The sequester, a handful of "cuts" to federal spending, is set to go into effect this Friday (March 1), and it's causing a lot of panic in both the media and Washington, D.C. "Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk." The sky will surely fall!
The reason I put the word cuts in scare quotes above is, because the sequestration everyone is so worried about doesn't actually cut spending at all. The truth is that each and every department/program supposedly getting whacked by "devastating cuts," will in fact continue experiencing increased budgets, spending more money than they ever have before.
You may think budget cuts mean spending less, but that's only because you're a normal human being. However, when our Washington Overlords (and their media sycophants) talk about budget cuts, they mean spending will continue to increase, just (hopefully) at a rate slightly less than currently projected.
Always remember, Washington-speak is the language of deceit.
There's not a single reason to worry about "the looming $85 billion in automatic budget cuts." Especially when you stop to realize the sequester won't cut spending by even one thin dime. Sequestration is just another cruel hoax being played on us by the Washington drama team (queens) … and we've seen this play before.
Democrats will whine about how much they care while threatening cuts in "the most visible or appreciated service provided by the government, from popular services such as national parks and libraries to valued public employees such as teachers and firefighters." Republicans will whine about how much they care while threatening us that "draconian" cuts in military spending will result in millions of Muslims landing on our shores and surely conquering America (a feat the fedgov couldn't pull off in Iraq or Afghanistan).
Both sides love spending.
Partisans will jump to the defense of their favorite team, er, political party, and ruthlessly attack the opposing
team party. Harsh words will be spoken. Hardlines will be taken. Feelings will be hurt.
Negotiations will come down to the wire (as they already have). Dismayed, pundits and politicians will cry, "Why can't we all just get along" … Republicans will play their role (as they always do) by "caving" … and once again, the selfish bastards of the Unproductive Class will keep spending our posterity into oblivion, while raising our taxes (yet again).
Same as it ever was.
The good news, according to Scott Rasmussen, is that the People are catching on.
The expectation was that voters would rise up and protest the automatic spending cuts with such vehemence that it would force Republicans and Democrats to work together. But it hasn't happened. In fact, just 36 percent of voters want Congress and the president to stop the automatic cuts.
Voters, with good reason, have grown skeptical of Washington's commitment to cutting government spending. The last time spending went down from one year to the next was 1954. Voters are now catching on … Fifty-eight percent correctly recognize that they will merely reduce the growth of spending.
So while the president and members of Congress talk about harsh and devastating budget cuts, most voters understand that spending is not really being cut at all.
[T]he real reason for the panic in Washington is that the American people ultimately may applaud the spending cuts. That might mark the beginning of the end for politics as usual.
Unfortunately, Rasmussen's finding are contradicted by a recent Pew Research Center poll, finding "not one category where cuts were wanted by 50% or more of the population." Yikes!
Apparently all that bipartisan whining works.
I think they're both right. Voters aren't up in arms over the sequester because they "understand that spending is not really being cut at all." So no big deal. And while voters are happy to see spending cuts they perceive to go against the other team, um, party, most voters — both left and right — are, first and foremost, ardent defenders of their party (even over their own wallets), and therefore support whatever spending their side wants.
It's a lose/lose situation.