The Sequester Hits…


The sequester has already been analyzed to the hilt but 2 points are worth underscoring.

First, the spending cuts–which are only decreases in increases–amount to only $85 billion compared to a $3.6 trillion budget. If the President is correct and these types of cuts will be devastating to our way of life, then how will it ever be possible to balance the budget? $85 billion is less than 10% of the 2012 deficit. The Democrats tell us that all of this can happen in the futureĀ after the economy improves, but not if the first $85 would result in cuts to first responders, the release of prisoners, and fewer teachers. The retort to the President is simple: If there is nowhere to cut even $85 billion from the budget, then how will we ever achieve anything close to a balanced budget short of massive tax increases?

Second, the administration’s top economic advisor is claiming that 750,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts. If $85 billion in government spending equates to 750,000 jobs, then the original stimulus bill currently valued at $831 billion would have added over 7 million jobs, thereby cutting unemployment in half. And this doesn’t include various other stimulus packages. Why isn’t the media questioning the Keynesian logic that underscores this claim? Do we really need to spend money we don’t have just to keep the official unemployment rate at around 9%? Is this the best argument the administration can make?

These mandatory “cuts” are only the beginning of what must happen before we can restore fiscal sanity. Let’s hope the Republicans don’t cave.



  1. T  •  Mar 3, 2013 @10:32 PM

    The cuts aren’t really cuts anyway. If we can’t cut just $85 billion out of the budget, we’re doomed.

  2. Jeff  •  Mar 4, 2013 @8:57 AM

    I believe that even after the cuts, we are still spending more than we did last year.

  3. barry77  •  Mar 4, 2013 @4:46 PM

    Obama has shown his hand. He will never favor any budget cuts if he can’t handle $85 which, as Jeff pointed out, means spending what we did last year.

  4. Al  •  Mar 5, 2013 @1:31 PM

    Short and to the point!! The 2nd point really cuts to the chase when we argue with folks on how this impacts jobs.