Who’s Too Incompetent to Handle a 2% Budget Cut?

This guy:

obama_thisguy

Or at least that’s what he’s been going around telling everyone. To listen to Obama’s histrionic demagoguery of sequestration, one would get the impression that the world is going to end if the cuts go into effect: criminals will be out roaming the streets, children will lose their day care, national parks will be closed, cats and dogs will be living together. You get the idea.

In my morning reading, I discovered that this has not gone unnoticed by others: Jim Geraghty and Karl Rove both wrote articles noting Obama’s overreaction. As Geraghty observes:

I’m not exaggerating on Obama’s doomsday talk:

President Obama on Tuesday painted a dire picture of federal government operations across the United States should automatic budget cuts hit on March 1: F.B.I. agents furloughed, criminals released, flights delayed, teachers and police officers laid off and parents frantic to find a place for children locked out of day care centers.

“Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go,” Mr. Obama said, flanked by law enforcement officers at the White House. “Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.”

Rove notices the same thing, echoing my sentiments in a recent post:

Above all, the GOP must also keep setting the record straight for the public. It was Mr. Obama, not the Republicans, who came up with the sequester in the summer of 2011. In November of that year the White House said that the president “will not accept any measure that attempts to turn off part of the sequester.” Now Mr. Obama describes his own sequester cuts as “sudden, harsh, arbitrary” and “brutal.”

On Tuesday he paraded first responders onto a stage to demand that Republicans “protect . . . education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them” by passing his “balanced approach to deficit reduction that would prevent these harmful cuts.”

Of course, this is standard operating procedure for Obama, basically using Alinsky tactics to blame the GOP for something the he himself requested and signed into law. Geraghty calls this the “Washington Monument Strategy”:

Named after a tactic used by the National Park Service to threaten closure of the popular Washington Monument when lawmakers proposed serious cuts in spending on parks.

Roll Call calls it “an old legislative ploy where an agency threatens to close popular services first.”

The strategy is used at all levels of government in an attempt to get the public to rally around government services they take pride in or find useful. Closing libraries on certain days of the week or reducing days of trash pick up appears to have the same effect.

That may be, but it is also part of the Alinsky playbook, specifically Rule 9 from “Rules For Radicals.” I for one am sick to death of these annoying tactics being used against conservatives. While political junkies can recognize them for what they are and even use them as a sort of punchline, they seem to work well when targeting low-information voters (Obama’s core constituency). Therefore, I say it’s high time to throw Alinsky back in the face of the Alinsky-ite. Allahpundit noticed Ted Cruz using these tactics in responding to criticism of Marco Rubio (and by extension, Cruz himself). So I say we turn up the heat on Obama using his own tactics: every talking head on a news program and everyone at the grassroots level too, let’s turn to Alinsky’s Rule 5:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

If Obama wants to put fear in the average citizen about devastating these cuts will be, we all just repeat the same mantra: what kind of an incompetant failure would let all of these bad things happen with just a 2% cut in spending? That’s $2 for every $100 spent. In terms of a family budget of say $20,000, would anyone reading this have to start walking to work, go without meals, give up cable and the internet, end their mobile phone service, etc. with $400 less to spend each year (that’s $33 a month)? Of course not, or they’d be the worst money manager in the history of mankind. So if Obama can’t make the government work on 2% less, let’s make sure everyone we know is aware of how much of a ridiculous, incompetent, bumbling, and clueless failure (SCoaMF) Obama must be.

GOP, are you listening?

Advertisements

One thought on “Who’s Too Incompetent to Handle a 2% Budget Cut?

  1. Pingback: Overboard Obamaquester Obfuscations | Animus Turbare

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s