Share
I hate ultimatums. I always feel like the threatened punishments are more serious than the demands. The same can be said of the impending budget sequestration.
Congress thought it would be easy to find $1.2 billion in deficit reductions over 10 years.
Alas, the bipartisan “Super Committee” charged with determining the cuts could not reach a solution, an the result is across-the-board cuts equaling the same $1.2 billion being implemented on March 1.
In the short run, there will be $85 billion in cuts over just the next seven months, a huge setback to our slow economic recovery.
The sequester will target huge proportions of both nondefense discretionary and defense spending, though the proportions are based neither on policy expertise nor common sense.
Rather than a thoughtful, comprehensive plan to cut spending in particular areas and eliminate tax deductions for the wealthiest Americans, arbitrary cuts to most core government services will take place.
Virginia is one of the states that will be hurt the most.
According to a report released by the White House, approximately 90,000 Department of Defense employees in Virginia will be furloughed, meaning 90,000 Virginians won't have a job nor pay for an indeterminate amount of time.
The Hampton Roads area will be hit hardest, according to Republican representatives Scott Rigell, Randy Forbes and Rob Wittmann. Langley Air Force Base and Naval Station Norfolk, the world’s largest naval station, will suffer substantial spending cuts.
In terms of education, the report claims, “Virginia will lose approximately $14 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 190 teacher and aide jobs at risk.”
Tell me again why we need to cut education spending?
There are those on the Republican side who feel the sequester is a necessary evil. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, for example, wants to downplay the military spending cuts, noting the sequester merely slows the rate of increase of defense spending.
It took you long enough, Senator.
In one of my columns, published way back on Sept. 25, I remarked, “…remember, the consequences of going over the fiscal cliff would not freeze military spending levels, but simply would slow down the increase…” Anyone familiar with the fiscal cliff, as Sen. Cornyn should definitely be, should understand the nature of the cuts to military spending.
But even this realization overlooks the fact the Department of Defense initiates new projects on a regular basis, such as the ones in Dahlgren, Oceana, and Norfolk, Va. The automatic defense cuts due to sequestration will force the Department of Defense to defer these projects.
So what are Democrats and Republicans doing to solve the problem? Are they working on a bipartisan plan to cut needless spending but preserve important government programs?
Doesn’t look like it.
Monday saw no votes scheduled in either chamber to deal with the sequester. Both parties have flatly rejected the policy proposals of the other, with Democrats urging for decreases in tax deductions and Republicans calling for more targeted spending cuts. A substantive bipartisan solution seems out of reach.
Yet, a solution does exist: Congress can pass a law avoiding the sequester altogether.
The sequester scheme was never meant to go into effect. Rather, it was meant to codify drastic, arbitrary spending cuts that would scare Congress into implementing intelligent deficit reduction.
Must the country suck it up and take the cuts if they are not written in stone? I don’t believe so.
It sets terrible precedent, sure, but it would prevent devastating cuts to the economy. Even the Congressional Budget Office estimates the sequester will reduce job growth by 750,000 jobs. Such a shock to the economy will be a stain on the conscience of every member of Congress, Republican and Democrat.
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 27 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 38 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Yet we are opening a new drone base in Niger. We have thousands stationed over in Germany and Japan. Come on. We are no longer an empire. Lets pack up and come home.
Reply to this Top
Hector, Your an idiot.
Reply to this Top
It's 1.2 TRILLION. Not billion. Fire Hector, and the proofreaders.
Reply to this Top
*you're - possibly?
Reply to this Top
I am so sorry that you are so gullible as to swallow the White House scare tactics drivel, word for word.
Reply to this Top
"Congress can pass a law avoiding the sequester altogether."
I second your motion. All in favor say "AYE".
Reply to this Top
This is no answer, anyone with a college education must understand the basics of accounting, you cannot spend more than you make. In my opinion, the US budget should be reduced by 25% and then set at that number by law as a percentage of GDP. If you over-feed a pig it gets fat, simple solution, reduce the food.
Reply to this Top
The idiots are the entire Republican party that insists on cuts during a fragile recovering economy. Only good thing is the majority of America understands this and will place the blame where it belongs.
Reply to this Top
No the majority of Americans that can count realize someone has to be the adult in the room, do you think taxes are going to help the economy? And continuing to weaken our dollar and running up debt? The spending has been and continues to be out of control- the Libturds and their free gifts to consituents are the problem- see you at the next Liberal Lovefest by Occuskum
Reply to this Top
The $85 billion is a real money cut not a projected increase cut; the $85 billion cut will be felt. To be honest, that should be really obvious. Why would people fear losing their job if they were only cutting projected increases in spending?
Reply to this Top
Hector, you're an idiot.
Reply to this Top
I found this from the very front page of Google News!
Reply to this Top
Yes he is. As are the proofreaders at Collegiate Times. How many times can Hector get 1.2 Billion past the proofers when the number is actually 1.2 Trillion. Got education? Neither a math student, nor a writer.
Reply to this Top
try $1.2 Trillion instead of a measly 1.2 Billion...get your facts....
