Sequester: Real Threat, or The President Who Cried Wolf

For those who are being frightened by White House gloom and doom predictions of National tragedy if Sequester "cuts" take place after March 1st, please keep in mind that they are actually referring to $85 billion in cuts to the fiscal year's budget increase. It's a sleight of hand trick used often by dishonest, self-serving politicians (which is to say, politicians). Here is some insight from a Forbes Magazine Op-Ed on 2/19/13:

"The sequester “cuts” are subtracted after  increasing  appropriations subject to the sequester at the rate of  inflation and adding back in more than a trillion dollars (over ten years) of spending exempted from the sequester.

The sequester has been advertised as “cutting” discretionary spending over a ten year period by $995 billion. After inflation adjustments and exempting more than a trillion dollars of defense and non defense discretionary spending from the sequester, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projects discretionary spending to increase by $110 billion over the decade. There is no actual $995 billion cut. Rather there is a $110 billion increase."

Look at it this way: Let's say you paid a monthly rent payment of $3000 per month in 2012. Your property manager anticipates that your rent should increase to $3200 per month in 2013. As it turns out, your rent only increases to $3100 per month. So, would you say that your monthly rent payment was cut from $3000 in 2012 to only $3100 in 2013? Would you be surprised if your property manager told you that your home maintenance was going to be reduced because of their loss in revenue due to that "cut"? 

Now, please imagine that the place you're renting has a leaky roof, rats running around all over the place, and you suspect there are a few dead bodies buried under the house, judging by the smell. Oh, and for some dumb fucking reason, every four years your homeowner's association renews the contract of this completely inefficient property management company (or another one just like it). And every year they want more money to do the same shitty job. (Unless they only get a little more, which is the same as a devastating cut, right?) 

Of course, President Obama and his administration offer a frighten populous the dire consequences of the Sequester cuts. From the Huffington Post (2/25/13), "Sequester Cuts Outlined By Obama White House As March 1 Deadline Looms". According to President Obama, "The uncertainty is already having an effect," Obama said. "Companies are preparing layoff notices. Families are preparing to cut back on expenses. The longer these cuts are in place, the bigger the impact will become."

In case you're not afraid enough yet, I offer these recent White House press releases, relayed very sympathetically by CBSNews.com:

* Sequestration would be devastating to the nation's already hard-hit public education system: A fact sheet released earlier this month says 70,000 kids would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teachers would find themselves at risk of unemployment, and funding would be eliminated for up to 7,2000 special education teachers, aides and staff.

* The White House has also warned that up to 2,100 fewer food inspections could occur under the sequestration, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) might have to furlough all its employees for up to two weeks. Not only would this pose public health risks, the administration argues, it would also potentially add costs in lost food production. Plus, a number of states would see losses in public health funding and access to funding for the treatment and prevention for substance abuse and HIV.

* The administration says about 600,000 women and children would be dropped from the Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program from March through September, resulting in 1,600 job losses. And more than 100,000 formerly homeless people would be kicked out of housing and shelter programs, according to a White House fact sheet.

Incidentally, the Sequester's $85 billion in cuts (cuts in increases, that is) is about the same amount as the $83 billion per year subsidy the U.S. provides to Big Banks alone, according to a 2/20/13 Bloomberg.com editorial, "Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?" The editorial does in fact answer the question as to why banks receive such generous subsidies: "The financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars ($640,655,870, 2011-2012) every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy."

And those are just bank subsidies! According to Citizens for Tax Justice, many Fortune 500 companies receive many billions of dollars worth of tax reduction through questionable executive pay and stock option deductions. (http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/02/facebooks_multi-billion_dollar_tax_break_executive-pay_tax_break_slashes_income_taxes_on_facebook--.php). Quoting their report, "Facebook’s current and future tax reductions from the stock options exercised in connection with its 2012 IPO will total $3.2 billion."

Ask yourselves this: Why is the White House threatening taxpayers with draconian cuts to necessary programs? We are talking about $85 billion out of a $3.7+ trillion budget. And please don't forget, we are talking about a $85 billion cut to the increase (not actually a cut).

I believe the President and his administration are crying wolf and playing politics with regards to the effects of the Sequester. I don't like it, and I don't like the way Democrats and Republicans in Congress make back-room corporate tax deals in return for campaign donations, and at the same time claim that the government doesn't have enough money to fund necessary social programs.


  

Blaming Matches for Arson

San Diego Police Chief: We Can Disarm Americans Within a Generation

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."

What a surprise, another guy who carries a gun, and has an armed security detail, advocating firearm confiscations from law abiding citizens. Yeah, good luck with that, Chief.

The crazy thing is, the more these politicians (Obama, Biden, Feinstein, etc.) talk about gun control, the more gun sales increase, and the more NRA membership increases (several hundred thousand new members in the past 8 weeks). Seriously, gun distributors are selling out of firearms and ammunition. Most semi-automatic rifles, with the exception of .22's, have literally sold out in the United States.

There is absolutely no way that the NRA could have done more to promote record-breaking gun sales in America than these myopic politicians have unwittingly done. I wish they would stop focusing all their attention on the guns, and deal with the causes of gun crime (like gangs, drug addiction, domestic violence, mental illness).

Can you imagine how ridiculous it would seem if Mothers Against Drunk Driver (MADD) spent most of their energy protesting against cars? Yet these politicians arrange press conferences and photo ops to hold up scary looking rifles that have seemingly been possessed by some evil entity that makes them kill people.

According to the Center for Disease Control, "In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States." 10,228 people! Yet vehicles are not considered the cause, and only the drink drivers' cars are (sometimes) impounded.
(http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

According to the FBI 2010 crime statistics, by comparison, in the same year, 358 people were killed by rifles. That number includes rifles of all types, not just the semi-automatic "assault rifles" being vilified by President Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al. That means "assault rifles" were used to kill less than 358 of the 13,000 people murdered in 2010. Handguns were used to kill 6000 people, knives were used in 1700 homicides, and blunt objects in 540 homicides. (bat, hammers, etc.).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls

In spite of these statistics, it's just not as exciting for a Senator to stand in front of the fawning press holding a baseball bat, or a knife. Politicians take the easy route. They pin an American flag to their lapel, hold up a Colt AR-15, and proudly announce that they are tough on crime, and they're going to take on the NRA.  I guess dealing with gang members and perpetrators of domestic violence is too scary, even when you have a permit to carry your own concealed firearm (cough, cough, Mrs. Feinstein), or have your own armed security detail.

Until these misguided, myopic, self-promoting politicians venture out of their Ivory Tower and deal with the actual causes of deadly violence, none of their fact finding, blue ribbon advisory board, committee meeting over coffee and warm butter crescents is going to do much good. It's become a cliche, but "assault rifles" are simply not violent. Gang members, drug dealers, wife beaters, muggers and thieves, rapists, and sick fucking psychos are violent. Throw them, and keep them, in prison. Take away their guns, knives, bats, and everything else that could hurt somebody. Add 10 years mandatory prison time to any criminal who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. Put any parolee found in possession of a firearm back in prison for 10 years.

Law abiding citizens who do not share the criminals' violent traits are not the issue, and they're not the problem! By all means, make people submit to a background check before they acquire a firearm, initiate a database for seriously mental ill individuals, continue to teach citizens how to safely use and store their firearms. But declaring war against semi-automatic rifles is like blaming matches for arson. It misses the point almost completely.