Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Sequestration: Proof that Congress Is Retarded
The budget deficit is hurting the economy. It's trashing our currency, and it's not spurring economic growth. We need to balance the budget.
Now, let's talk about why sequestration is a horrifyingly stupid idea. Sure, it sounds great that we're actually going to cut the budget, but the cuts are accross the board and don't take into account the importance of some expenses over others. What we're hearing from Congress now is that we should allow the cuts to happen, but that we should take the time to allow the cuts to be made in a smart manner.
Let me give everyone a moment to allow that thought to sink in.
What makes this so ridiculous is that Congress can agree to make slash-and-burn cuts, but it can't actually sit down and agree on strategic cuts? They couldn't use the time it took them to come up with sequestration to actually just figure out smart budget cuts? No. Instead, they came up with this ridiculous penalty to impose on themselves rather than sit down, like mature, rational human beings, and figure out a solution to our financial woes.
As Obama keeps saying, the idea was to make it so horrific that Congress would be forced to make cuts before the deadline. He and others thought this was such a clever idea, but they failed to recognize that most Republicans in congress would simply allow it to happen. The Democrats really, really bungled this one in terms of political posturing. Now, slash and burn cuts are almost surely to be made, and the Republicans get to come out relatively unscathed.
How, you might ask?
Well, it's all about the blame game these days. Republicans get to blame the Democrats for being stubborn on the issue of raising taxes. You might say "well the Democrats can blame the Republicans for being stubborn on insisting on entitlement cuts." Yes, but the Republicans have a card up their sleeve that puts them ahead of the Dems: the budget is actually going to be cut.
I don't know if it's spending rate increase cuts or if the cuts are actual baseline cuts (analysts are saying both, so it's hard to tell who is lying/stretching the truth). But that doesn't matter. When it's all said and done, the Republicans get to say "we cut the budget, which is what we were elected to do." And the Republicans will get to say "we wanted to make smart cuts, but the Democrats wouldn't yeild on tax increases."
The Democrats got out-brained this time around. For some reason, they thought that it would be a punishment to give the Republicans what they want. It might not be everything they wanted--afterall, the DoD is likely to get the hammer up its rear-end, and we all know how Republicans generally never put the defense budget on the table. But still, they wanted budget cuts, and now they have it. 47% of voters went for Romney, and the Republicans hold the majority in the house. That means a good deal of Americans support budget cuts. Perhaps the Democrats just ignored the numbers?
If the Democrats were as smart as they think they were, then sequestration would've had to include accross the board tax hikes to actually make it a "punishment" to Republicans. Had accross the board tax hikes been included with the accross the board cuts, then both sides would have had equal amounts of blame to place on each other, and thus both sides would have had equal reason to avoid sequestration.
Politics, my friends, is less about the numbers and more about the games. That's why I take the time to analyze the posturing of politicians. In my humble opinion, they don't much care about the numbers. Will any of them be affected by the budget cuts? Will they lose income? Will their services be slowed?
The only thing they care about is getting re-elected. Thus, they will do whatever it takes to get as many people on their side as possible, consequences be damned. Once you see that it's more about the votes than it is actually guiding this country in a prosperous direction.
And yet somehow, we keep voting for these chuckle heads. (And by "we" I mean "you." I didn't vote for a single, solitary establishment soul this election cycle).