|Tamerlane the Conqueror|
After sequestration cut backs started to bite at the FAA, and flights started to get delayed at airports around the country, the Administration acceded to the Congress to sign a bill that allows the administration to shift funds within the FAA to permit the cuts fall more heavily on things other than the air traffic controllers.
Forced government-wide spending cuts reduced staffing of air traffic controllers and slowed the aviation system this week, resulting in flight delays for travelers. But congressional intervention permitting new budget flexibility that allows them to return to work has, for the moment, reignited fierce political debate over spending and taxes.Democrats whined that this was undercutting the design of the sequester (the Reign of Pain), that the Obama administration had specifically designed to be so painful that congressional Republicans would accept tax increases. Take it away Ezra (journolist)
The Democrats have lost on sequestration
That’s the simple reality of Friday’s vote to ease the pain for the Federal Aviation Administration. By assenting to it, Democrats have agreed to sequestration for the foreseeable future.Actually, events on the ground have been proving it ever since the sequestrations started. While some actual cuts in programs have started to bite, some, the sequestration took effect so slowly, relative to the
Recall the Democrats’ original theory of the case: Sequestration was supposed to be so threatening that Republicans would agree to a budget deal that included tax increases rather than permit it to happen. That theory was wrong. The follow-up theory was that the actual pain caused by sequestration would be so great that it would, in a matter of months, push the two sides to agree to a deal. Democrats just proved that theory wrong, too.
Jennifer Rubin also at the Washington Post: Obama’s FAA collapse
The latest FAA gambit was a somewhat desperate effort to revive the issue. Once again the president, seemingly with no back up plan, had no choice but to give up when the public became outraged and it was obvious that Democrats were trying to wield their inconvenience as a club against Republicans. Really, did the president expect any different result than occurred when he was threatening to lay off first responders?I love the smell of desperation in the morning.
The president has been deeply unserious of late — about our debt, about the Syrian chemical use (not such a “red line” after all), about the identity of our enemy (jihadists) and about the depth of our economic woes. He would rather pursue a largely frivolous anti-gun bill or demagogue about the FAA. For the sake of the country, he needs to raise his game and start facing up to our real challenges.