You’ve pulled off the seemingly impossible: correlating the ineptitude of government workers with a lack of funding. Let me assure you, government workers the world over – even in leftist paradises like Spain – are curmudgeonly and entitled. It’s a symptom of a lack of competition, not a lack of money.
I’m not sure what we’re arguing here. I hope everyone agrees that it would have been better if Congress had come to agreements on targeted cuts.
So that leaves, if they can’t, should the sequester have been aborted?
IMHO, it shouldn’t have. Agreements would be better, but without the sequester, Congress wouldn’t have been forced to deal with the potential catastrophes. I think we should have a sequester every year, hanging over Congress’s heads, so that eventually they learn to play together and do what needs to be done.
Meanwhile, the sequester has some dramatic consequences, but without the impending axe, there’s no incentive for Congress not to be dysfunctional.
Regarding the claim that 1% cut would balance the budget: if we do that every year, eventually it would balance the budget. Would it do it the way we want? Oh heck no. But it might be better than letting it grow without bounds.
BTW, IMHO the target shouldn’t be to completely balance the budget, but to keep it within a target deficit rate that we believe is sustainable. Does anyone think deficits without bounds is sustainable?
On the other hand, maybe there’s a better “free market” solution. When our debt gets so high that the rest of the world is no longer interested in funding it, then the only way we can continue is simple inflation. Gee, I wonder if that is a stable solution. It didn’t work too well for the Weimar Republic, but perhaps our situation is different enough.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, do you feel lucky, punk?
I will refrain from using inappropriate language here, but please go away.
But it seems like, at least for the foreseeable future, we get the worst of both worlds: poorly thought out budget cuts are occurring, and Congress isn’t working together. The whole underlying assumption of the sequester has failed.
Oh, and since the OP cited a Washington Post story, here’s another: Sequester BringsPain to Long-Term Unemployed.
Except that waste in the Department of Transportation goes well beyond that statue and waste in the federal government as a whole goes well beyond just the Department of Transportation. I can list solitary examples of waste all day. However, in that previous thread I also linked to a government report that explained how we could cut 100 billion dollars without sacrificing any services at all. It’s very possible to do. Our Congresscritters simply refuse to do it.
“Austerity” in Europe is characterized by decreases in the rate of growth of government expenditures and large tax increases. Not “large cuts in government programs.”
I’m not saying there weren’t any large cuts to certain programs in the various European countries, I’m saying that government expenditures as a whole have not been subject to large cuts.
So there aren’t any true Scotsmen in Europe?
He has told us over and over that the recession was the worst since the great depression. What sort of trips did presidents go on at tax payers’ expense during the 30s?
The *recession *is over. This is the recovery. Please try to keep up to date.
Also, the President is the head of state. He needs to travel as part of his job. There weren’t high speed jet aircraft in the 30s, so any comparison would be absurd.
At least we did reduce the budget. It may have been at the expense of revenues (thus increasing the deficit, if so). But that’s a hard call to make, or rather, the kind where it’s easy for either side to dress things up to say whatever they want. Speculative economics, oboy!
But you’re right that the underlying assumption (that Congress would act rather than face the sequester) was wrong. That’s why I think we should keep turning the screws, until they can’t stand the pain. Of course, you’d probably ask whether we could stand the pain, and you’d have a good point.
I just got furloughed. Hello, 3 day weekends, and goodbye, 20% of my salary. I don’t know if this counts as a catastrophe.
It’s worth noting that agencies are unsure how long the sequester will last, so they are cutting the things with long-term impact first in hopes that the whole thing ends before the effects are felt. Cutting back on staff training for a year, for example, probably won’t have an enormous effect. But if that happened for several years, eventually you’d end up with serious gals in your staff.