For a guy who regularly accuses Republicans in Congress of manufacturing crises, President Obama sure doesn't mind manufacturing one of his own when someone starts pulling in the reins on his favorite activities - like spending taxpayer money. So it's with no apparent hint of irony that Obama is threatening to veto the annual defense-authorization bill unless Congress a) lifts restrictions on non-defense spending; and b) lets him transfer the remaining terrorists being held at Guantanamo elsewhere, possibly to the U.S. homeland.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid will back Mr. Obama in this disruptive maneuver. “My Democrats, our Democrats, have stated without any question, if it comes time that we sustain a presidential veto,” Mr. Reid said.
In his news conference, Mr. Obama attacked Congress for the spending caps included in the 2011 budget sequestration that have strictly limited federal outlays. “Both parties,” he lamented, “put in place harmful automatic cuts that make no distinction between spending we don’t need and spending we do.”
But Mr. Obama’s White House advisers were the authors of these spending caps, which he now excoriates as “mindless.” The president maintained Friday that the caps “have been keeping our economy from growing faster,” as if Washington can spend its way to prosperity.
The president also argued that spending ought to go up, because the country’s annual deficit has gone down. “Since I took office, we’ve cut our deficits by two-thirds,” he said. Yet the spending caps he’d like to get rid of are responsible for much of that progress, and the deficit remains unacceptably large—$426 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
Honestly, I have no problem with Obama's tactic as far as it goes. He's the president and if he doesn't like the defense authorization bill, it's his right to veto it. If he wants to use it as leverage to try to get something else he wants, he has the right to do that too. I disagree with the substance of Obama's position for all kinds of reasons. The deficit coming down is certainly not a reason to spend more money. It's a reason to maintain fiscal restraint. And closing Gitmo is and has always been a terrible idea. His substance is horrendous. But his tactic is really not objectionable.
The problem here is with the narrative that you know emerges from stories like this. When Republicans refuse to give Obama something he wants, they're manufacutring a crisis and trying to shut down the government. When Obama is the one being stubborn and refusing to approve a spending bill, all eyes then turn to Republicans to see what they will do. And if they hold firm, then Republicans are shutting down the government.
What should happen is that when the two sides disagree, the two sides negotiate a deal. But that doesn't happen because Obama knows he can refuse to negotiate and run to the media, who will carry his water for him no matter who actually initiated the confrontation. Maybe Obama figures the timing is perfect to start a fight because John Boehner's impending departure has the House leadership in transition and in a bit of disarray. But regardless of that, what needs to happen is for congressional Republicans to engage Obama on this issue and refute his argument that we need to spend more and shut down Gitmo. Neither of these should be a hard argument to win if they're not afraid of the media accusing them of "provoking a shutdown."
But alas, they are usually afraid . . . Boehner especially, which is really the core of why he lost his members' confidence as Speaker and is in the process of being replaced.
