Sequester was Obama’s idea
To the editor:
As I write this, Washington, D.C., and the media are all aquiver with the “sequestration blues,” and waves of panic are issuing from the region, as doomsday draws nigh.
But what we all must remember is that President Barack Obama, now balefully warning of the coming disaster, was very much for the sequester, before he was against it. It was his idea, after all, formulated back during the debt ceiling debate of 2011.
Problem is, he didn’t really expect the Republicans to actually take him up on it; now he has to flail around, trying to keep it from really happening.
This is because, while $85 billion sounds like, and is, a huge number, when matched against a $3.7 trillion budget, it’s a relatively inconsequential drop in a very, very big bucket. Some say that, after all is said and done, the cuts will actually come to something less than half that amount.
The Democrats doubtlessly fear that, if and when the cuts actually happen, people may eventually notice how little that $85 billion – cut from said $3.7 trillion budget – actually affects the daily operation of our ridiculously-bloated government.
That could prove embarrassing, because more people might wise up; they might start demanding even more cuts, which would only strengthen Republican positions. If we can have $85 billion cut, with so little consequence, why not cut $100 billion? $500 billion? A trillion? Who wants that? Not the government; they like spending our money.
So, the administration and the Democratic Party’s lapdogs in the Propaganda Ministry – oops, sorry; I should have said mainstream media – begin envisioning doomsday scenarios, purposely whipping up hysteria, attempting to obscure the fact that this was all their beloved leader’s idea to begin with. Besides, it’s a 3 percent – projected – cut over 10 years. We won’t even notice the difference, and other increases will inevitably happen, which will negate the effects of these, anyway. That’s how it works.
Even scarier, though, people may also stop listening to the patented Democrat fear-mongering, and then where would the party be? Like the boy who cried wolf, if people stop responding to their cries, they’re in big trouble. After all, their party operates on a crisis mentality, appealing to emotion; that’s how they get things done. Everything’s a potential catastrophe that has to be dealt with immediately. No time for legislative debate. As such, they’re masters of “wag the dog” tactics like crisis invention and manipulation.
Nonetheless, cuts have to be made; without serious, deep spending cuts, we will eventually end up like Europe; bankrupt, shifting paper around to cover the fact that there’s no more money, and imposing painful austerity measures on ourselves, causing riots and resentment. Essentially what we’re doing now, without the austerity measures, but by then it’ll be too late.
It will happen, just not next week. Spending cuts have to be made. We simply cannot continue like this. Nobody in Washington, however, has the discipline, much less the moral courage, to stand up and willingly do it.