sequestration defense

Everybody sing along...

It's a happy day... Oh happy days. It's a happy day...Oh happy days. When sequestration rules it drives the tears away... Oh happy days!

Apocalypse!

Armageddon!

Those are the words President Obama used to describe what would result from sequestration.

Please, don't make me laugh. The sequester will not only not ruin America, it will in fact start the process of fixing what Congress can't - no, make that won't - fix.

What's the upside?

Our magnificent Founding Fathers were all together in the creation of the United States, but it didn't mean they all loved each other or that they all had the same views about government. They sure didn't. But, those differences were acknowledged and incorporated into the Constitution and sanctified - for the people - in the Bill of Rights.

That's divided government folks. This ain't socialism, though sometimes it feels like it.

And it's that nagging feeling that a slimy, slithering strain of socialism is snaking its way into mainstream politics that keeps me up at night, in case we, the people, are overrun by "them" - the usurpers of republican democracy.

Thank goodness that divided government gave us sequestration.

So, Congress can't get along. That's nothing new. The question is who gets to pander to their constituents. That's nothing new. We have sequestration. So, what? That's nothing new.

We need to cut crap out of the budget - A lot of crap. I'm sorry if that word bothers you... but I'm not allowed to use stronger language. Don't hate me because I'm fed up. You should be, too. Maybe you don't use strong language. Maybe you don't use colloquialisms (you're better then me, I grant you that, for sure) but I'm willing to bet that you're just as mad as I am.

The Republicans want to protect the rich and their tax loopholes - including carried interest. I get that, and I vehemently disagree (and believe me, folks, I enjoy carried interest). The Democrats want us all to share the cost of running a social welfare state to pander to their voting constituents. I get that, and I vehemently disagree.

So, they can't agree on tax increases (oh, wait, wait don't tell me... they did agree on $600 billion in tax increases in January, remember?) and they definitely can't agree on spending cuts. Why are spending cuts so hard? Because, silly, spending is the bread and butter that Congress feeds to their voting constituents - and campaign-backing cronies. Duh!

Sorry, I got carried away. Forget all that stuff. I just had to get it off my chest.

This is really about sequestration and how good it will be for the country.

We need to cut wasteful spending, period. What better way to do it that to take spending cuts out of the hands of Congress and put the task squarely in the hands of the departments and programs that are wasting the money in the first place? They should be tasked with making cuts and laying off unproductive people who do unproductive things. This is great!

The Budget Control Act, passed in August 2011, basically said, "Hey, if this Super Committee we put together can't cut $1.2 trillion from the federal budget over the next ten years (they were shooting for $1.5 trillion, go figure) then, by this law, sequestration will go into place to the tune of $1.2 trillion between January 2013 and October 2121."

Pretty simple, but no one figured we'd get here. Me, personally? I was praying we would.

Here's a brilliant, simple play-by-play I found from Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC, Attorneys at Law:

To continue reading, please click here…