The 'sequester': Deception & lies
The great “sequestration” battle comes to a head this week. But whether Congress has the guts to pop the pimple of deception and lies that it is remains to be seen.
The Obama administration is threatening all manner of Nanny State Armageddon on Friday if Congress doesn't undo the mess of his making and, in the process, raise taxes yet again. Federally subsidized life as we know it will be severely threatened, goes Leviathan's talking points.
But the bottom line remains this: A government drowning in debt, fueled in no small part by nearly incomprehensible waste, is threatening to pare “essential services” if the Congress allows budget “cuts” — that aren't cuts but reductions in the rate of spending increases — to kick in on March 1.
It's despicable behavior. And it's no more evident than in claims that our military readiness and national security are at stake. To wit, “cuts” in Pentagon spending will apply only to the rate of growth in spending. “In other words, defense spending will increase in every year, even with sequestration cuts,” notes The Washington Examiner's Byron York.
The sequester debate also has exposed anew how the federal government has its tentacles wrapped around the states' throats — taxpayer dollars laundered through the Washington middlemen and back to the states to pay for everything from teachers and teacher aides (a local function), to Head Start services (a failure), to tuition subsidies (that only jack up the cost of tuition).
Washington debates never have been more intellectually dishonest than this one.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.