The Obama administration is not only ignoring a deadline for detailing the impact of its ‘sequester’ defense cuts, POLITICO reports it was in fact the White House who first proposed the ‘sequester’ – a plan they devised because the president didn’t want to deal with another debt limit debate before his re-election campaign.

According to POLITICO, “The book ‘The Price of Politics,’ by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward, makes it clear the idea for the draconian spending cuts” which would jeopardize our national defense “originated in the White House – and not in Congress”:

“According to the book, excerpts of which were obtained by POLITICO ahead of the Sept. 11 release, President Barack Obama’s top deputies believed the prospect of massive defense cuts would compel Republicans to agree to a deficit-cutting grand bargain.

“Then-OMB Director Jack Lew, now the White House chief of staff, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors pitched the idea to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Woodward writes. Under the deal, which Republicans accepted after several rounds of bargaining, the federal debt ceiling was raised — staving off a potential financial crisis. …

“Administration officials ‘had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger,’ Woodward explains. ‘It would require a sequester with half the cuts from defense, and the other half from domestic programs….’”

Obama administration officials have repeatedly said the looming ‘sequester’ defense cuts would “hollow out” our armed forces and devastate our national security.  The House of Representatives passed a bill in May that protects our troops by replacing the ‘sequester’ with common-sense savings and reforms (and actually reduces the deficit another $243 billion beyond the Budget Control Act).

But Senate Democrats still haven’t passed a bill of their own.  And President Obama is out campaigning for a small business tax hike that would destroy more than 700,000 jobs while the White House blows off a deadline for explaining how it would implement or replace the ‘sequester’ it wanted.

“Under the terms of a bill signed last month by President Barack Obama,” writes POLITICO, “the Office of Management and Budget owed a report to Congress on the effects of” sequestration.  The deadline is here and we’ve heard nothing. And “White House officials declined comment on the status of the report.”

The American people deserve an explanation: why would the Obama administration propose a ‘sequester,’ and then refuse to detail the impact of the devastating defense cuts they wanted?