The Teri OBrien Show

Obama's Sequester Con Blows Up in His Face

Teri OBrien

Teri OBrien

Call in to speak with the host

(347) 838-8799

“Dumb, inexcusable and unnecessary.” That’s what Barack Obama called the unthinkable, the thing that he declared last fall would never happen, the so-called, “sequester,” mandatory reductions in the rate of growth for various federal agencies. Dumb, inexcusable, unnecessary, and also his idea, as it is now universally acknowledged. Here’s the reality: The One rolled the dice and he lost. He bet that the Republicans would be unwilling to allow the Defense Department  to see its budget reduced, and he was wrong. Now, he is engaging in a cringe-inducing, passive-aggressive game, one in which he says "If you don't do what I want, and send more money to Washington for me to throw down various ratholes, I'm going to inflict as much pain as possible on the American people." Doesn’t he realize that the Lame Stream Media may be turning on him? This whole thing is starting to look like that Florida sinkhole, with Obama in the role of the guy who was swallowed.
    Our guest, Peter Wallison, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies at AEI, general counsel of the US Treasury Department and White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan, will join us to discuss actual cause of the financial crisis of 2008. That’s the subject of his new book, Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative About the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act. Surprise--the government, not the private sector, bears most of the responsibility, and “community organizers” like Obama were instrumental in causing the mess in the first place. Whether it’s the sequester or the housing bubble, perhaps we should adopt the same policy that I advocated back in the day when O.J. Simpson was looking for “the real killer.” We should send the Celebutard-in-Chief a mirror.
    Justice Scalia has the Left even more unhinged than usual.
Tags:
housing bubble
Barack Hussein Obama
sequester
Bob Woodward
Justice Antonin Scalia
h:22173
s:4350647
archived

Comments

 comments