Here's the long version (as it relates to local governments and regions):
Here's one short version which attempts to put the macro in perspective:
My bottom line: Our elected representatives refused to directly address our fiscal problems unless there was a gun to their (and our) collective heads. The "sequestration" is that gun. President Obama's people reportedly invented the sequestration idea, and he supposedly approved its employment. IMHO - if the reports are correct - the President deserves the credit for realizing that only a "nuclear solution" would force the opposing elements of our federal government to address the problem head-on. He should take credit for this, as I believe history will value his role in solving our fiscal woes more than it will value his pandering to the extreme elements of his liberal consituency; increasing the food stamp rolls; and handing out cell phones to people on welfare.
That's my point, when ever there is a s***sandwich served up, obama is absolved of any responsibility. It drives me crazy.... The irony of the sequestor is that it does not affect those on the "dole" Some unemployment benifits will expire but for the most part the social programs continue unabated.
There's a lot of emphasis on the defense cuts, but from what I've seen there WILL be benefits cut as well. That's why the Dems are howling about it and the Republicans are too willing to stand fast and let it happen.
Also - the sequester limits government growth and will dramatically curtail some government agencies.
I say - let it happen. They won't cut any other way. The era of "responsible government" is long over. Now the government has to be forced to limit itself. The sequester is as good a way as any.
The GOP passed a bill in the House which would have empowered Obama to shift the cuts around to "limit their impact" on those agencies HE felt should be hit less. The Dems torpedoed it - undoubtedly with the approval of the President - because they really DON'T want to take any responsibliity for any cuts. Right there that tells you their mentality.
There has been a lot of gloom and doom over the sequester, but from what I've seen it cuts government back to levels when Bill Clinton was President. To me, this makes sense because we didn't have Iraq, Afghanistan, al Qaeda back then - and according to the Obama administration these are all basically HISTORY. So let's cut back to the days of Wild Bill Clinton. And then let's come up with a way to force the Dems to pass a budget so the people can see where the spending is actually projected.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Here's a pretty good analysis of the "effects" of the sequester on the U.S. political landscape:
I find it interesting that the Dems are of the belief that once sequestor is "felt"; the American public will "demand" higher taxes. I can't recall a time in recent history where we were all begging for higher taxes...The SSI has already increased costing ~$100-$150 per individual household. I am not in any hurry to lose more. The other reality is the demographic most hit is the government. Ironiclly this is what needed to get hit the most anyway. Sequestor has the oppotunity to be a "re-set"; if managed correctely we can be in a better place in a years time as oppossed to the last 10 years of fiscal failures.
Yesterday congress voted to raise THEIR slush funds.
Sec of State authorized given what was it 250 mil or 500 mil to Egypt.
Again, spend, spend, spend.....
It is interesting. The latest is that the President and the Republicans are now "quietly cooperating" on spending cuts to "blunt" their "impact":
And as usual, our "no-budget" Congress is working on a Continuing Resolution to fund the government. However, in an interesting twist, one congressman (a Republican - of course) has decided to introduce an amendment which highlights the apparent excesses of our leadership. Rep. Louis Gohmert's (R-TX) amendment would bar funding for the President's golf outings until the White House reopens for public tours. (Apparently WH tours are a big deal for his constituency.) Golmert points out that a Senate estimate states that 341 federal employees could have avoided being furloughed if Mr. Obama had not traveled to Florida for a recent 3-day golf "extravaganza." I guess that most people (other than government workers) don't give a dump nowadays about federal furloughs, but if one of the President's golf trips can pay the salaries of 341 of them, perhaps somebody should look into it.
Finally - in a related story - the President's approval rating has dropped "and Americans blame him and his fellow Democrats almost as much as his Republican opponents" for the country's "fiscal mess." According to the story, "confounding the White House's efforts to blame Republicans for the cuts, most respondents (to a Reuters/Ipsos online poll releasaed today) hold both the Democrats and Republicans responsible." Nearly 1800 adults were surveyed between March 1 and March 5.