"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.
