Our Views: The bad idea of the month

Few places are more hospitable to bad ideas than Washington, D.C., and in the looming budget cuts called the “sequester,” a bad idea has come into its own.

Unless the GOP-controlled House makes a deal with President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate, the U.S. government will have some of its spending cut.

Let us for a moment savor the difficulty of the above paragraph ever actually happening. The GOP has its single chamber in its control after the carnage of the 2012 election, and is asserting its veto over national policy, even with a re-elected president. It’s a recipe for more deadlock, instead of compromise.

And that’s the conditions for the dreaded sequester: About $85 billion in automatic budget cuts.

The cuts were adopted after the GOP fiasco of 2011, its battle with Obama over raising the government debt ceiling. The idea is that the sequester cuts are so bad, military and domestic, neither side would allow them to come to pass.

Here we are, as the sequester is set to begin on Friday.

The domestic agencies are dramatizing the cuts, talking about closing national parks and taking other highly visible steps to embarrass the GOP budget-cutters. The budget-cutters, for their part, are oblivious to what they will admit privately, that across-the-board budget cuts aren’t good business; the good is cut with the bad without any sense of priorities.

Nor is there an appreciation of the potential impact of the sequester on the general economy: We’re talking about taking a lot of money out of circulation just when more economic activity is needed.

Is the sequester the end of the world? Agencies can adjust, despite the doom-mongering we are hearing, but at some point, those cuts will really hurt.

And in the long term, the U.S. government has to operate with less money, although the most money is in entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those are the drivers of the deficit, and are exempt from the sequester.

Every dog has its day. The same with the bad idea of the sequester.

Comments

1) Comment by nimby? - 28/02/2013

just my opinion. the government , like every other employer , carries its share of dead weight . perhaps shedding some excess poundage could make it more efficient , just my opinion .

2) Comment by billynurse - 28/02/2013

@Diogenes : Can you say ludicrous hyperbole ?... If not , can you say ***** ?

3) Comment by foldgers - 28/02/2013

Thank you Bayouboy!! Not to mention the multimillion dollar golf trip Obama recently made, the Pentagon using private jets for travel at about $15k a trip, the billions being sent to Egypt to help a man who doesn't even like our allies... there are many places to cut. Why cut programs here? Cut them abroad!

4) Comment by ABayouBoy - 28/02/2013

Oh yes, we at home cannot even balance the budget. But our glorious Congress can find billions in aid for Syria?

5) Comment by ABayouBoy - 28/02/2013

Whoever said that this is a free country? We the Sheeple. I feel like I'm being led around by the nose. Why can't Congress understand that they can't keep postponing the inevitable - cuts must be made now in defense spending and welfare. To delay is only going to make them more painful in the future. Also, like the postal service, Washington must downsize. It is too bloated and the bureaucracy is causing our nations economy to stagger under its weight. But, to expect Congress to downsize and become fiscally responsible is like dreaming in fantasy land.

6) Comment by InPVille - 28/02/2013

@Diogenes:From page 5A of today's Morning Advocate: "The sequester came about in 2011 as a compromise that eventually came from the White House as a result of House Republicans . . ." The key phrase is "came from the White House". -[**]- Keynesian economists were singing the sky is falling song at the end of WWII which resulted in a huge decrease in Federal spending. The exact opposite happened. Government can only put the money into the economy which it either takes from somewhere else in the economy, borrows from someone, or prints. The money it takes from somewhere else in the economy would have done more where it was in all likelihood since government wastes considerable amounts of the monies it receives. The money it borrows must be repaid with interest. Right now rates are low. But as the debt rises, our credit rating will go down and interest rates on the money will increase. Interest rates will go up sooner or later whether or not the nation's credit rating goes down. Money printed to pay debts devalues the currency and makes lenders less willing to make loans, makes them want more interest, and hurts the average American by increasing prices. -[**]- "this is not about total spending, it is about the loss of jobs for around 250,000 federal employees. . ." Let us see 250,000 federal employees divided into $65,000,000,000 comes to $260,000 per federal employee over and above what was spent the previous year since the money we are talking about them not having is in addition to what they had last year. If we have to depend on the federal government for more and more jobs, how are we going to obtain sufficient tax money from via the fewer and fewer other Americans working and paying taxes to support to greater and greater number of government workers. The creation of Washington's imagination you are buying into is a serpent devouring itself much like the character Ungoliant in Tolkien's Silmarillion.

7) Comment by nimby? - 28/02/2013

where"s the budget ? if there is no budget how do we know there is an increase or decrease in spending . fact ; taxes are rising , along with the debt , doesn't make sense , spending more than you take in . ever dealt with a loan shark , China is ours ...

