The Sequester Lie

By Bob Russell 

 Feb 24, 2013 

The big deal they are making over this sequester nonsense is giving me a headache.  I have made this point on several social network site discussions so I thought I would put it all together on one place.  Obama, his cabinet minions, and all of the members of Congress come out and say; Social Security checks will stop, meat plants will shut down, the FBI won’t be able to track terrorists, the Border Patrol won’t be able to secure the borders, airports will nearly shut down, pony rides in national parks will end, the sun won’t come up on March 2, and on and on and on.  And the RINO’s in Congress aren’t doing any better.
This is such tripe that it is actually embarrassing, and infuriating at the same time.  This is the best we have to govern our nation?  For anyone who doesn’t already know, let me lay out a few facts that you won’t hear on any “news media” outlet, including FOX News. The “media” covers the false flag talking points arguing but not the facts. NOTHING IS BEING CUT!!!!  That is just the truth of it.  The “baseline budgeting” system our government runs under calls for about 1.8% – 2% increase every year.  This is how they do it, every year.  They build in an automatic increase in every department in government, and they do it for the very reason you are seeing played out again for the 300^th time in the last 25 years.
Follow me here because this is the crux of the game being played by both political parties.  Spending goes UP, every year, in spite of the “horrendous cuts” they are “forced” to make.  The federal government is expected to spend approximately $3.7 trillion in 2013, yet they are wringing their hands and fretting over cutting $85 billion out of that total, which is 1.1% by the way.  According to figures released by the Heritage Foundation the federal government spent $3.6 trillion in FY 2012. If we take $85 billion off of the projected $3.7 trillion in 2013 we still find the government spending $3.615 trillion in 2013.  What the “the sky is falling” politicians are telling us is that spending $61.5 billion MORE,  1.66% more, in 2013 than they spent in 2012 is somehow a cut in spending, and will cause untold calamities if it happens.  How does that work?  I must have had a defective education because that doesn’t look they are spending less to me.
The “hawks” on defense want social items cut and the “hawks” on social items want defense cut.  So, they come to a “compromise”, eventually.  They posture and argue and pound their chests for their cause and in the end some things may get cosmetic ”cuts” (read less increase than planned) but spending overall still goes up.  They have “fought” on television, on radio, on the floors of the chambers and told us how ”terrible” life will be if we cut their pet project.  Both political parties get their sound bites in so low information voters on both sides of the aisle get just enough to think someone actually cares about what affects them and hence can count on that vote the next time it is needed.
The question I have, and one that never gets answered, is “if the country is going to almost totally shut down because we “cut” $85 billion, why are they spending $3.7 TRILLION and where does the rest of it go?”  This “spending cut” is going to cause firemen, policemen, and teachers to be laid off?  Since when does the federal government pay for these services?  Isn’t that why I pay county property taxes and state taxes?  Social Security checks won’t go out, pony rides in national parks will end (sad face), soldiers won’t have what they need to fight, and 700,000 federal employees in the Defense Department will be laid off? WHY??? Won’t the $61.5 billion MORE they plan to spend this year cover those social security checks, pony rides, soldier supplies, and employees just like they did last year?  Every politician and every bureaucrat comes out and cries about how their particular area is going to die a death of financial starvation, yet government is going to spend more money than last year.  Sorry, I guess I am just too stupid to understand their logic; at least they think so.
And to spending cuts, I have yet to hear Obama speak about cutting back on his vacations to Hawaii and Spain, golf with Tiger Woods, a special Leer jet for his dog to go to Martha’s Vineyard, or a junket on Air Force One to Nevada or wherever  to announce another of his “green energy” or “jobs” scams that he could have announced from Washington.  I haven’t heard about ‘Ole Nan’ giving up her first class jet for a broom.
Rand Paul recently returned $600,000 that he was authorized as a Senator but didn’t spend.  Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has been doing this for years.  A side question is “how much money do they get for ‘office expenses’?”  Apparently too much!!
I also haven’t heard anything about cutting congressional or White House staff, not to mention the pay raises they seem to get quite often.  We hear the horror stories about how We the People will suffer due to “cutbacks” but never how Congress or the Executive Branch plan to do with less.  It is always We the People who must do with less while they spend more on themselves, with never a true cut in government spending. Rush recently mentioned on his radio show that 7 of the 10 richest counties surround or are very near Washington, D.C. (De Cesspool). No recession in or near Washington!!!
In the real world they are scamming liberal and conservative voters alike.  The people running OUR government take We the People for being so stupid we can’t figure this out.  The sad fact of the matter is that about 51%, at least, buy into this lie. How do people like Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Diane Feinstein, Sheila Jackson Lee, Charles Rangel, Hank (Guam might tip over) Johnson, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, etc. continue to get elected?
Much of the problem comes from the Republican Party yet these same people who turn their backs on conservatives get elected time and again. WHY????  I don’t know of a single major promise Republicans have made in 20 years that they have actually followed through on, yet they continue to receive the same support from the same people.
The problem is that we have no other options. It is either ultra-liberal Democrats or very-liberal Republicans.  We vote time and again for the lesser of two evils because that is all the options we have.  That has to change if we are going to salvage the Republic established in 1791 and defended for all these years by the blood of American patriots.  The biggest problem facing America is career politicians and bureaucrats who could care less what We the People think or what the Constitution says.  A 3^rd party encompassing the 67% of We the People who make up the TEA Party could cure these problems.  Where are the leaders to step up and lead????
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 24, 2013

