Why the sequester is going to happen


Given how hysterical the president and the media choir have been, you realize how entirely unwilling they are to address — that is actually eliminate a chunk of – the $16 trillion in debt we have. Even the most minimal reductions bring howls of distress. The president wants “balance” in budgeting, but so far the real cuts have been in defense ($473 billion over ten years). And the “cuts” the president points to include gimmicks like not paying for wars we are done fighting. Meanwhile, the tax hikes (elimination of the payroll tax break, $600 billion in expiration of part of the Bush tax cuts) are all too real. 
The president’s mantra that the rich should pay a “little more” makes you wonder what a “little more” means. The top 10 percent of tax payers pay about 70 percent of the taxes. Should that go to 80 percent? 90 percent? Quite aside from the impact it would have on economic growth, investment and employment perpetually raising taxes on the rich doesn’t get you very far. The president wanted $1.6 trillion in new taxes in the fiscal cliff deal. But he will add trillions more than that by spending with abandon. That is why the debt is soaring and will continue to soar under this president: He won’t stop spending. 
And this is why Republicans are insisting we go forward with the sequester and adjust as needed later. This is the only mechanism they have to direct the focus on spending, which the president refuses to address seriously. If you have any doubt, go back to his laundry list in the State of the Union. Debt, what debt?
The President's "balanced" approach is the road to austerity chosen by European governments that has put their economies in the tank.  It is the California, Illinois approach to a spending addiction that has ruined their economies.  Texas took another route and its economy has not only recovered, but is in a growth stage.  What Texas did was cut spending and not increase taxes.  Texas is getting a benefit from increased oil production, but the federal government could have that too if Obama would get out of the way and open federal sites to energy production.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?