With less than four weeks remaining before a March 1 deadline and an ideological budget divide deeper than ever, automatic across-the-board budget cuts — known in Washington as sequestration — may be an idea whose time has finally come. But don’t expect anyone to be happy about it. When Senator Lindsey Graham said, “I’m ashamed of the Congress,” his disappointment was genuine.
But when the cuts arrive, expect cynical finger-pointing all around. The pain of sequestration was intended to force a budget agreement. That deal never happened, but the harsh reality of honest spending reductions will surely open some eyes. That alone may be a silver lining that makes the whole exercise worthwhile.
Comments
The fox formerly in charge of the chicken coop has spoken. Any unbiased approach to the present state of affairs includes 2 unpaid for wars, an unpaid for Medicare drug benefit, an unwarranted tax cut for the wealthy, unregulated greedy financiers/bankers, and a recession implemented by the trashing of the ecomony via a housing bubble. Listening to Sen Sununu pontificate on what was created by forces he led is a sad commentary on Republican reality testing. His solutions magnify the dissaray of his Party.
John of course skips of two key factos. One the fourth quarter contraction was the end result of "reduced federal spening" so much for govt. doesn't create jobs or help the economy. In addition to that the fourth quarter numbers will probably revised slightly upward within the next three months as is usually the case. Of course John knows both of these things but thinks the rest of us fell off the turnip truck.
Second, the sequestration takes a chunk out of the defense budget. I have no problem with that and think in fact neither does the Pres. nor the Dems. Everyone who can count knows the DOD is bloated, hence the choice of Hagel, not for his military prowess but for his own desire to reduce defense spending and make the Dept. more efficient.
But for John as for most the Party, except the gullible base, this has never been about deficits, it has been about lower taxes for the rich, that fight is lost. It has been about reducing the cost of entitlements. They have lost their best opportunity in that struggle and will now try to whack away and call it a victory. Sadly entitlements may well yet be addressed as many in the Dem. party wish to visit the subject as does the Pres. So we will see. But John, there's no crying in politics. You got got you wanted drastic cuts in spending, just not where you wanted it. Now you're trying to dress it up.
John, like Centerfold Scott, did such a wonderful job representing his state, that he was thrown out after a single term. A republican. In New Hampshire. That's how bad he was.
maybe it was NH's loss and Sununu's gain that he exited a state that is being opulated by dems.
What is "opulated"? And did he actually leave the state after they dfid not re-elect him? He de-populated it by one (or two or three) Sununus? Where does he live now? Perhaps they'd elect him to the Senate. The Gulf Coast is beautiful. BP says so.
Why does the globe continue to give space to this doom and gloom convoluted republican. It defys logic. John you are such a loser.
I agree...the Globe should not waste space on this partisan hack. There are conservative voices that could add to a balanced discussion of the budget. Mr. Sununu's comments are always predictably unbalanced.
Reasons that rational people should not take Sununu serioulsy. 1) He prefers the idea of cutting government assistance to poor children, the elderly and the disabled over limiting money to defense contractors - and admits so openly 2) Consistently uses the term "spending crisis" when the concept has been throughly debunked and 3) quotes the likes of Paul Ryan.
WOW! where have you been living? Our own Sec. of Defense says further cuts jeopardize our safety--and he is a democrat. Hagel is a known obama flunky; unmasked by his pathetic meeting with senators. Even the dems are embarassed and reluctant to support him. Your support places you in really good company.
Congratulations on following the party line that the repubs are interested solely in throwing the elderly/disabled off the cliff, and other non-thinkin fo-lde-rol.
To qualify for Social Security you have to be either elderly or disabled. To qualify for Medicare you have to be poor which also happens to be the qualification for food stamps (unless you are both poor and a child). If Republicans are stomping their feet to cut these programs then yes, they are "throwing the elderly/disabed off the cliff". It doesn't require any degree of thinking at all to understand it. Any five-year-old could make the connection. Here's a quote directly from Sununu: "..conservatives are deeply tempted by the prospect of real reductions in domestic spending." Read - Conservatives are deeply tempted by the prospect of giving less food to poor kids, giving less medicine to sick people and giving less money to the elderly for health care and housing. Stop saying you want to cut social programs and I'd be happy to stop calling you out for it. Until then, expect it.
I don't care whether the SOD is Dem. or Repub. the US needs to rethink defense spending. Period.
Time for change. Cut DOD its about time. Also I have a friend who is "retiring" from the Federal goverment at age 55 with 80% pay! How can the Feds expect us to support that??? If we are so broke make some changes and stop coming to me for more money....
Is the Globe paying this guy for these columns that are full of BS ?
Obama, our Commander in Chief endorsed this sequester. That's becaause he is the first Commander in Chief who HATES the troops. If the cuts were nothing but Defense spending, he wouldn't complain at all. (And neither would the anti-military Globe). And he is emphasizing this point by nominating Chuck Hagel who also endorses Defense spending cuts and treaties that give away America's military advantage for nothing in return. And both are complete APPEASERS with regard to Iran and its nukes.
Also, how come only Social Security and Mecicare are discussed by the media with regard to spending cuts? There are plenty of other things that could be cut that wouldn't affect elderly and disabled people.