Proof Obama has been counting on Sequestration
Obama is getting the best of both worlds. He wanted sequestration to happen and he knew it might be bad. If it was bad then he needed to blame it on the Republicans. According to Rush he tipped his hand in his interview with the Des Moines Register. Here is the excerpt that Rush referred to along with a link to the entire transcript so any lurking libs can't honestly say that Obama's words were taken out of context.
Transcript is here
Q: Great. Mr. President, we know that John Boehner and the House Republicans have not been easy to work with, and certainly youíve had some obstacles in the Senate, even though itís been controlled by the Democrats. At the time, whenever -- we talked a lot about, in 2008, hope and change. Iím curious about what you see your role is in terms of changing the tone and the perception that Washington is broken. But particularly, sir, if you were granted a second term, how do you implode this partisan gridlock that has gripped Washington and Congress and basically our entire political structure right now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Rick, let me answer you short term and long term. In the short term, the good news is that thereís going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?
So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but weíre going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business.
It will probably be messy. It wonít be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially Iíve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.
And we can easily meet -- ďeasilyĒ is the wrong word -- we can credibly meet the target that the Bowles-Simpson Commission established of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and even more in the out-years, and we can stabilize our deficit-to-GDP ratio in a way that is really going to be a good foundation for long-term growth. Now, once we get that done, that takes a huge piece of business off the table.