Letter: Sequester cuts not that big a deal

I do not understand why Washington politicians will not tell the truth to America.

If I understand the sequestration issue correctly, we are discussing this year cutting five cents from every $1 we spend in Washington. Since we apparently borrow 46 cents of every $1 we spend, this would mean that we would have to borrow only 41 cents of every dollar we spend.

By any measure, the reduction in spending is not a huge deal and certainly not the catastrophic event the politicians are making it. If our country is ever capable of taking control of our bloated government spending, there certainly will be some shared pain but this current solution does not result in that.

As part of the national media, The Advocate could be part of the solution by telling the truth and holding politicians, which includes Democrats, Republicans and the president, accountable for not being up front with voters. If you decide to print this, do not edit.

jim terrill

retired from sugar industry

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 01/03/2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAd1trp0rgk Montana Senator (D) : Max Baucus admits Sequester originated in the Obama White House and he is as much at fault as anyone for the passage of the legislation.

2) Comment by InPVille - 28/02/2013

Where does President Obama constantly talk about adding jobs to help the economy?. . . Teachers, Police, Fire Fighters, and Green Energy Jobs. The first three of these are sectors of the economy with some of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country and increase the size and cost of government. While well in good in their own way, The work product from them is not something that can then be marketed as are the products of the manufacturing sector. After the Fire Fighters do their work, for example, jobs are created. But we then still only had what we had before and the materials used to repair the destruction are unavailable to create something new. We are worse off than had their not been a fire(See Broken Glass Fallacy). The last one has seen large sums of money spent which have in large part lead to economic failures and where they are able to market their product, government subsidies in the form of tax breaks are necessary in order to entice someone to purchase them. Who do these tax breaks go to? The most well to do!

3) 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 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 intended. As our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, the need for military spending naturally decreases. The same thing happened 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. Your logic is not logic at all. It is rationalization at best. At worst you are just buying into typical Washington scare tactics or are their mouthpiece.

4) Comment by Diogenes - 27/02/2013

It is not just $85 billion, the Sequester will REQUIRE a total of $1.5 trillion over the next 9 years. And the worst thing is that the cuts are not focused and planned for, rather they are indiscriminate, across the board cuts. Personally I don’t care if you get my logic, because this is not a theoretical exercise, rather this a real life, real time test of the Republican idea of gutting government. If things roll along without any problems after March 1, 2013 then maybe the Republicans have a discovered some economic magic that has escaped professional economists for the last 100 years. But (and far more likely) the Sequester leads to mass layoffs of government workers and private firms doing business with the USA and sends a shock through the economy that sends it into another recession, then we will have proof positive that the Republican’s economic theories are bogus. Time WILL tell and we will start seeing the results in the next few months.

5) Comment by Melisse3 - 27/02/2013

Diogenes - federal spending has increased $1 TRILLION in the past 6 years (from $2.6T to $3.6T). A 37% increase in federal spending. And you seriously believe that an $85B cut over the next few months will cause the economy to "fall off the cliff" and "cause catastrophic job loss and trigger a severe recession"??? Do you not realize that even with the $85B cut, federal spending will still be higher than last fiscal year? I don't get your logic.

6) Comment by Diogenes - 27/02/2013

No Attila, it is not the sky that is falling, it is the US economy that will fall off the cliff because of the Republican ignorance of basic economics. You and the rest of the right wing nut-jobs can pretend that the Sequester is no big deal, but all of us will see the results of the Republican’s ignorance in the next few weeks and months.

7) Comment by Attila - 26/02/2013

Cluck, cluck, cluck....the sky is falling...the sky is falling....woe is me...woe is me....The Dims are resorting to their same old fame...fear mongering....only this time it is going to come back and bite them in the behind.

8) Comment by Diogenes - 26/02/2013

Mr. Terrill is right, the Sequester is not a “Big Deal”, it is a “HUGE DEAL”. Right off the bat the USA will cut $65 Billion, followed by a total of $1.2 Trillion over the following years. Now I know that the right wing guys think that this is wonderful, but the sad fact is that millions of Americans will be directly impacted by these misguided spending cuts and our economy will be gutted. 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 rippling through the US economy. 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 only benefit to this self-inflicted recession is that it will provide an undeniable test for Republican and Libertarian economic theories. If the Sequester goes into effect and the US economy sheds jobs at or near the predicted rate, the Republicans will have a hard time justifying their position and we, the people of the USA will know exactly who to blame for this disaster. On the other hand, if Sequester goes into effect and nothing happens, it will be the Democrats that will have a hard time justifying their position. I personally think that the Sequester will cause catastrophic job loss and trigger a severe depression.

9) Comment by InPVille - 26/02/2013

@SuzanneMS: If the bill was so bad he shouldn't have signed it. I know full well the definition and propagandistic misleading implications to which the word is put.

10) Comment by nimby? - 26/02/2013

sound like having a budget passed and staying with it would be a good Idea , correct ? I've recently have had to readjust my budget , make a few unwanted cuts , but these are necessary to survive .getting tired of the B S , of the emotional doomsday rant . to use a familiar left quote , "the world is not going to end , the sun will come up tomorrow" ....

11) Comment by DMJ - 26/02/2013

Here's the thing...we're not talking about $1 here. We're talking about tens of billions. Drastically and arbitrarily cutting spending in the middle of the already too slow recovery won't help the situation. There's got to be a smarter way. Besides, the whole point of the sequestration was to make Congress pass a debt deal, which they haven't done.

