Sequestration is a start, not a solution

  • Article by: Tom Horner, Tim Penny
  • Updated: June 15, 2013 - 6:56 PM

Perhaps it will convince both parties that deficit progress is possible.

  • 14
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pumiceJun. 15, 13 7:21 PM

From the article: "Few would suggest that across-the-board cuts are the best or smartest way to manage budgets, as sequestration nips good and bad programs alike. Still, President Obama overreached earlier this year by declaring sequestration to be the equivalent of 'fiscal Armageddon.' " Perhaps if he'd have been clearer and said, "In the short-term, sequestration is the equivalent of fiscal Armageddon for the powerless and voiceless. It's austerity for the most vulnerable among us while high income-earners/wealth-holders continue to prosper."

Slowed growth in the short-term and, according to the IMF: "[I]ndiscriminate reductions in education, science, and infrastructure spending could also reduce medium-term potential growth." And no mention that the deficit has been falling, Messrs. Horner and Penny? Of course "much more eventually must be done to address our longer-term challenges, particularly through tax and entitlement reform," but derailing short- and mid-term recovery will make long-term challenges more challenging.

22
5
unionbossmanJun. 15, 13 9:35 PM

Funny how those who do not pay the bills advocate for incurring higher and higher debt. Would these same individuals be so eager to spend public funds if their bank accounts would be the source of said spending? I think we all know the answer.

10
25
hiramfosterJun. 16, 13 7:40 AM

It's interesting that Horner and Penney have written a column about the budget deficit without mentioning that the budget deficit is dropping.

22
4
unionbossmanJun. 16, 13 8:10 AM

Here's a liberal idea. Lets raise tax rates to 75% on everyone. The deficit and debt will drop even faster. Or, we can intelligently manage the budget..

4
22
guessagainJun. 16, 13 9:34 AM

unionbossman: == Here's a liberal idea. Lets raise tax rates to 75% on everyone. The deficit and debt will drop even faster. === Very true. However, based on "facts" posted by many conservatives here, lowering taxes increases revenues. So cutting taxes to zero would almost immediately erase the deficit, right?

19
5
ivehaditJun. 16, 13 9:40 AM

bossman = Not a single liberal has suggested raising taxes even above 50%. So your "liberal idea" is anything but liberal. The real issue is whether we spend money on the military, war, tax cuts for the rich and building fences or whether we foster education, energy independence, jobs for the middle class, health care for all and keeping our elderly on a decent standard of living. Conservatives seem to prefer the military, tax cuts for the rich and building fences. The rest of the items mentioned are part of the liberal agenda.

22
4
ti1310Jun. 16, 1310:26 AM

----unionbossman: == Here's a liberal idea. Lets raise tax rates to 75% on everyone. The deficit and debt will drop even faster. === Very true. However, based on "facts" posted by many conservatives here, lowering taxes increases revenues. So cutting taxes to zero would almost immediately erase the deficit, right?----Just like raising taxes to 100 percent would cause the economy to expand by leaps and bounds right? A straw mans argument guessagain....

3
17
briechersJun. 16, 13 1:07 PM

It is hard to take these gents seriously. Instead of rattling on about the problems that we all know about, craft a proposed solution and take some heat. Whining about the problem and calling on everyone to be more like them while not proposing anything is not leadership. How about proposing a spending amendment...that would force legislators to prioritize and make some hard decisions. We should have one at the federal level and the state level. There is no way out of this morass we are in without an agreed upon spending limit as a percent of GDP.

4
7
pumiceJun. 16, 13 3:24 PM

Re: "There is no way out of this morass we are in without an agreed upon spending limit as a percent of GDP." Would that agreed upon spending limit be rigid and inflexible, briechers? That is, would that agreed upon spending limit apply during a recession as well as when the economy is humming along?

9
2
briechersJun. 16, 13 8:04 PM

Pumice...If I were setting it, I would do something like 51% majority for 22%, 55% for 23%, 60% for 24%, 65% for 25% and 70% eliminates the limit. That may be too many levels, but I think graduated levels with additional approving majorities with an escape clause for war or some unplanned catastrophe would be workable. Another benefit relates to the issue you raise...we might be more comfortable with reserves if we knew that spending was constitutionally limited.

1
9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • 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.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT