The $85 billion in automatic cuts required in the so-called “sequester” were supposed to feel so dire that both Democrats and Republicans would fear letting them take effect — and would instead strike a broader, long-term bargain to significantly reduce the nation’s budget imbalance. But here comes the sequester anyway: As today’s deadline neared, there was little motion toward a deal.
Instead, the most ideological elements of both parties have talked themselves into thinking the cuts aren’t intolerable after all. Liberal Democrats don’t just like the deep reductions in the Pentagon budget; they also steadfastly oppose any modification of future Medicare and Social Security benefits, which is one crucial element of a long-term budget deal. Tea Party Republicans don’t just see any spending cuts as a positive; they also oppose any further revenue increases, which are the other crucial element of a deal.
Comments
Bring on the Sequestor - it will turn out to be a good thing for the country that will move us forward. All the scare tactics are just another indication of the lack of integrity of the Obama administration
People who see every issue through the lens of their ideology only expose their lack of thought.
Gosh, this editorial makes some sense. It takes two sides to create gridlock, just as it takes two to tango. Liberal zealots think that higher taxes and more generous entitlements have no economic or fiscal consequences. Tea Party partisans forget that the federal government has essential services to provide other than national defense.
What a sad, sad article. How many of these "doom and gloom" pieces is the BG going to publish?
We are "emergencied" out.
Pssst? Here is something else all of us know. If these "cuts to the increase" actually do cause pain, guess what? Congress can fix them at any time. It is not like this stuff is cast in stone. If the "deadline" is not met, they can do it next week, some deadline.
I am all for this truly toothless sequester; as people realize they have been deceived into believing the unspeakable effects of this paper tiger, they may be encouraged to put future deceitful, groundless rhetoric, into the perspective that it deserves. Obama and other doomsday criers are soon to be depicted for what they are; but the usual media will fail to reveal the "emperor having no clothes" because it will not be a pretty sight.
We need to cut back at the federal level and stop charging things - also this is the only way the Pentagon's overly bloated budget will ever get zapped. Even though 2 wars are over or ending they want the same amount of money to continue coming in.
Do you seriously think that national security threats have gone away. The Arab world is descending into civil war. Islamists are trying to take over West Africa. China is building up its navy and threatening our Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese allies. Hezbollah is infiltrating Latin America. Pirates are disrupting commerce in the Indian Ocean. Most of the world is not Ottawa, I fear.
Hey Ozark, have all the tanks, drones, aircraft carriers won anything for us? We're still being hamstrung by people working in mud huts building weapons from spare parts. The defense industries nas the military never have enough.-
170m jobs lost!
It is amazing that Globe ignores that the President was the author and prime mover of the sequester; and that his onlly motivation for doing so was to push the debt limit debate past the election. Rather, the Globe simply suggests that GOP should cave, because Obama won the election. That is naive, and partisan to the extreme. Standard Fare for the Boston Globe.
The GOP cave on allowing a tax increase at year end, and now should stand firm, and require that the President submit a plan to do what he wants: Cut spending, reform entitlements. Clearly, the president has a greater desire to score political points by doing nothing, than he does to work on solving a problem for the good of the country.
He will be forever lionized by the left wing, despite such gutter level brinksmanship.
Amazing? I don't think so. Consistent, yes. This paper has been consistent in its closed-minded support of only one party, authoring false stories that border on slander of the type that calls for legal action (but none is taken). These activities have gotten off with a wink; a sorry deceit that has led a trusting Public astray, to their detriment.
Aperture, you need to go up an f-stop or two. Your image of the Globe, media and the world appears quite blurry.
I see that the Globe has bought into the false equivalence so popular with the Inside-the-Beltway set. Not only is there a significance between the way the Republicans and the Democrats negotiate--the latter have given in on many fundamental points, while the former, especially in the House, have refused to compromise or agree to anything. How is the procurement of superfluous weapons (the hugely overpriced and problem-prone F-35 fighter jet comes to mind)--a form of corporate welfare-- and maintaining a substantial troop presence more important than the far from liberal benefits that are the sole source of income and health care for the elderly and disabled? Certainly the expenses of Medicare can be cut, but not recipient benefits; the presence of overcharging and double billing by purveyors, especially in the case of medical equipment and testing, have been amply documented. Medicare beneficiaries are already paying substantially for Medicare Part B and the long list of important services that Medicare does not cover. Finally, both the Globe and the Washington pundit/permannet correspondent/political consultant set consistently overlook the fact Social Security and Medicare are not budgetary expenditures, but trust fund accounts, sustained by separate and supposedly segregated taxes. I would say that these entitlements ought not to be sacrosanct, had Congress and the White House not already extracted considerable cuts in Medicare, cuts that weigh most heavily on those least able to bear them. Those of us who are not among the Globe's target audience of affluent suburbanites, but who have worked for modest pay and are in enforced (by age, redundancy, or illness) retirement, have no more money to give. There are numerous Republicans, the saintly former Senator Alan Simpson is but one, who have expressed an interest in eliminating Social Security. They, including Rep. Paul Ryan have also tried to have Social Security turned into individual investment accounts (Wall Street securities--after 2008!) and Medicare into a set voucher system that enriches private insurance companies. Nobody likes to have their ox gored, to use an old metaphor here, but The Globe ought to be aware that significant numbers of people have no more oxen to be be gored, while others have a large surplus. The latter group is now being represented by the Republicans.
Globe says "Liberal Democrats don’t just like the deep reductions in the Pentagon budget". CORRECTION: Globe meant to say "Liberal Democrats LOVE the deep reductions in the Pentagon budget. Notice then how eager they are to provide counseling to the newly unemployed Veterans.
Also: Libs are complainig that there is not a "Balanced Approach" to the budget cuts. Never fear.
National Review
IRS to Impose Excise Tax on Health Insurance Companies
By Wesley J. Smith
March 1, 2013 8:44 P.M. Comments
2Print Text On Monday, the IRS will propose imposing an excise tax under Obamacare, taxing health insurance companies billions each year. This extra cost of doing business will either be passed on to consumers, or if that is prohibited, it will undermine the financial stability of the companies. And this helps keep health care costs down how?
The Globe is a fraud. In 10 years, if we keep up this spending, we will be Greece. As it is, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare will have to be cut dangerously close to the bone to save this country from the Far-Left Libs, many of whom view Obama as their personal banker. And anyone who thinks the world is getting safer better open their eyes: An unfriendly world is plotting their demise.