www.unitedliberty.org www.advisorone.com
With the sequester set to begin tomorrow, I thought it would be fitting if my first post for this class dealt with some of the main points of this fiscal policy. This process is set to cut $1.2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years in government agency spending.
The debt-ceiling legislation of 2011 showed the willingness of both parties to come together in order to address an "elephant in the room" issue. Republicans gave the Obama administration and Democrats the abililty to pay the federal government's payments to it's bondholders in return for the spending cuts. The sequestration could've been avoided, however, if a congressional committee had come up with an alternative that simply didn't materialize.
Reaction to this topic seems to be varied not only between the parties, but within them as well. An article on cnn.com by Matt Smith quoted outgoing Defense Secretary as saying, ""For those of you who have ever seen 'Blazing Saddles,' it is the scene of the sheriff putting the gun to his head in order to establish law and order," Panetta said in a speech at Washington's Georgetown University. "That is sequestration."". http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/politics/cnn-explains-sequestration/index.html?iid=article_sidebar . There is a different view being taken by other Republicans however as Dana Bash and Ted Barrett reported in their article for CNN that, "Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said he plans to make the case to other Republicans and the public that despite warnings from the Pentagon that the mandated cuts will be devastating, the overall amount of defense spending will actually still rise." http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/politics/budget-republicans/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
It is my understanding that the cuts will be split essentially in half between defense spending and other federal programs such as national parks, federal courts, and housing aid. Although spending cuts are always hard to make, I think in this case, it is necessary in order to help reduce our $16 trillion national debt. Only time will tell what effects sequestration will have on our national security, but I am of the belief that our financial security is equally important.
References
1. Smith, Matt "CNN Explains: Sequestration". CNN.com. 19 February 2013 (accessed 28 February 2013) http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/politics/cnn-explains-sequestration/index.html?iid=article_sidebar Web.
2. Bash, Dana and Barrett, Ted "Top Senate Republican doubts damage from defense cuts" CNN.com 26 February 2013 (accessed 28 February 2013) http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/politics/budget-republicans/index.html?iid=article_sidebar Web.
4 comments:
I agree that finachial security is important. What bothers me about this issue like so many is the grid lock between the two parties. Republicans can't or won't compromise because bruised egos. Democratics don't want to give an inch either so they are just as guilty. From the reading of text book and class discussions I see why people don't want to vote. They can make all the promises to us in the world but what do they actually do to help the people who elect them picker like children on the playground. No wonder this country can't get any issues solved. Anybody have any suggestioins on how to fix this
I totally agree with both of you. while many people are waiting for the government to reduce the money that the government spend. On my opinion i think that the government are not to worry about how munch we are in debt because I think if the government was concern both parties would sit down and compromise. For me I don't think this should be political issue instead the government should do what is best for the country. Therefore it is time for the Obama Administration to starting doing what he promises citizens during 2012 campaign. it is time for both parties to balance the budget because we young people would be the one in trouble because we will have to pay China. Therefore, citizens are tired of listen to both sides agreeing and don't get something done.
Jon I'm glad that you posted on this. It inspired me to post on the health care debate. I've got to think that any politician with a brain knows that sequestration will do nothing to reduce the federal debt. If they want to be serious about that then they could pursue a single payer health care system. This is all just a political stunt in my opinion. The link about the cuts not even effecting the Pentagon are correct. When you factor in the expected reduction from spending with Iraq and Afghanistan there may even be a net increase in the Pentagon's budget. Therefore social programs are the only ones that actually end up taking a hit. Another great betrayal of the poor.
Financial security is very important and always has been and frankly always will be. That being said with out a compromise from both sides that are arguing this issue that will never happen.
Post a Comment