Thursday, February 28, 2013
A very small cut in federal spending, as this sequestration amount is, would go unnoticed if spread evenly across government departmental budgets.
The president, who approved this sequestration when proposed, for political purposes has chosen to apply that cut in spending in such a way as to make it visibly hurt.
This sequestration debate would go away fast if the U.S. Senate would pass a rational budget. We have not had a spending budget passed in the Senate since Barack Obama was elected president. Therefore, federal spending has no restraining limit.
To control federal spending, the Democratic-dominated Senate needs to pass a rational budget that can then be negotiated with the House of Representatives.
Obama has only himself to blame
The Feb. 21 editorial cartoon depicting President Obama as helplessly removed from the sequestration process is ludicrous and misleading. It follows the Democratic template that blames others.
In fact, Obama selected sequestration as the solution if the “gangs of six” could not reach deficit agreements. He was not alarmed about the massive military cuts involved. Often asked about its consequences, he replied, “It’s not going to happen.”
But it’s about to happen.
And now he spreads gloom and doom, not so much about the military, but about the possible job loss of government workers at federal and state levels.
Face it, we have a spending problem. But this administration neither accepts responsibility nor cares a whit about it. It needs to negotiate in good faith with the House, rather than intimidate, threaten and scare people about sequestration.
Sequestration can be avoided by this administration by simply accepting some Bowles-Simpson spending recommendations, as Republicans have already on revenue.
Otherwise, leave things alone, and live with the consequences.
PHILLIP W. UNGER