cutting

Years ago I read a book written by bestselling author, William J. Bennett, entitled The Death of Outrage.  While Bennett spoke of the relevance of then Pres. Clinton’s sexual misconduct and how that potentially affected his governance, the focus of the book is the lack of indignation surrounding unscrupulous activity.  Too often, as a people, we selectively (and sometimes conveniently) turn the other way.

 

For example, many who are quick to criticize Pres. Obama for any potential inaccuracy, gave Pres. Bush 43 a seemingly free pass when no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq.  Similarly, many who were quick to criticize Bush 43 for his stated inaccuracies, now give Obama complete freedom to “evolve” on multiple issues.  Friends, our “yes” must mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no.”  We would be wise to be consistent.  Hence, where is the outrage?

 

Yesterday I came across an eye-opening report from The Washington Times…

 

The Times was investigating the actual impact from last week’s sequestration enactment, especially since some pundits and politicians predicted significant doom and gloom even though the “cuts” are only decreases to planned increased spending; they are not actual cuts.  At question has been whether or not any involved are now attempting to score political points as opposed to leading wisely and doing what’s best for our country.  In other words, there is some question as to whether or not specific cuts will be made that are wisest — OR (and this is a big “OR”) — will the cuts be made in areas where we feel it most, where it hurts, thus prompting us to be outraged that the sequestration ever occurred.

 

Ah, but such is not where the death of outrage is in question.  What I question is the rest of the report, and where is our collective outrage — and the media’s outrage — about the following?  I quote The Washington Times:

 

The White House announced Tuesday that it is canceling tours of the president’s home for the foreseeable future as the sequester spending cuts begin to bite and the administration makes good on its warnings of painful decisions.

 

Announcement of the decision — made in an email from the White House Visitors Office — came hours after The Washington Times reported on another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they would be.

 

In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.

 

“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.

 

In other words, when a federal worker asked how to apply the cuts, instead of being directed to be prudent or efficient or consider what might do the least harm — instead of being encouraged to act wisely — the worker was told not to contradict anything that had been publicly stated.  There is no way that such is a wise nor effective means of running the federal government.

 

Hence, the Intramuralist asks:  where is the outrage?

 

Respectfully,

AR