p14, v7.08 — Left Turn / Right Turn

Left Turn / Right Turn

Mountain Views News Saturday, February 23, 2013

MVNews this week: Page 14

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

Mountain Views News Saturday, January 12, 2013

WHO’S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD
SEQUESTER?

I’ll make this week’s article pretty short and to the point, because the facts
on this matter are pretty short and to the point. Despite the reams of paper
and barrels of ink spilled in the cause of scaring the American public about
the imminent sequester, the truth is that it won’t hurt us. In fact, it’s probably
going to do a world of good.

Quick refresher: The sequester is a term that applies to the results of
recent congressional budget negotiations in which both sides agreed that if
they couldn’t come up with a budget compromise, then spending would be
automatically cut by 10%, more or less across the board. Domestic spending
and military spending were going to get the axe. Sounds pretty menacing and
potentially devastating until you translate it from politic-speak into normal
English. Let’s do that now.

First and foremost, not all spending is going to be cut. Social Security and Medicare and other
entitlement spending items are NOT going to be cut. Gramma’s and Grampa’s checks will arrive. I
repeat, they WILL ARRIVE. Medicare WILL BE PAID. The list of items not going to be reduced
goes on awhile.

Second, the sequester is not a reduction in spending like you and I think about the word “reduction”.
If I spent $100 last year and tell you that I’m going to reduce spending, you’d probably think I’ll only
spend $90 or $85 this year. In other words, you’d think I’ll really reduce spending from whatever I
spent last year. That’s not how it works in D.C.

Here’s the Potomac Shuffle. If the government spent $1 trillion last year and plans to spend $1.2
trillion next year, then a “reduction” is anything under the $1.2. So if spending goes up from last
year’s level, but goes up by less than what was planned, then politicians call it a “reduction”.

In D.C. spending cuts are decreases in the amount of the increase!!!!!!

Third, the amount of the spending cuts is ridiculously small. They’re only going to reduce spending
by 2.8% from the projected amount. The projected amount of spending is about 30% greater than it
was in 2007. Nobody is really cutting back. Here are the numbers:

Year Revenue Expenditures Deficit Sequestration “Reduction”

2007 $2.5 trillion $2.7 trillion $200 billion Doesn’t apply to this year

2012 $2.4 trillion $3.5 trillion $1.1 trillion Spending would be $3.4 trillion

The “cuts” will not adversely impact the economy, gramma, grampa or most Americans. The
argument that they will hurt us gravely is a bunch of @#$%#@#%* to scare us into allowing politicians
to spend what they want. Spending is what they do best because it brings them power.

As to why we should worry about all this spending, again the numbers are pretty simple. At
our present rate, we are spending $1 trillion more each year than we receive in tax receipts, and
tax receipts are back up to 2007 levels. This isn’t a taxation problem, it’s a spending problem. The
government has to borrow the amount of the deficit each year to keep itself in business. It is future
generations who will have to pay this back.

We are engaging in generational theft: stealing from future generations in order to pay for bloated,
inefficient spending today. Here’s what it looks like for your kids, my kids, your grandkids, and my
grandkids.

Social Security estimates that young people entering the workforce now will lose 4% of their
lifetime wages by participating in the Social Security system.

Third graders today will lose 25% of what he or she contributes into Social Security.

The total national debt at this time is $14 trillion dollars. The entire U.S. economy is $15 trillion.
None of us in our right mind would spend like this or incur debt at this level. We wouldn’t be allowed
to. Sadly, all of this gets worse if/when interest rates rise. When they do, the amount of interest the
government has to pay on the debt will skyrocket, deficits will grow and the problem will escalate.
Spending has to be reduced (and I mean reduced like you and I have to actually reduce things) now.

In conclusion, anyone who does not insist that the spending be brought under control – anyone
who does not flood their Congressman’s and Senator’s phone lines and emails with complaints – is
guilty of aiding and abetting grand larceny from all of our kids.

When your grandkids ask you what you did to make their life better, let’s hope you don’t have to
say, “nothing honey, absolutely nothing!”

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance writer and has spoken to several civic and religious
organizations on cultural and moral issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 children
and is active in the community. He can be reached at gregwelborn@earthlink.net.

GREG Welborn

HOWARD Hays As I See It

“a positive step forward that
begins to rein in federal spending”

- House Speaker John Boehner
(R-OH), 2011

“It is a product of the president’s
own failed leadership.”

- Speaker Boehner, 2013

“significant move . . . will
finally begin to change the way
Washington spends taxpayer dollars”

- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA),
2011

«Clearly, this is not the best way to go about
controlling spending,»

- Majority Leader Cantor, 2013

“victory for those committed to controlling
government spending and growing our economy”

- House Budget Committee Chairman Paul
Ryan (R-WI), 2011

“Don’t forget it’s the president who first proposed
(it)”

- Chairman Ryan, 2013

No, those last two quotes aren’t signs of Rep.
Ryan breaking character and gushing over
President Obama – but more on that later.