8) Comment by HRoark - 28/02/2013

I like the idea of closing the national parks, they need a vacation from the tourists anyway. Maybe close all the interstates too. Better go do your shopping for the next year. And bring all the troops home immediately, then fire them and arm the citizens' militia. Sequesters sound great!

9) Comment by agagent - 28/02/2013

Historically taxes have been about 18% of GDP. Obama and the Democrats have increased taxes to 19.4% of GDP and spending is now about 24% of GDP. Taxes are too high to be sustained and spending is out of control in relation to GDP.

10) Comment by Whatchange - 28/02/2013

US to send 60m in aid to Syria Rebels; kinda makes this letter and all the hype about the Sequester a mute point doesn't it. Why doesn't it surprise me that The Advocate would print something like this.

11) Comment by Diogenes - 28/02/2013

InPville, why don't you try being honest rather than acting like an ostrich and sticking your head in the sand! The Sequester was designed by both Houses of Congress and approved by the President to be so onerous and so hurtful that everyone would be forced to reach an agreement. Admittedly a stupid idea, but in the context of the time (Where the Republicans were holding the US economy hostage by holding up the debt limit vote) it seemed like a good idea. Who would have thought that the Tea Party Republicans were crazy enough to be so irrational as to purposely send the US economy back into recession. Your argument that total spending will increase is spurious, this is not about total spending, it is about the loss of jobs for around 250,000 federal employees and the estimated loss of an additional 1.7 million jobs in the private sector over the next 9 years, directly linked to the spending cuts outlined in the Sequester. Furthermore the loss of military and government services will certainly cause disruptions and could be disastrous. The only thing about this disaster we will be able to see who is right and (unfortunately) it will be me and those that understand the effect that the Sequester will have over the next 5 or so years.

12) Comment by InPVille - 28/02/2013

@Diogenes: Why don't you try being honest instead of play acting at Chicken Little. The Sequestration cuts, instead of being a decrease in the total amount of federal spending from one year to the next year, are actually cuts in the amount that the federal government had PLANNED TO SPEND in the following year. Even with Sequestration the government will be spending more, just not as much as they had originally planned. As our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, the need for military spending naturally decreases. The amount of military spending decreased after WWI, WWII, The Korean War, and etc. Even with Sequestration military spending 10 years from now will be greater than today. Also we can stop sending monies from the military budget that are being directed to the defense of other countries and let them spend their own money, Europe for example.

13) Comment by postscript56 - 28/02/2013

8point6 - Don't know if you know this or not, but Bush and Ivins were great friends, a fact both acknowledged. agagent - Get your facts straight. Spending has come down. OK your point is it's too high. Fine. But it's not going up and up and up. If the ratio of revenue to spending to GDP was maintained similar to other recent periods all this would go away. The out of whack factor isn't spending. It's revenue. Yes you can cut spending enough to adjust the ratio but as a percent of the GDP revenue is at historic lows. That's the problem.

14) Comment by 8point6 - 27/02/2013

"8point6 please address our Commander in Chief with respect. If not, you should leave this great Country! BTW it's President Obama!" That is, undoubtedly, the funniest reply I have ever received! Not even dmz comes close to that one! Ok. My mistake. It's president hussein. And gw bush was "addressed" with respect from the news media!? Especially, molly ivins, may she rest in peace, when she addressed gw as "shrub" in her articles.

15) Comment by prbeav - 27/02/2013

agagent, I agree. Obama needs to take responsible action to reduce spending.

16) Comment by agagent - 27/02/2013

The sequester is a sign of the failed leadership for both parties. The sequester was a bad idea from the white house, and the Republicans should not have supported it. Giving in just emboldens the aggressor, and Obama and the Democrats keep piling on the spending and the taxes. So far Obama has been like the marauding Nazis, and the Republicans have been like the Western allies. Obama has been taking what he wants, which is more spending and more taxes, while the Republican leadership keeps retreating and saying they will stand and fight the next time.

