If Congress doesn't "do something" by Friday (March 1), a whopping $85 billion in budget cuts will automatically go into effect. The scare word is "sequestration."
The way politicians and their lap dog media are whining, one would be forgiven for thinking the world was coming to an end.
- Readers of this blog warn about DOD employees getting furloughed.
- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns that the U.S. military will instantly become a "second-rate power."
- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is warning that flights to major cities could "experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we have fewer controllers on staff."
- According to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the sequester will "effectively halt American meat and poultry processing" (or perhaps spread mad cow disease).
- The National Park Service says you're trip to the Grand Canyon is in jeopardy.
- Advocates warn sequester could mean big cuts for the low-income.
It goes on and on and on …
But have no fear. The world isn't coming to an end. These dire warnings are just symptoms of the Washington Monument Syndrome.
You see, politicians and bureaucrats hate spending cuts. Any cuts. Even when the supposed "cuts" result in real world budget increases. In politics, money is power. Money buys patronage, campaign donations and votes. This is why Mordor-on-the-Potomac can never spend enough of your money.
When faced with budget cuts — no matter how small — politicians and bureaucrats quickly threaten to shut down "everything that inflicts the maximum discomfort on the victims of the government monopoly (a.k.a., taxpayers)," in hope of scaring a subservient public into coughing up even more of their paychecks. But the public is being offered a false choice. These warnings are merely a ploy.
Again, there are no actual spending cuts in the sequester. Zip. Zero. Nada. In fact, spending will keep on increasing. In other words, all their warnings amount to one Big Fat Lie. Even if the cuts were real, there's so much fat in the federal budget that cutting a mere $85 billion would go completely unnoticed by the average American. That is, by anyone other than greedy politicians and bureaucrats.
Here's just one example. The 10 largest federal reserve system banks are subsidized by approximately $83 billion per year. Cutting these subsidies alone would just about cover the entire $85 billion sequester. So why aren't the politicians and bureaucrats talking about this? Why haven't we seen (or read) dire warnings in the media about pending cuts in bank subsidies?
Because nobody would care.
Most likely, the masses would approve of eliminating the $83 billion annual subsidies to the banks, and the politicians would then lose $83 billion of your money to spend (on buying patronage, "donations" and votes).
The very idea of selfless politicians is a cruel joke. They will always and everywhere serve their own purposes first. If that means taking away the few things you don't mind paying for, so be it. "You stay classy, people who spend my money." You stay classy.