Reply to this Top
Actually Don, you should know from accounting that frequently debt is used. Often it is leveraged against accounts receivable. How do you think we got in the mortgage mess. Banks even lending more than they have. A more sensible solution is to make reasoned and reasonable cuts. draw down the military like we had on every war before Vietnam. Radically increase the capital gains tax to encourage re investment in businesses rather than cash outs and quick flips of stocks, literally taxing the parasitic hedge funders out of business.
Reply to this Top
I submit that it wasn't the Reps. by themselves. Obama and the Dems. brought forth the idea and all three passed it. Pres didn't have to sign it.
Reply to this Top
THe OMB report which is available on line states that the cut is approx $58 Billion for Defence discretioinary spending and nondefence discretionary spending of a like amount. Additionally, some cuts were allowed which were in reality funds for projects that had already been canceled and an errorusly funded bridge for a road that doesn't exist. SO the actual cut is less than $85Billion. Congress (both parties and the President, are using scare tactics to get there own way and a goodly number of voters are blindly following the retheroic. The total is 1 to 2% of the total budget but because of the way the cuts are being assigned, the average cut is closer to 7% to 8& for those departments affected. It's still small when compared to how those departments grew over the last 4 years. THink for yourself Americans. Stop being sheep.
Reply to this Top
I believe you cite a common confusion - confusing the "you" with an individual. The government is not an individual and economics for an individual is not the same as economics for a government. The role of the government is to be anti-cyclical ie when an individual cannot spend, the government does so to maintain demand and keep up employment. The objective is employment - to ensure everyone has an opportunity to work. (which indirectly increases tax receipt and government revenue as well as reduces foodstamps and dependance on the government).
If you take this view point, it is fairly easy to see that the conclusion you draw is actually harmful from the perspective of the economy rather than helpful.
Reply to this Top
Jobs are a means not an end in themselves, people work to live better and put food on their shelves. Real economic growth comes from production of what people demand, which means entrepreneurship not your Keynesian central planning. The economy is complex not some circular flow, there's no expert that can fix it, there's no "it" at all. The economy isn't a class that you can master in college, to think otherwise is simply ignorance.
Reply to this Top
Sorry, you have it backwards. Obama=cuts and taxes. Reps=just cuts, no taxes
Reply to this Top
Speaking of idiots, you are the most simplistic Fox News type I read from!!!!!
Reply to this Top
You used Billion when the 1.2 is Trillions that need to be reduced. The increases in this spend crazy Administration are more than the paltry $85 Billion that would be reduced.
So it's just White House scare mongering. No budgets in years, No accountability, Just more golf and cheap rhetoric about a future they can't see or plan for.
Howling idiots will agree with Obama - the rest just shake our eads and go back to work. [ Unlike Congress]
Reply to this Top
must understand the basics of accounting??? What basics are about putting huge amount of money on military bases all around the world if those wall selling insiders aren't spreading so wide and so many selfish weapon industry tycoons all expanding overseas using Pentagon trying to ignore our domestic economic health and infrastructures? We must cut them deeply, turn the cash flow back into our domestic economy and seriously monitor those insider privatizations trying to monopoly our developments for the need of the future modern economy. We must cut them hard and deep!!!
Reply to this Top
Hector,
Incredibly well written and coherent. With Healthcare as a big part of our expenses we spend more per capita than the entire world, cover a lesser percent of our population, and have a screw loose if we think US Healthcare is incredulously better than Germany as a large profitable nation or Switzerland as smaller but also quite wealthy.
Reply to this Top
It is not clear on who you are referring to with "majority". If you are referring to people that support cuts, I would advise you to double-check the results from the last President's election. Lastly, Accounting and Economics are two different disciplines.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
"I hate ultimatums."
* ultimata
Reply to this Top
Sorry, but these cuts are from the baseline budget increases. There are no actual cuts to real spending. There is no (zero) deficit reduction with these cuts! That’s hard to do anyway since we borrow almost $4 for every $10 we spend. Printing $’s and borrowing $’s to spend is a real quick way to selling your soul! Sooner or later, the collector shows up---with his bat, chains, and brass knuckles! It will be EXTREMELY ugly!
Reply to this Top
THIS 2 Days Diet http://u2daydiet.weebly.com/ HELPED ME CURB APPETITE As well as GAVE ME Far more Energy I Don't Must Diet , THE Tablets DO Good JOB OF STOPPING ME Consuming SNACKS. AND I 'D Prefer to DO SOME Exercise Last MONTH TO Shed Far more FAT .
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
Good day! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I really enjoy reading through your articles. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that go over the same topics? Appreciate it! More Help http://www.maccosmeticwholesaler.com/
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
ceddhhoc ceddhhoc pdv1 ceddhhoc ceddhhoc christian louboutin outlet online http://www.christianlouboutin5outlet.com
Reply to this Top
rxuamuniwfg <a href="http://simti.it/Abstract/burberryborse.html" title="burberry outlet">burberry outlet</a>
Reply to this Top