Sequestration is an alternative solution for stemming government spending. It was a bipartisan product so terrible that neither party’s leadership would want it. What makes it terrible is that it is an across-the-board cut that is made without management and control or political discretion.
Republicans argue that spending must be cut because it is so beyond our capacity to support the current rate and trends. Most Americans agree with that assessment.
Democrats argue that wealthy Americans need to pay their full and fair share toward revenue contribution before asking the Middle Class and poor to take a hit. Republicans agreed to a modest increase, however loopholes and breaks remain for many. That revenue is presently out of reach.
It is this analyst’s belief that Republicans and Democrats are glad to have the sequestration option go into effect because they know the need is serious and that Congress can’t or won’t act any other way.
Here is a story by the Washington Post that purports to describe a state-by-state impact assessment. Think about this from a Republican viewpoint.
- Big government is bad
- States receiving the most federal funding are bad states
- Bad states being hurt by sequestration is good
Basically, the story says that the DC Metro and area states would be hit hard. That is the exact intention.
[Distinct sound of America cheering heard in the background.]
"White House releases state-by-state breakdown of sequester’s effects
The Washington area would be hit hard. Virginia, Maryland and the District cumulatively would lose $29 million in elementary and high school funding, putting at risk 390 teacher and teacher-aide jobs and affecting 27,000 students. About 2,000 poor children would lose access to early education. In the area of public health, less funding would mean 31,400 fewer HIV tests.
And nearly 150,000 civilian Defense Department personnel in the area would be partially furloughed through Sept. 30 — with a total average reduction in pay of $7,500. (Defense Department officials previously explained that the furloughs would probably come in the form of workers being asked to take one day off per week, amounting to a 20 percent cut in pay.)