Skip to comments.Sequestration Cuts Will Lead to Floods, Plagues, and Pestilence
Posted on 02/04/2013 8:39:45 AM PST by Kaslin
The odds that $85 billion in unthinkable, draconian sequestration spending cuts will go into effect in March as scheduled are looking better. The odds must be getting better because, as if on cue, the horror stories have commenced.
A perfect example is an article in the Washington Post that details the angst and suffering being experienced by federal bureaucrats and other taxpayer dependents over the mere possibility that the drastic cuts will occur. You see, the uncertainty surrounding the issue has forced government employees to draw up contingency plans. Contingency plans? Oh, the humanity!
From the article:
Sequestration, as the law is known, has sent agencies scrambling to buffer themselves, spending time and money that ultimately may be for naught. Even if cuts take effect, it might not be for long making the hiring freezes, canceled training, deferred projects, and lengthy planning for furloughs and other contingencies an exercise in inefficiency.
I certainly believe that Washingtons bouncing from one manufactured fiscal crisis to the next is detrimental to the economy, but my sympathy lies with the private sector not the federal bureaucracy. Its the private sector that has been suffering under the constant uncertainty surrounding federal tax and regulatory policy. And lets not forget that there is no public sector without the private sector the former existing entirely at the latters expense.
Yet, what follows in the Post article is boo-hoo after boo-hoo without the slightest regard to those who are paying for it or whether the whiners agency could use some belt-tightening:
There will be impacts for every decision we make, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said. The service is deferring maintenance to conserve money so we can train a pilot to go to Afghanistan if cuts of up to 10 percent go through. Eventually we will have to fix that roof, but at that point it wont be maintenance.
The United States military shouldnt be in Afghanistan. There, problem solved. Disagree? Well, then take a look at this report from Sen. Tom Coburns (R-OK) staff on how the Pentagon spends your money.
This time around, a frustrated senior executive at the Department of Homeland Security said he and his staff have spent countless hours remaking budgets for every contingency. First we were told not to develop plans for sequestration, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak frankly. Then we spent seven days a week coming up with them and [the cuts] got postponed. Now were doing it all over with new targets. Its taking away from what we need to get done.
Need to get done as in molesting innocent people at airports? Preparing locals for a zombie apocalypse?
Agencies may be frustrated with all the back-and-forth, but companies and researchers in line for government funding are fuming. All they can say when I check with them is, Youre still being considered for funding, but we cant move forward at this time, said Stephen Higgins, a professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Vermont awaiting about $19 million in two grants from the National Institutes of Health to study chronic disease and smoking. When [Congress] punted on sequestration, I knew I just took it on the chin.
Prof. Higgins is taking it on the chin? A lot of people who will be filing a federal tax return in the coming months are about to do the same. And although I cant comment on the merits of Prof. Higgins study, the NIH is the same outfit that has financed studies on chimpanzee feces flinging and how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail.
The article goes on to supply quotes from whiner after whiner: a defense contractor, an employee from a Social Security office, a spokesman for the federal courts system, a reservist with the Air Force, and, finally, a director at the National Weather Service.
That raises a question: where did the author of the piece find all of these people to supply her with quotes that just happened to perfectly fit the narrative?
We already have Obama voters. They’re a difference form of pestilence.
$85 billion is literally chump change at the federal level.
What, 2 or 2.5 percent of the yearly budget? BFD.
Suppose you *take home* $3200 per month after all your taxes. I mean, genuine disposable income. 2.5% is less than 2 tanks of gas, or 2 cartons of cigarettes.
Are your kids going to end up in the street in their skivvies? Because that’s the logic the government uses when it wants YOU to contribute another $85 a month to ITS coffers.
I recall some years ago when Hillsborough County, FL (Tampa) wanted to raise the local sales tax. The absolute first thing they claimed would have to be cut if they did not get the increase was EMS/ambulance service. The very first thing. IOW, according to them, the *least* essential budget item for the county. Isn’t how logical budgeting works? The least essential is cut first?
No wonder we don’t believe anything these people say. They are all pathological liars.
. . . Dogs and cats living together . . .
These are “Washington cuts”, right? It’s just 10% less of a raise from last year than they thought they would get, right?
You mean the “Democrat-approved Sequestration Cuts”? ;-)
We just raise taxed about $60 billion then within the next few days spent $51 billion on Sandy. No one cares anymore, the sun will still come up in the morning, blah, blah, blah.
Omama signed the law!! Demorats passed it. Too bad — soo sad. ABSOLUTELY NO MORE REVENUE. That is off the table now. Been there done that.Cut spending or sequester. That’s your option. Ill take either as long as cut equal the sequestered amount. Republicans will cave again. Gosh they make me sick/.
Ah got mah Obamafone. Who cares about everyone else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.