move, which weakens our own security and holds our safety hostage to Obama’s demands of more tithing, is deplorable, and should be grounds to bring some sort of charges against the administration.
Because though Obama has certain discretion about where and what to cut, he doesn’t have the discretion to jeopardize national security in order to force our hands on consistent revenue increases.
Or at least, he shouldn’t. Though perhaps John Roberts can fix that for him.