Email from Administration tells agency to make sequester cuts as ‘painful as promised’ 

Obama Official Portrait Smile(Washington, D.C.)  U.S. Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (GA-10) today responded to an article written by the Washington Times after e-mail evidence was discovered that suggests the Obama Administration wants to force painful cuts following the enactment of sequestration.  The article highlights a directive from the Administration that encourages a federal employee running a branch of the Department of Agriculture to make sequester cuts as daunting as the President has led the public to believe they would be. 

Broun said, “President Obama should have to personally apologize to every soldier, every teacher, every firefighter, and every single other American he lied to and used as a pawn in his sequester game.  The Washington Times uncovered hard evidence today that the Administration has flat out been using scare tactics to trick the American people into thinking the sequester needs to be administered in the most detrimental way possible.  As shown in this article, many agencies would be able to achieve savings through modest and reasonable spending cuts.  Unfortunately, it seems that responsible cuts don’t fit with the Administration’s message of ‘big spending, or else.’ 

“Republicans didn’t cave into President Obama’s demand for higher taxes, the sequester went into place, and the world didn’t come to an end – so now the President is trying to cover his tracks because he knows he cried wolf.  What he’s doing is shameful, and I hope the American people hold him accountable.”

A critical excerpt from the article reads:

In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked “if there was any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.

He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “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.”