The American People Need Real Spending Cuts

By Sheldon Richman Wednesday, 
February 20, 2013
 

President Obama and other so-called progressives insist that the American people are not overly dependent on government. They also predict dire consequences if the automatic budget "cuts" known as sequestration take place March 1.

 

Both claims cannot be true. If modest across-the-board "cuts" — mainly cuts in the rate of growth — in military and domestic spending pose a threat to the American people and the U.S. economy, then the country is alarmingly dependent on government.

 

Federal spending has grown dramatically since the 1970s, with the biggest increases coming during Republican administrations. Spending today is hundreds of billions greater than in 2008 and much higher as a percentage of the economy. True, it is lower now than in 2009, but that year, a combination of George W. Bush and Obama "stimulus" spending, set a record.

 

The sequester consists of $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts in non-entitlement spending growth over ten years. To put that in perspective, Reason editor Nick Gillespie writes, "Remember that we're talking about $1.2 trillion dollars taken out of a projected $44 trillion or so in spending. What kind of budget discipline is that?" 

 

As that March 1 sequester approaches, the Obama administration warns of severe consequences for national security and economic security.

 

 

It is hard to take seriously the claim that even a small and temporary decrease in Pentagon spending would endanger the American people. Military spending has skyrocketed since the year 2000, and the United States spends almost as much on the means of war as the rest of the world combined — indeed, it spends more than it did at the height of the Cold War. The U.S. military is now out of Iraq and is beginning to leave Afghanistan. One should expect a fall in spending under those circumstances — unless the government plans to invade more countries.

 

Yet Obama and outgoing defense secretary Leon Panetta foresee great danger. Nonsense. As analyst Veronique de Rugy writes, "Defense spending has almost doubled in the past decade in current dollar terms and will continue to grow in spite of automatic cuts." Summarizing Rugy's findings, Gillespie writes, "Assuming maximum sequestration, Defense would increase only 16 percent in current dollars over the next decade, rather than 23 percent without sequestration." Some cut.

 

Of course, much could and should be cut from the military by ending the U.S. government's imperial foreign policy — which makes enemies for the American people — and moving to a policy of strict noninterventionism. This would not only save money; it would be the right thing to do. The U.S. government should not be policing the world.

 

What about the claims that a spending slowdown would harm the economy? We're told the economy could fall back into recession if spending is not maintained at the vigorous pace previously planned. After all, it is argued, if government workers are laid off and fewer military contracts are written, less money will be in people's hands to spend on goods and services. Considering that the government wouldn't actually have less revenue under sequestration, this is an outrageous exaggeration if not an outright lie. Of course, beneficiaries of that spending — especially the parasitic politicians and the military-industrial complex — have every reason to mislead the taxpayers. The people's natural interest in lower taxes and lower government spending must be overcome somehow. Frightening them into believing that even a slowing of the growth in spending would wreck the economy is just the ticket.

 

Even if it were true that the economy would slow down, it would be no more than a short-term effect that would quickly give way to real, sustainable economic growth, assuming the government took other needed steps to free the economy. Government employees and contractors spend the taxpayers' money. If the largess ends, the producers of that wealth will be free to spend and invest as they like. That's not only just; it's how sound economies are generated. Politicians use the force of the state to shape the economy to their own purposes. That violates freedom and stifles prosperity.

 

Contrary to the Keynesian ruling elite, government does not generate economic growth. The free market, unburdened by spending, taxes, regulation, and privilege, contains all that it needs to raise living standards for all. After sequestration, let's start seeing real and substantial cuts in spending.

 

Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va.