Share This Page

Sequester: Not even a cut

| Saturday, March 9, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

If you're reading this, you've survived the “sequester” cuts! That may surprise you, since President Obama likened the sequester to taking a “meat cleaver” to government, causing FBI agents to be furloughed, prosecutors to let criminals escape and medical research to grind to a halt.

The truth is that the terrifying sequester cuts weren't even cuts. They were merely a small reduction in government's planned increase in spending. A very small reduction.

After a decade, the federal government will simply spend about $4.6 trillion a year instead of $4.5 trillion (in 2012 dollars).

And still members of Congress look for ways to delay the cuts, like spreading them out over 10 years instead of making any now. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked, “If we cannot do this little bit ... how are we ever going to balance the budget?”

Actually, we don't even need to balance the budget. If we just slowed the growth of government to 1 percent or 2 percent a year, we could grow our way out of unsustainable debt.

Paul recommends freezing the hiring of federal workers, staying out of most foreign military conflicts and eliminating four Cabinet-level departments: Housing, Education, Energy and Commerce.

Those Cabinet departments don't exist just to help you. The housing budget funds vouchers that give people an incentive not to seek higher-paying jobs, plus advocacy groups and in a few cases even homes for the bureaucrats themselves.

Federal education spending pleases education bureaucrats and teachers unions but doesn't raise kids' test scores. Energy subsidies go to “green” crony capitalists like those who ran Solyndra. The Commerce Department awards taxpayer-funded trips to politically connected CEOs to promote their companies overseas.

We could even cut more departments. I'd start with the departments of Labor and Agriculture. Workers can labor and farmers can farm without federal help.

But the chances of bigger cuts — or tackling the biggest threat, Medicare — seem remote when government won't even ditch budget items like these:

• $140,000 to study pig feces in China.

• $100,000 for a video game about aliens saving planets from climate change.

• $88,000 for a comedy tour in India called “Make Chai, Not War.”

Since so much spending is lavished on older Americans, we can let younger generations foot the bill. But that will be tricky, since the portion of the population that's my age keeps getting larger.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough young people to pay for what we'll collect from Medicare. Birth rates are falling. Young people in America now don't have enough babies to replace themselves, let alone enough to become workers to fund Medicare. Worse, many of those young people learned bad lessons from us baby boomers — like how to be parasites.

Frederic Bastiat wrote, “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” But government, which wants you to think it is so useful and generous, can't spend a dime until it takes that dime from us.

It's time to stop kidding ourselves. Think of the sequester “cuts” as a very gentle wake-up call.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of “No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.”

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 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.