With sequestration looming, this piece from the Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward is a must-read.
The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, … when President Obama blamed Congress. ‘The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,’ Obama said. ‘It is something that Congress has proposed.’ The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later. ‘There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,’ Lew said while campaigning in Florida. … The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book ‘The Price of Politics’ shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors – probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid … They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved. Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. … A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was – because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.
At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew’s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew: … ‘Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?’ ‘It’s a little more complicated than that,’ Lew responded, ‘and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.’ ‘Did you make the suggestion?’ Burr asked. ‘Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.’ In other words, yes. …
“On Tuesday, … Jay Carney … accepted sequester paternity. ‘The sequester was something that was discussed … and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.’ [M]onths of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. … [T]he final deal reached between Vice President Biden and … Mitch McConnell … in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012 … So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made. http://wapo.st/13xAMrF