My Take on the Sequester Issue

Blog Post
I realize that there is a lot of talk about a three percent across the board spending trigger, and I do understand that the Obama Administration wants to use that trigger that the president instituted to cut vital services in order to make the point that they want to spend more money.
But let’s look at the pie chart.
We have been having a number of manufactured crisis points since the last national election. None of them are necessary, but all of them are played out for the sake of drama and political gamesmanship. The Commander-in-Chief pulled the bulk of the Atlantic Fleet into port and the military is being chopped in the areas of training and readiness as an example to America of how bad the GOP is.
Over the past six years, the federal government has grown by 40%. Now comes the 3% sequester and the sky is falling. Really? Space on the internet may be essentially unlimited, but much of the sequester discussion is a waste of the space it occupies.
President Obama wants higher taxes to fuel his spending habit. I am not necessarily opposed to higher taxes but it makes no sense to institute that sort of pain without severe spending reductions – well over the 3% figure.
Some will find this revelation shocking. Where’s Bob Woodward for a comment?

7 thoughts on “My Take on the Sequester Issue

  1. The budget process was done in a mean way. Bob Woodward explained it on Hannity. Both sides got together and asked "hey, which programs mean the most to you? Those are the ones we will brutally cut." So the most emotionally painful and downright dangerous cuts to things like national defense (which conservatives care about, and cuts to entitlement programs which the progs care very much about are highlighted for extra attention by the ax-man.

    This set up was wrong-headed. Maybe the entire budget should have been put back to the level of some prior year. Would have led to a lot more savings and would have had a doable impact on programs.

    But like you said, this is not about saving, cutting or anything other than creating a Sword of Damocles for America.

  2. There is a LOT of money that could be saved – BUT – that would mean thinner pockets for politicians.

  3. There is also the money that needs to be dished out to the "inner cities". Without that, the Democrats wouldn't last long.

  4. There's a couple of glaring things that are making me nuts about this whole deal…

    #1. Speaches from Obama where he talks about teachers loosing their jobs, police/firemen being laid off, etc. I want to scream at the TV "Why the HELL is the Federal Government paying for teachers, policemen, and fireman in towns across America????"

    #2. Whining Liberal Politicians droning on and on about the cuts being "painful". Yeah. It's a cut. The whole idea of an actual cut is that you were spending money on something… and now you're not. That's probably going to "hurt" someone. Tough. Walk it off.

    If you cut something and there isn't someone somewhere pissed off afterward – you've not actually cut anything. Comes with the territory.

    #3. If I could, I'd roll another 3% across the board just like this one before every sitting down at the table again with Democrats to discuss more targeted cuts in the future – and there would be several rounds of those targeted cuts before we would ever revisit the tax increase option – if ever.

  5. The dems are dancing in the streets, because they've started gutting the military… and agree 100% with you…

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top