As the threat of the Washington D.C. sequestration budget cuts loom, Obama and Democrats are haplessly trying to assign blame, while some conservatives have claimed that the effects of the sequester have been overblown and that it will not be as bad as the President claims. All of this misses the point, however, because as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress on February 27, allowing these automatic cuts to go into effect will hurt efforts to reduce deficits in the short term.
There may be a small fraction of conservative voters out there who are just so unhappy about the size of the government that they are just happy that there will be any cut to any part of the federal government, but that is not how most Americans feel. Not only will cutting money from discretionary domestic spending and military spending depress economic activity, thus making any deficit reduction more difficult, but the real fuel behind future deficits and debt, health care, is largely untouched.
When politicians in both parties whip up the specter of massive debts being passed on to future generations, but then just push plans for cutting discretionary spending, or military spending it is because they want the reputation of a deficit hawk without having to make the tough calls an actual deficit hawk might have to make. Although there may be some things worth cutting in both the aforementioned areas, it is no secret that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the real long term concerns when it comes to deficits and debt. Cutting education, transportation, and research and development to avoid making tough decisions on entitlement programs is not only a massive selling-out of the future, but it is also fiscally and politically dishonest. If either party were serious about more than the illusion of being tough on the deficit, the current argument would be about why the spending cuts in the sequester come from the wrong areas of the budget, instead of whose idea they were.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 11
This is what irks me about the whole debate. The short term damage is always front and center while the long term disaster is brushed away as unimportant.
The current rate of spending is unsustainable, the current rate of increasing spending is unsustainable, the current tactic of buying votes with OPM is unsustainable.
These are the long term disasters that are going to cause real belt tightening and the powers that be that could modify the outcome are so focused on the short term of next months unemployment rate or next years election that they are willing to let the disaster unfold without change.
Here in Virginia, it is becoming apparent that lots of civilian employees of military bases are going to lose their jobs if the sequester continues through March. Yeah, I understand that the USA federal budget needs to be revised- but chopping all the civilian employees away from the defense department is not going to work long term, some of them are going to be needed back. Wouldn't it make more sense to identify some 50 billion dollar proposed weapon systems and put the Kybosh on them? Yes that would make more sense. But since Republicans are not on speaking terms with the President, we cannot do this the sensible way.
if this was such a horrible proposal, why would Obama propose it, sign it into law and worse, threaten to veto any GOP efforts to make it more targeted? Republicans "offered several rounds of offsetting cuts, all of which have been dismissed by Democrats."
Obama said,
"My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one."
Why did Obama and Jack Lew lie and say the sequester proposal originated in Congress?
Why would the president and his crew use fear-mongering tactics to get Americans on "his side". The administration has a "pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester," doesn't that concern you?
Jeez, Obama actually said that the sequester could force prosecutors to 'let criminals go'. Irresponsible fear tactics.
The sequester replacement bill, by the way, the one proposed by Senate Democrats, and endorsed by the White House, "would add $7.2 billion to the federal deficit over ten years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)."
“CBO estimates that S. 388 would increase direct spending by $62.4 billion and revenues by $55.1 billion over the 2013–2023 period. Thus, the cumulative deficit would increase by $7.2 billion from those changes,” CBO wrote in a report.
Yeah, I understand that the USA federal budget needs to be revised- but chopping all the civilian employees away from the defense department is not going to work long term, some of them are going to be needed back.
They do not have to do that. Paul D. Shinkman from U.S. News and World Report notes that the military would need to find $46 billion by the end of the year in savings (that amount is inflated, but whatever) "Billions of Defense dollars are being spent on programs and missions with little or nothing to do with national security, many of which are already being performed by other government agencies or are completely unnecessary." There are currently over 1500 jobs in the DOD website - many are low-level, high paying jobs like drivers, telephone answerers, etc.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, aptly titled, "President Armageddon," the author notes that President Obama "just whacked the economy with a roughly $160 billion tax increase in 2013 that he says will do no harm, but he wants us to believe that $85 billion in spending cuts will trigger a recession."
Oh, how they must hate it when you ask that question!!!
Sad, really.
I am happy if you boycott my posts, and I am happy if you don't, Chris. I am willing to have a civil and fair debate with you, since you have made it clear that you disagree with me on a number of issues. Do you only like to speak to the choir?
What I do find to be a bit odd is that by "boycott," you do not mean "ignore".
In fact, you have written several posts exclusively for the purpose of bashing me. You mention me on random posts, like this one, but refuse to have an honest discussion with me.
Is that fair? No. Is it allowed? Not sure, but I am not pursuing it, I don't care enough. Again, if you ever decide to rethink your boycott, I would be happy to share perspectives.
That there have in actuality been NO cuts, merely cutting the INCREASE of expenditure, seems to bother no one. Meanwhile back in the snake pits the liberal think tanks churn water to froth devising the non existent horrors of negative impact except for the heart wrenching sob, sob, "we gotta' close the WH tours, our children will be emotionally devastated!" Well that lil trauma lasted about 3 days, meanwhile back in the spring break vacation control center ...
Oh yea, forgot, there's gonna be a devastating cutback in ATCs at ... wait for it ... O'Hare Field, CHICAGO! Give me a break. Do really think the FAA is going to stand for that, putting thousands of air travelers at risk?
Of course we can cut back on our Mexican border enforcement ... after all that's not exactly critical ... it fits the immigration agenda, the more the merrier.
Until someone in Congress breaks out the chain saws, with chains, this is and will continue to be nothing but WH warming.