Comments on: Sequester Fear-Mongering, State Version

By: AnInquirer

AnInquirer — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:30:00 +0000

I will agree with the conclusion that it the federal government should be able to handle this sequestration, but here are two reasons why it seems more painful: 1) Probably 70% of federal budget is exempt of sequestration, so we get up to a noticeable % when we look at the cut in the non-exempt areas. 2) we are now looking at doing a full year's sequestration within 5 or 6 months -- the impact will be more concentrated. But I continue to be amazed at management decisions. I now work for the federal government, and we are hiring an amamzing number of new employees. Finally, one little old lady spoke up: "If we didn't hire all these extra employees, we would not need to have such a big hit on our salaries when the furlough happens." Management's response: "The new employees will be furloughed just like you will be. The burden will be evenly distributed." Seems to me, management missed her point entirely.

By: orick

orick — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:24:00 +0000

This has a name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome

By: Todd Ramsey

Todd Ramsey — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:04:00 +0000

John McCain is the anti-libertarian.

By: SamWah

SamWah — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:06:00 +0000

1%, even 2%, is not drastic. 20% would be drastic...or maybe just a really good start.

And there's much less GOP pork than Dem pork.

By: MingoV

MingoV — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:24:00 +0000

The media's squawking about a less than 1% cut in federal spending is absurd. Obama's first (and only) budget increased federal spending by 37%. Most of that increase was for a 'one-time' stimulus. But, (surprise, surprise) the deliberate failure to pass budgets allowed the high spending to continue. Why doesn't the media mention that prolonged massive spending increase? Why doesn't the media demand a 30% cut in spending? After such a cut, federal spending still would exceed Bush's last budget, a budget that Senator Obama said was irresponsibly high.

By: marque2

marque2 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:14:00 +0000

I don't understand all the hype either. It is a one time cut of 100 billion - though by fake accounting they make it seem like a trillion will be saved.
Instead of looking at the total "savings" over ten years we should look how it affects the budget.

In ten years it is projected our government spending will be:
$5.9 trillion

With the sequester in place our government spending in 10 years is projected to be.

$5.8 trillion.

Big whoop.

By: nehemiah

nehemiah — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:31:00 +0000

Almost got it right. Dem "pork" = entitlements plus all forms of government spending minus DOD.

By: LarryGross

LarryGross — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:13:00 +0000

surely that can't be the GOP "strategy", eh? What is this for them right now?

By: bigmaq1980

bigmaq1980 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:06:00 +0000

Pork is Pork and we have $1T+ of baconated government.

1% ($40B) out of $3.6T budget should not mean automatic 90 minutes in TSA lines...come-on!

The government is playing a game with us...take these small cuts and make sure we, the citizens, "feel it", so we don't get the foolish idea that there should be cuts again in the future.

By: LarryGross

LarryGross — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:30:00 +0000

Dem "pork" = entitlements, GOP "pork" = DOD