Much ado about sequestration

That the “sequester” (at least domestically) is nothing to be scared of is terrifying to liberals — therefore, even though the domestic cuts don’t really amount to much, the Democrats will try mightily to make them count in order to show how much we need government.       THE RIGHT WORD

Writing this, on the morning following the deadline for the dreaded Sequestration cuts to commence, I note happily that civilization is not crumbling around me like a B-grade movie. In the heady exhilaration of that realization, I make a bold prediction: By the time this column goes to print, no explicit signs of a sequestration-generated Armageddon will have yet materialized. Though it probably won’t be for lack of trying on the part of the Democratic Administration.

You know how certain phrases so aptly describe a particular entity that they become intrinsically associated with it? For example, Henry Kissinger’s famous quote “even paranoids have enemies” was so thoroughly descriptive of the Soviets at the height of the Cold War that some suggested they ought to print it on their money (which would have at least attached some value to the Ruble.) It is much the same with Rahm Emmanuel’s now-ubiquitous comment of “never let a serious crisis go to waste”; I sometimes wonder why the Democratic Party does not just use that as a sub-title to their policy platform.

The corollary would be “and if a crisis does not cooperate and present itself, invent one”; bringing us back to the sequestration.

For the newborn, and those just returned from exile, Sequestration – besides being a grammatical crime (the word actually means confiscation or seizure, and in the case of government finance, that boat has long since sailed by the time spending decisions are made) – is reference to the automatic spending cuts, evenly split between defense and non-entitlement domestic budgets, that were scheduled to come into effect at midnight on March 1st 2013, in the absence of Congressional action to forestall them. The idea was that the defense cuts would be so unpalatable to Republicans, and the domestic cuts so far beyond the realm of contemplation for Democrats, that both sides would happily trade in their own offspring to reach a deal.

Well, that didn’t happen. Worse, from the left’s point of view, many Republicans looked at the planned “sequester” (gawd, I hate that word being nso badly misused) and came away saying “Meh. It’s as close as we’re going to get to reducing spending under this Administration, and the Defense Department can handle a trim.” Oops.

So now the liberals have a major problem. If society does not come to a screeching halt, and the nation does not descend into Mad Max-style anarchy as a result of the cuts, it will be much harder to make the case as to why we need so much government. So the answer is simple – weaponize the cuts!

Actually, it’s a long-established liberal tactic – if forced with cutting government funding (say due to being denied a tax hike by the voters), make the cuts as painful as possible and torture the rubes into accepting higher taxes.

In a similar vein, the Obama Administration will attempt to use the sequestration to try and make a political point. Rather than look for waste, redundancies, or inefficiencies, they will make the cuts as ostentatiously painful as possible.

Granted, the cuts really don’t amount to much – a mere one-half of one percent of the GDP, or 2 percent of federal spending. Nevertheless, the Democrats will try to make it count, by, say, keeping aircraft carriers in dock, releasing detained illegal aliens, grounding airplanes due to inadequate air traffic control, reducing childhood vaccinations, or cutting back on meat inspections (the last two areas which I am sure the states could handle adequately on their own, if allowed to keep some of their money back from Washington to do so, but that is an argument for another time.)

It’s the equivalent of an American family faced with a 2% reduction in a planned household raise compensating by foregoing payment on the electricity bill, rather than giving up their online fortune teller service, or monthly delivery of Snuggies and PedEggs.

That the Sequester is really nothing to be scared of is terrifying to liberals. It really ought to be an opportunity to begin the long-delayed process of identifying and prioritizing the functions that truly are the proper purview of the federal government – instead some will try to use it as an opportunity to prove that we are helpless without our federal nurse maidens.

However, there may be some utility to be salvaged in the exercise yet – if we wish to identify the areas of government excess that deserve  contraction, looking at what Obama chooses not  to cut might be a good place to start.

 

Print Friendly

2 comments to Much ado about sequestration

  • sedonaman

    If the so-called “cuts” are only 2 percent of federal spending, we can start with earmarks, which are 1% thereof. Right there is half of the spending we are arguing about. And while the arguing is going on, we might ask ourselves if we really need that highway to nowhere but Billy Bob’s car dealership, who just happens to be Senator Foghorn’s brother-n-law. This is where identifying and prioritizing should come in, but it never does because who is to say what is more or less important, Senator Foghorn’s highway or Senator Dummkopf’s federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot fetish in Fruitland, Florida. This would be a herculean task since there are so many programs, not all of them earmarks. This process would also require a certain amount of competence on the part of lawmakers, something sorely lacking because the qualifications on the part of candidates these days amount to nothing more than having been graced with a silver tongue and achieved a level of name recognition.

  • sedonaman

    Why don’t the Republicans call the president on his claims? Whenever he says the children won’t get their immunizations, for example, a Republican leader should respond by saying, “Let me get this straight Mr. President. You are saying that you won’t give the children their shots, but Sen. Foghorn will get his federally funded highway to nowhere? Is that your priority, huh, Mr. President?

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply








Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



IC Contributors