Here's the reality
For all the hand-wringing over the big, bad sequestration, most of the worst fallout predicted by pols never occurred. The Washington Post reminds that prison guards and FBI agents weren't furloughed. Americans didn't get stuck at border crossings. And hundreds of thousands of low-income women and children didn't go hungry.
Positively horrific sequester scenarios turned out to be nothing more than political pander, reinforced by the White House and/or President Obama himself. That's because, in reality, sequestration reduced the increase in federal spending by a measly 2.4 percent, according to The Heritage Foundation. That's akin to dieting by choosing a low-calorie beverage to accompany a Triple Baconator burger (approximately 1,330 calories).
Federal agencies accommodated the sequestration by finding room — in many cases, plenty of room — to cut nonessential spending. Such as the U.S. Geological Survey eliminating $2.7 million in conference expenses, The Post reports. Or Congress slicing more than $250 million from the Federal Aviation Administration budget for improvements at airports — some of which average less than one flight a week.
But whereas the sequester has been an imagined threat, the national debt is a proven detriment to economic growth. What's needed are meaningful spending and entitlement reforms, not the third-rate theatrics of Mr. Obama and his Doom & Gloom Players.
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.