In response to:

The Sequester May Not Be “Fair,” but It’s Real and It Would Slow the Growth of Government

Fuzzy2 Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 6:02 PM
I look at federal spending cuts as our duty to the next generation. It's the only permissible humanitarian aid we can afford. I know it hardly qualifies as humanitarian when we are the ones who racked up the debt,but compared to the choices we've been making to fund our enemies with funds we don't have, I'll take it.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 6:50 PM
Speak for yourself. I DID NOT run up the debt. I am against most of the things that Washington spends money on. I have let them KNOW I am against it; I have voted against those who spend recklessly, and still they persist, without my permission and without my authority. So DON'T lump me in with that "we are the ones who racked up the debt" crapola.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 9:21 PM
Ms Kelly

While I sympathize and am in the same position as you - the next generation didn't vote for it either.

Much to the horror of various interest groups, it appears that there will be a “sequester” on March 1.

This means an automatic reduction in spending authority for selected programs (interest payments are exempt, as are most entitlement outlays).

Just about everybody in Washington is frantic about the sequester, which supposedly will mean “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts.

If only. That would be like porn for libertarians.

In reality, the sequester merely means a reduction in the growth of federal spending. Even if we have the sequester, the burden of government spending will still be

Related Tags: Government