You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
‘Small’ sequestration cut could have huge impact.
"The reality is that sequestration is cutting merely for cutting’s sake" which will neither help the economy nor make a significant impact on the deficit. And both sides will point fingers and blame the other when the stuff hits the fan.
"leading economists, many business leaders, medical providers and the head of the respected, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office" Ah, yes, if these guys say so it must be true. Sure, economists. Oh and business leaders and medical providers. Of course, the respected Congressional Budget Office. All who have been waiting around not getting involve in anything that led us here to this moment. Thank goodness their here now to provide their insight. Too bad it got to this point before they were allowed to apply their significant talents. All this could have been avoided if we had just listened to the economists, business leaders, medical providers and the illustrious Congressional Budget Office. Who knew?
Remember 90 days ago when people were saying how horrid the 2 percent FICA increase would be? It got implemented and amazingly the US economy did not collapse.
If the cuts need to be spread out more so that everything in the federal budget receives cuts, fine. I have absolutely no doubt that better choices could be made regarding what could be cut - so DO IT. Don't argue for not cutting, instead propose different areas to cut so that no one area needs to be cut by 7.8%
There are two things that can be done: (1) President Obama is our Chief Executive Officer. He is responsible for day-to-day management of the government. He and his staff must manage these budget cuts so that essential government services are funded. Unnecessary and wasteful expenditures (and fraud) must be reduced as much as possible. (2) President Obama and Congress must put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid back on the table and negotiate solutions for those programs. Democrats in Washington don't want to reduce the cost of those programs but it must be done and done quickly.
The House Republicans haven't put one single bill or proposal on the floor in the 113th session. Not one. They sit back whining that the Dems haven't offered anything when in FACT, Van Hollen's bill has been brought to Congress two times this session. The GOP acts as if it doesn't exist when in fact it does. It's not the Dems who are obstructing or blocking movement on sequestration; it's the GOP. The Dem bill has a balanced plan of strategic spending cuts and closing of tax loopholes. These are not tax increases, they are loophole closings to ag and oil giants. That the GOP won't even allow a vote on this just shows how threatened Boehner is for his speakership. He knows that enough Reps will cross over that it would pass. He's also lying about his party "bringing two bills forward". These two bills were in the 112th congress, not the current one. As such, they don't apply to the current fiasco.
“Many simultaneous rebellions stirred up in Arab Countries will benefit in the end only the State of Israel with the expansion of its territory
in Europe and in the US, the financial resources "like magic" will disappear through bailouts, tax cuts and elaborated emergency maneuvers which will be ruled only to appear beneficial for those Countries but instead appositely designed for their collapse (except for England that will push Europe over the precipice).
It is closer than you think
The old economy will get to the last stop.
The internet instead will have its plug pulled
Massive poverty will bring chaos and anarchy while the lack of effective governments will set the stage for one World Tyranny
It will be just from chaos that one voice will rise with the promise to fix all and everyone.
That will be the forked tongue of the New World Order”
There is only one Solution for this planned chain of events.
The 7% cut will STILL put discretionary spending slightly above 2008 spending, and 7% above 2007 spending, and 30% above 2002 spending. Inflation adjusted. Government will be just fine. Now they have a good excuse to thin out the non-productive.
Actually, the even cut on all discretionary spending seems the most "fair". Everyone is big on "fairness". And no one can try argue which is more important, which usually ends in no cuts.
The alternative? Spending $89 billion on non-productive activity, on borrowed money. So the $89 billion really means another $89 billion in interest over the next 10 years to fund the $89 billion spent this year...being we know the budget will not balanced in 10 years.
There is plenty of unnecessary pork which can be trimmed instead of cutting more wise uses of funds like border security and the Republicans and trying to work with Obama to spare these, but he's playing games and wants to make this as painful as possible for Americans to push his leftist agenda of tax and spend.
Let me get this straight- President Obama appoints the Simpson-Bowles commission to help him balance the budget like he promised when he ran for office. They offer a tough but "balanced" Bi-partisan approach to balancing the budget. President Obama proceeds to dismiss every recommendation they issue. Now we get to hear how only the GOP is playing politics. Between his outright dismissal of the Simpson-Bowles commission and his refusal to present a federal budget (as required by law)- President Obama has no crediability on any budget/deficit issue- funny how this editorial didn't mention this.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks