The dreaded sequestration is almost upon us.  It is supposed to take effect on March 1–next Friday.   There seems to be a stalemate.

Some people think it is OK and that will reduce spending.  The Sequester is for people who make NON-decisions.  It will emasculate our military and make our nation vulnerable.

It will not touch most Medicare or Medicaid and it won’t impact Social Security.  However, it could crush NoVa as defense contractors let their people go.

What do YOU think will happen?  Will the Sequestration  happen or is this another case of brinkmanship?  Will thousands lose their jobs?  Will the economy go into recession?

More importantly, why can’t Congress get its act together?  How do you ink Sequestration will affect us here in Northern Virginia?

 

32 Thoughts to “The Sequestration”

  1. Lyssa

    So does this mean that Booz Allen (and the like) will stop making money off the government?

  2. Pat.Herve

    I just love how when Congress cannot get its act together, and come up with a plan – it all becomes Obama’s fault for pushing the Sequester. The Sequester was a stick – something that would entice Congress into making a deal – apparently, Congress would rather take no action and allow the Sequester to take place instead of making decisions.

    The same folks that are saying let it take place are the same folks that say if the US does not pay its bills, it is not a default. Can spending be reduced – sure – but the reduced spending is going to affect the boots on the ground – and their support, not the wasted spending on unwanted programs that are useless. Or the NIH – where we should be investing, yet we will be cutting 5%.

    Gov Mcdonnel has come out and asked that the sequester not take place – I guess he is the next one to be tagged as a RINO.

  3. Emma

    Congress is in recess this week, so they’re clearly not feeling the pressure.

  4. BSinVA

    I heard an interview with former Senator Alan Simpson of Montana. He was asked when did he think the Congress would get their act together and get serious about solving our economic problems. He said when the government functions grind to a halt and you have to wait three hours to get through an airport security check, you will contact your representatives on the hill and demand action. When they fail (and they will), you will vote all of them out and get a new group that will campaign on solving our problems in a bi-partisan way. That will be the day that the resolution begins.

  5. I sure hope it doesn’t come to that.

    1. Are you watching the pbs gun show? @cargo

  6. Of course…. Congress could just repeal it…… and start over.

    It’s not like they have an actual budget or anything. They are making things up as they go along.

    1. Not the issue. They need to recind their own law.

  7. @Moon-howler
    Didn’t know that there was one on? PBS gun show?

    I watched Antiques Roadshow yesterday. It was part I of Myrtle Beach. And there was yours truly and wife dead center in the background while the host was talking with someone about their antique 1851 Colt Dragoon.

    Part II is next week I think.

    1. Was the dragoon yours?

      Here you go. Watch it on the computer. I thought it was very good.

      http://video.pbs.org/video/2336640229/

    2. Here is the show you are talking about, I think. How far do we watch to see Mr. and Mrs. Cargo?

      http://video.pbs.org/video/2334636161

  8. Back to sequestration. Governing by crisis.

    This is totally irresponsible. It starts in the house. It needs to get fixed there.

    A million job cuts….way to go jerks!!!!!

  9. @Moon-howler
    We are in the 23:55 segment, in the background. I’m the doofus cupping his ear to listen to the discussion. Mrs. Squid is the brunette in front of me.

  10. I’m the guy in the ball cap and long hair. That was my college hippy look….now I see why my niece was praying desperately that I cut my hair and shave before showing up at her wedding.

    🙂

    1. You have all that long hair? I wondered and then said….nahhhhhhhh.

  11. I don’t have it anymore. Had to get cleaned up for a wedding. That was my “college hippy” phase since I never had long hair. Now its out of my system and there is great rejoicing!

  12. Starry flights

    I heard that our troops in Afghanistan are having to make do with only two meals a day, thanks to the sequester. That’s just wrong if true.

    1. Is that true? I hope that is an urban legend.

  13. That won’t be true…especially since the sequester, or as I like to say call it…the decrease in the increase, hasn’t happened yet.