Last week I wrote of my having jotted down
impressions of the State of the Union after
hearing the speech, but before being exposed
to subsequent media commentary. Sen. Marco
Rubio (R-FL) in his response did me one better; he
prepared his own remarks on President Obama’s
address before even being exposed to the speech.

Sen. Rubio offered a feverish rebuttal to
statements the president didn’t make, from a
speech the president didn’t give. Listeners were
undoubtedly reminded of the talking points
which doomed Mitt Romney’s presidential
campaign last year. They also recalled similar
remarks made during the eight years under
President Bush; remarks used to justify policies
leading to the biggest economic collapse of our
lifetime.

Memories aside, one need only look at the
situation today here at home – with employment,
economic growth, deficit reduction and the stock
market showing the effects of President Obama’s
policies, and comparing it with those European
countries suffering under enforced “austerity”
regimes; countries not only denied the economic
recovery seen in the U.S., but that face the
prospect of “double-dip” recessions.

Americans remember earlier efforts to raise the
minimum wage, as President Obama advocated
in his speech. They remember arguments that it
would cause employers to cut jobs, and how those
arguments proved bogus.

(A paper put out this month by the Center
for Economic and Policy Research finds four
major effects from raising the minimum wage:
1) Increased Efficiency, 2) Increased Demand
for goods and services; 3) Lower Turnover,
with employers recouping costs by savings on
recruitment and training, and 4) Higher Prices,
though merely a 0.4% increase overall for a 10%
increase in the minimum wage. The impact on
unemployment is negligible, if anything.

(Joel Benoliel, Senior VP at Costco, puts it this
way; “We’d all be better off in our country if the
lowest-paying jobs paid enough for people not to
be on food stamps and not to be on welfare when
it comes to going to the hospital.”)

Americans remember Republicans claiming
credit for the Budget Control Act of 2011 and
now, with its “sequester” provision due to kick
in March 1, see them trying to blame the whole
thing on President Obama. The quotations
opening this column show how the party line can
change in less than two years – especially when
political strategy takes precedence over principle.

Americans remember how back in 2011,
Republicans, for the first time in history, attached
conditions to their raising the debt ceiling allowing
us to pay our bills – a move the president’s top
economic advisor called “quite insane”. President
Obama sought a “clean” up-or-down vote on
the debt ceiling, but House Republicans stood
opposed. The president offered a combination of
spending cuts (a lot) and revenue increases (a few)
as part of a deal to avoid our nation defaulting on
its debts. Republicans, however, insisted on all
cuts or nothing – and the White House realized
they were crazy enough to crash the economy if
they didn’t get their way.

The “sequester” proposal, with automatic
spending cuts (not exempting the military)
kicking in should a deficit-deal not be reached,
was offered to get over the obstacle of Republicans’
holding hostage the “full faith and credit” of the
United States. As Michael Tomasky put it in The
Daily Beast, it was an “idea” of President Obama’s
in the same way it would be the “idea” of a parent
to pay ransom to a kidnapper holding a child
hostage. In either case, it’s something you do
when you realize the other side is nuts.

Whoever’s idea it was, it didn’t receive any
Democratic votes in the House. It got the votes
of 174 House Republicans, 28 in the Senate, and
they bragged about its passage. But now that
we’re about to experience real-life consequences
of this sequester, it’s all the president’s fault.

Americans remember the record-high deficit of
$1.41 trillion for fiscal year 2009, which began four
months before President Obama’s inauguration,
and now learn the CBO projects it to come down
to $845 billion for the current fiscal year ending
September 30 – a 40% drop since Obama’s been
in office.

Americans with long memories probably don’t
recall the Eisenhower years as being marked by
out-of-control spending, so might find interesting
last month’s Bloomberg article noting that the
growth in federal spending over the past three
years has been the slowest since 1953-1956.

A long memory isn’t required to recall
Republican leaders insisting the problem isn’t tax
rates, but deductions and “loopholes”. Americans
remember as they see Republicans willing to
gut care for our seniors and veterans, education,
infrastructure repair and military preparedness in
order to protect taxpayer subsidies for our most
profitable companies (Exxon/Mobil, Chevron)
and loopholes benefiting corporations moving
jobs overseas.

In a new Pew Research / USA Today poll,
President Obama’s approval rating is 51%, with
Republican congressional leaders’ at 25%. 79%
of Americans favor a deficit deal consisting of
both spending cuts and tax increases; 19% agree
with Republicans that tax increases be kept off
the table. Should there not be a deficit deal,
31% would blame President Obama, and 49%
would blame Republicans. That’s something
Republicans themselves should remember as they
continue blocking the president’s agenda.

We’d like to hear from you!

What’s on YOUR Mind?