February 10, 2013
It will begin. It will last ten years. It will be good for the economy. It will be very helpful, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist said recently. The it he refers to is whats become known as the sequester — automatic spending cuts in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that were originally proposed and then signed into law by President Barack Obama, after being passed by both Houses of Congress.
Since everyone from Mr. Obama to the backest-bench blowhard congressman argues that we need to curtail out-of-control deficit spending, the idea was to propose some actual cuts . . . off in the future, mind you. Moreover, these particular spending cuts were designed to be so unpalatable to both Republican and Democratic politicians that both sides would be forced to come together, at some point, to agree on more thoughtful reductions in spending. The time to do this? Back then, that dreaded far flung future was today.
Add time management to the long list of Washingtons failures.
That both parties kicked the can down the road back in 2011, that they concocted and armed what they intended to be a mini-doomsday machine, and that these two colorful armies of partisan Dr. Strangeloves could not come together to disarm their creation is stunningly no surprise at all.
Now, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta steps down, he complains again that, If sequester takes place, and we suddenly have another half a trillion dollars [over ten years] that I got to take out of the defense budget, in an across-the-board fashion, frankly, the defense strategy we put in place Id have to throw out the window.
Sorry to hear that, Mr. Secretary. Perhaps thats why, as recently as last September, a Pentagon spokesperson admitted we have not begun any planning efforts to address the looming 7.3 percent reduction in military spending for 2013. (Were none of the Pentagon big-shots ever Boy Scouts?)
The exclamation point in Panettas testimony before Congress last week was his conclusion that, Instead of being a first-rate power in the world, wed turn into a second-rate power. That would be the result of sequester.
Hmmm. Doesnt sound very safe. Were not talking about losing farm subsidies for wealthy corporate farm companies or free cellphones for those on the receiving end of other welfare programs or the money to reward green-energy cronies. The military keeps us safe . . . when its not blowing up bad guys (along with women and children) in countries most of us cant find on the map.
Despite Amending The Bill, Montana Democrats Still Oppose Pro-Second Amendment Referendum | Matt Vespa
Ex-Clinton Aide Had Secret Intelligence Network, Raises Questions If Hillary Used This 'Undisclosed Back Channel’ | Matt Vespa