17) Comment by Diogenes - 27/02/2013

It is apparent that the latest Right Wing talking point is that the Sequester is not a big deal and that the automatic cuts are not really cuts at all (it just looks that way!). Yet there will be no disguising the ultimate results of the Sequester and we will have a real life test of the Republican economic theories, starting on March 1. Immediately the USA will cut $65 Billion, followed by a total of $1.2 Trillion over the following years. Now I know that you right wing guys are crowing that these cuts are not really cuts and that the Sequester will herald in a new dawn in America, in reality (outside of the Right Wing/Fox bubble) millions of Americans will be directly impacted by these misguided spending cuts. Millions of people will experience an immediate reduction in government services. Even worse will the loss of jobs caused by the Sequester. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the Sequester will directly cause the unemployment of 277,000 federal employees and 469,000 jobs with private contractors doing business with the USA. Even worse, around 433,000 jobs will be lost in industries related to the private contractors and around 959,000 jobs will be lost because of the general slowdown/recession. All in all around 2 million Americans will join the ranks of the unemployed because of the Sequester. All of these people will not be fired immediately, but as more and more of the automatic triggers take effect, more and more jobs will be lost. The worst thing about this entire fiasco is that it is all self-inflicted and could have easily been avoided.

18) Comment by agagent - 27/02/2013

It is a bad idea which came from the Obama white house. What follows now is an even worst idea: making the country pay for the sequester. President Obama has the power to release retained illegal aliens, downgrade our military readiness, close ship yards, lay off personnel, etc. just as he is saying will happen. Obama can make it happen: “The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward attacked President Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying the commander-in-chief’s decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier because of budget cuts is “a kind of madness.””--Politico

19) Comment by bourbon-soda - 27/02/2013

It is a characteristic of totalitarians to claim to know "the will of the people."

20) Comment by prbeav - 27/02/2013

I hope most readers will take this post seriously but do understand it is not the everyday opinion.>>>We the People of the United States has a purpose involving governance by the governed. The purpose has seven parts that are stated in the Constitution, which I quote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ">>>>People who are not committed to the seven parts of the purpose are not of We the People. They may be of the people and risk penalty if, due to their opposition to the Constitution, they break the law and their infraction is discovered. They exclude themselves from We the People in their failure to commit to the purpose of We the People.>>>>The seventh part of the purpose is "secure the Blessings of Liberty to . . . our posterity." In their intent to shift federal spending onto our posterity by increasing the deficit, the majority, which the author of the Advocate's opinion joined herein is not of We the People. Obama refers to the majority as "we, the people," (see his inaugural speech), perhaps knowing he cannot by definition say "We the People.">>>>(Please consider whether you are of "we, the people," the majority, or of We the People, those who are committed to the seven goals.)>>>>It appears the Advocate is of "we, the people," because they have no regard for the majority who are spending our posterity into extreme debt.>>>>I encourage all congressmen who will stand up against "we, the people" to protect We the People, whether they be democrat or republican or independent.>>>>I hope the Advocate will reform, assuming my opinion aligns with the objective truth.

21) Comment by DMJ - 27/02/2013

"It’s a recipe for more deadlock, instead of compromise." That's the point. Republicans say government is the problem, right? What....are they going to actually do their jobs and prove themselves wrong? Of course not.

22) Comment by billynurse - 27/02/2013

The Sky is Falling !!! There is going to be an actual slowing-down in this year's increase in spending !...Does anyone think that any increase in revenue from ANOTHER tax hike is going towards reducing the deficit ??....It's going to be....waitforit....Spent ! @Postscript56 , sorry that you have been misled... The Coolest-President-Ever has no intention to cut anything but the defense...Budgeting is a completely foreign concept to our far-left administration.

23) Comment by Melisse3 - 27/02/2013

Was this Opinion piece written by a high school student as a civics project? If so, I give it a "D" (I'm being generous). It fails on many points, but largely for not mentioning that the House has already PASSED 2 BILLS to replace the sequester, but the Senate will not act. How do you negotiate with someone who won't come to the table? Advocate?

24) Comment by prbeav - 27/02/2013

The attitude of the majority, which with this opinion the Advocate joins, is very scary. I control my spending, which is limited by my income. However, there is a portion of my budget over which I have no control: Federal tax payments. I must obey the law. The federal government is out of control and the Advocate supports the failure to control. I oppose the Advocate's opinion: President Obama should have taken action long ago to control spending.

25) Comment by [e-mail] - 27/02/2013

"Our Views" is like a TV realilty show that pretends to show reality but in actual reality is just another inane scripted and terribly acted TV show. It's not a real opinion column; just another media mouthpiece carrying water for whatever position Democrats can dream up.

26) Comment by InPVille - 27/02/2013

Let me repeat! The president says that he is willing to discuss X, Y, and Z. But when AND IF the meetings ever happen, no agreement will be reached at least in part because he keeps moving the "goal line". Then he goes out and says it is all the rascally obstructionist Republican's fault. That is the strategy. Talk the talk. But do nothing. Hit the other guy over the head with a truncheon because nothing gets done. You know very well the members of the Democrat Party in Congress will never agree to cut Social Security or the overall amount of Social Medical spending. They may come up with some kind of accounting gimmick to make it appear they have cut the projected amount of spending increase. But that is all. It will not be an actual cut in the amount of spending over spending from the previous fiscal year. Obama can say he is willing. But he knows it will not get through Congress. So he can talk out of both sides of his mouth.