12) Comment by Melisse3 - 26/02/2013

The letter writter is correct - this looming $85 billion cut is not a big deal. But our President wants to make it into a "crisis" simply for political gain. And he knows most of the media will not quesiton him on his mis-leading statements. He can pretty much say whatever he wants.

13) Comment by SuzanneMS - 26/02/2013

He signed the bill that Congress passed. The situation has come about because Congress has been unable to arrive at an agreement on a budget. You have taken that quote out of context -- again. He was referring specifically to attempts to undo sequestration without presenting the required budget. What gets us nowhere is continued quoting out of context in order to make a point that cannot be made otherwise. As for our tax system being "progressive" -- you need to look up the meaning of that word.

14) Comment by InPVille - 26/02/2013

@SuzanneMS: What!!! The sequestration idea began in the President's court. He signed the bill. He said: "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.” But it is totally the fault of Congress? The president is talking about all the horrible things that will come about because of an idea that came from his court and he promoted. I am not saying Congress is blameless. But to excuse the President for his part in this mess is senseless and gets us nowhere.

15) Comment by [e-mail] - 26/02/2013

Spend, spend, spend is not a recipe that anyone with a half a brain would recommend to any budget, but amazingly there are a lof of people today that are trying to make people believe that false premise, with a lot of success it must be said. There's nothing wrong with cutting government spending; remember it's not their money anyway, and spending other people's money is always easy.

16) Comment by InPVille - 26/02/2013

Sorry postscript56 but the United States already has the most progressive tax system in the Western World. The Middle Class pays far more of a percentage of taxes in other countries via VAT taxes and even that will not cover the desired social benefit programs. The problem is not that the wealthy are taxed too little. The problem is that both sides want to tell the Middle Class they don't have to be taxed to pay the freight. We kid ourselves that we can pay for government on the backs of the top % of wage earners. We kid ourselves that we can afford the government we already have. You kid yourself that the Democrats wouldn't be at least as hurt with a balanced revenue spending ratio as the Republicans. Also GDP is not the most accurate measure. The amount of profits that goes with the GDP is what makes the real difference.

17) Comment by postscript56 - 26/02/2013

We borrow so much because Republicans refuse to bring revenue into balance. The uber wealthy are taxed too little, even the just wealthy are taxed too little. There are too many exemptions and loopholes and no consequences for stashing it offshore. If revenue as a percentage of GDP was in balance with spending things wouldn't be so bleak. But what good would that do the Republican party?

18) Comment by tradewinns - 26/02/2013

we must have a balanced budget amendment to save our nation. it will accomplish two major goals. first it will stop the physical drain on our monetary system. we are borrowing just short of 40 cents of every dollar, some from others who wouldn't mind our demise. second it will MAKE evey taxpayer become involved in our budget/spending process. if we did not "finance" our current deficit, the average joe/jane's taxes would increase tremendously. instead of paying say $2K this year, it becomes closer to $3K. don't forget we have to still pay back the principle as well as the interest on what has been borrowed as well as finance the current budget.

19) Comment by SuzanneMS - 26/02/2013

Not that you'd ever massage the facts, right, InPVille? What, precisely, are you talking about? The President is saying now what he said then -- that sequestration will take effect in the absence of a budget that balances spending cuts with tax increases. Nothing that you've posted in any way refutes that. The first link is to an opinion piece, not a news article, as well. Regardless of who used the word first, the Congress passed the legislation, so it's their baby. I know it's hard for people who grew up in Louisiana to understand, but in the rest of the nation, the legislature actually legislates -- it does not just kowtow to the executive. The second and third are taken completely out of context. The deal was that sequestration would take place if Congress could not come up with a budget deal that included both spending cuts and tax increases. The "supercommittee" did not, so Congress tried to renege on the deal by simply revoking sequestration. In any case, how is he contradicting himself? He is not now calling for sequestration to be revoked in the absence of a budget deal.

20) Comment by InPVille - 26/02/2013

OK! Make that 15 months instead of 3. He still sings out of both sides of his mouth.

21) Comment by InPVille - 26/02/2013

As was reported by Bob Woodward on Friday in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html the idea of sequestration was hatched by Jack Lew and Rob Nabors members of the Obama White House staff and was approved by President Obama. As reported by CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329146-503544/obama-pledges-to-veto-effort-to-undo-automatic-spending-cuts/ by ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-vows-to-veto-attempts-to-undo-automatic-spending-cuts/ and by others it was just this past November that President Obama stated: "“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. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.” Now he sings the off ramp with equal facility. Something on the order of: "Don't listen to what I said in November. In June don't listen to what I am saying now." Could he be any more like he heads in the following images? http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=janus+god&qpvt=janus+god&FORM=IGRE

22) Comment by postscript56 - 26/02/2013

The problem is the indiscriminate nature of the cuts. I know lots of conservatives who have let themselves become convinced this is all no big deal. It's part of the process of rationalization. Still unable to digest losing the last election conservatives have convinced themselves they can get what they want through sequestration. But perception is reality. And the perception of sequestration will be it's the Republican party versus Obama. That'll win a lot of hoorahs around Lousiana and the south, but nationally it's a losing proposition. The American people have spoken - twice - on Obama and they've said we kinda like the guy. Challenging Obama on the sequestration will be a lot like it was in November. Republicans lose.