  14. blue

    @Cargosquid

    Agreed. The sequestration would result 1.2 trillion reduction or a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration would also impose cuts of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs — OVER TEN YEARS! totaling roughly $109 per year based on OMB’s interpretation of the Act

    And remember, at one point the President was willing to accept $2.50 in spending cuts for evey $1 in revenue increases to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years — but that was before the election. The reason the Act hits Defense so hard at $54 billion per year is that neither the Congress or the President would seriously take on non-discretionary and exempt spending (to include Defense) under the sequestor – before the election.

    With or without the sequester spending increases each year through 2021. Indeed it increases by $2 Trillion over the next 10 years. Defense will climb by about $100 billion under the sequester. That covers more than compounded inflation.

  15. blue

    Ahh, and then there is the question of who will feel the pain of this massive reduction to the budgetary growth curve. One might think that DC, Maryland and Virginia would be prime suspects. Don’t hold your breath. It has not happened before during Gram Rudman or any other budget reduction effort. No, the keepers of the purse(s) will protect their own first. A big ticket purchase item here or there stretched out, bring in a battle group a little early this year or next, but few furloughs will actually take place.

  16. Starry flights

    Then why is Gov McDonnel calling for no sequestration?

  17. Starry flights

    Army Gen. Ray Odierno: Sequestration, CR ‘The Greatest Threat To Our National Security

    By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
    Published: February 15, 2013
    http://defense.aol.com/2013/02/15/army-gen-ray-odierno-sequestration-cr-the-greatest-threat-to/

    Our troops in Afghanistan are going to feel the brunt of these cuts more than anyone when they are unable to get resupplies in weapons, ammo, vehicles, aircraft, food and medical supplies in a timely manner. Take the General’s advice

  18. @Starry flights
    If we cannot get resupply to them in a timely manner then that is the Commander in Chief’s fault. It is PRIMARY duty to defend the nation. He sets the priorities.

  19. Starry flights

    Ah, yeah, that is why the president is trying to avoid sequestration, as he has been arguing for some time now

  20. Emma

    Sequestration was Obama’s idea in the first place. He signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law after a nasty fight. It was an anti-democratic, very untransparent gimmick of taking budget decisions away from the Congress, because Obama felt that they couldn’t be trusted to do his will rather than what we elected them to do in the first place. Now we have to watch him spend a week debating and blaming a Congress in recess for something that he fought hard for in the first place.

    1. Congress created the legislation. It was to buy time. Obama signed it. Who can undo it? Congress.

      That was quite a bit of revisionist history, Emma.

      You really did quite the spin on something that should have never happened in the first place. It was all over the debt ceiling–that’s where it all started.

  21. Starryflights

    Yeah, well, I don’t say how you can say Obama isn’t serious about cutting spending then.

  22. Emma

    He’s not. It’s a gimmick.

  23. blue

    I referred to the OMB report above. Interestingly the news has relied on the CBO figures, which as best I can tell incorporate some assumptions of economic growth that OMB does not, but here it goes:

    The CBO estimates that while FY 2013 spending will ultimately be reduced by $85 billion, “discretionary outlays will drop by $35 billion and mandatory spending will be reduced by Whopping $9 billion this year. So in this fiscal year, we would actually be looking at a $44 billion spending cut, or less than a 1.5% reduction from what federal spending otherwise would have been and yet also means that federal spending in 2013 will be about $3.553 trillion. That is a $44 billion cut to a $3.553 Trillion budget. In 2012, federal spending was $3.538 trillion, so yes, that means that even with the sequester we will be spending more in 2013 than we did in 2012.

    So what is al the fuss about? IMHO it is really about the accross the board percentage cuts mandated and insisted on by Obama himself. Yes, this was his idea. Small, and goverment labor heavy social programs get hit the hardest by the percentage approach and he finally understood the memo that OMB surely wrote to him. The chicken little act is to protect his community organizer type programs. It is not over a concern for the US economy, the national defense, air traffic safety, the number of cops or teachers or any other high minded ideal (they are exempt from the sequester BTW) – so he lied again. They all remain essentially fully funded and can afford to stretch out their investment costs and expenditure rates

Comments are closed.