27) Comment by gjnyc - 27/02/2013

8point6 please address our Commander in Chief with respect. If not, you should leave this great Country! BTW it's President Obama!

28) Comment by postscript56 - 27/02/2013

Obama said as recently as yesterday he was willing to cut Social Security and Medicare in exchange for closing tax loopholes. Let me repeat that: the president has AGREED to ENTITLEMENT CUTS. But congressional Republicans will not make the deal. They want cuts and cuts alone and this is the only way they can get it. I can't wait for the fallout.

29) Comment by 8point6 - 27/02/2013

Why doesn't hussein and "the Democratic-controlled Senate" make a deal with the GOP-controlled house? I love "our views".

30) Comment by InPVille - 27/02/2013

@OurViews: "Nor is there an appreciation of the potential impact of the sequester on the general economy: We’re talking about taking a lot of money out of circulation just when more economic activity is needed." -[**]- Basically the Bad Idea Of The Month is the economic theory behind this column. If government doesn't spend money, it doesn't mean that the money will sit idly by outside the economy as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the subject should be able to recognize. [1.] People who have wealth do not, like Scrooge McDuck, pile it in huge rooms to admire as it sits idle. They invest the money or it winds up somewhere in the banking system where it is put to use somewhere in the economy through loans and such. [3.] Also government has a bad track record deciding where to "invest" money to help the economy grow. There is more waste when government is doing the spending than when people or enterprises spend their money. So any beneficial economic impact is less. [3.] It is not possible to say that Government spending and economic growth move in the same direction at the same time. [3a.] After WWII U.S. Government spending by all measures went into steep decline. The economy didn't tank as predicted by Paul Samuelson and other Keynesian economists. The economy soared. [3b.] Many Keynesian style stimulus spending plans were tried by the Japanese government when that country's economy went into decline in the 1990s. None of it worked. Japan has still not fully recovered. Numerous other examples can be cited. [4.] Lastly, if the sequester was a lemon, it was known to be a lemon when the idea was hatched in the White House, debated in Congress, and signed by the President. Barack Obama quote: “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. 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." No other implementation of spending cuts has been agreed to since the President took this position. But now its all a catastrophe?!?! Sorry. I don't buy self serving statements replaced by other self serving statements as a basis for economic policy.

31) Comment by InPVille - 27/02/2013

@Notauser: Exactly Right! In Washington speak, a spending cut is not an actual reduction in spending. It is only a reduction in the amount by which spending was planned to increase over the amount spent in the previous year.

32) Comment by postscript56 - 27/02/2013

I'm already tired of conservatives trying to rationalize their obstructionism. Let's get on with this thing so that the Republican party may receive its just reward.

33) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 27/02/2013

As previously mentioned, there is no "cut". The government is set to spend more this year than the previous year. Only in Washington do they call a slowdown in the increase of spending a cut. We need real cuts. Look at how Obama is setting thousands of criminal illegals loose and threatening schools, police, and education. As if there are no better cuts than could be made. Facing a 2% cut, homeland security chief Napolitano is threatening to layoff 25% of the border patrol agents. Get it? If you cut - AT ALL - this administration will insure the American people suffer as much as possible.

34) Comment by wavettore - 26/02/2013

“Many simultaneous rebellions stirred up in Arab Countries will benefit in the end only the State of Israel with the expansion of its territory while... in Europe and in the US, the financial resources "like magic" will disappear through bailouts, tax cuts and elaborated emergency maneuvers which will be ruled only to appear beneficial for those Countries but instead appositely designed for their collapse (except for England that will push Europe over the precipice). It is closer than you think The old economy will get to the last stop. The internet instead will have its plug pulled Massive poverty will bring chaos and anarchy while the lack of effective governments will set the stage for one World Tyranny It will be just from chaos that one voice will rise with the promise to fix all and everyone. That will be the forked tongue of the New World Order” One Solution. http://www.wavevolution.org/en/index.html

35) Comment by Notauser - 26/02/2013

I have to disagree with you. I guess you don’t realize there are no “cuts” as a result of sequestration. The amount of money spent by the government will be higher than it was last year. All that happens is the increase in spending that it was assumed would take place will be reduced. We need sequestration plus some actual cuts.