"The lesson from last week's quick and decisive congressional action to
alleviate long lines at airports seems to be that the more visible your problem
is, the more likely you are to get some sort of relief from the effects of
automatic budget cuts known as sequestration."Wrong. The only
reason congress alleviated the lines at airports was because it was going to
affect them. They were readying to leave town for their recess and didn't
want to wait in airport lines. Disgusting.
"It's also disheartening to see politicians putting their own fortunes
ahead of the nation's needs."When do politicians NOT do
that.The priorities of Congress is1) get myself
reelected2) get my party in power3) do what is right for America and
the American people if it does not conflict with 1 or 2 above.
No, the lesson is that Congress could care less about denying medicine to cancer
patients, kicking children out of Head Start, and letting low income seniors go
hungry. Any of these are tremendously more important than whether or not your
Delta flight to Paris leaves on time.The fact is that Congress acted
to alleviate the problems they created for the FAA because it inconvenienced
their wealthy donors.If cancer patients and low income senior
citizens were major donors to political campaigns, then you can bet your bottom
dollar that Congress would have fallen all over themselves to deal with the
damage that "sequestration" is doing to their lives.
JoeBlow,I agree with items 1 and 2. I am not sure item 3 is that
high on their list (if it even appears at all).
What I take from this article besides the obvious as mentioned above is the DN
attitude that our budget trajectory is "insane", despite the facts that
President Obama has turned that trajectory downward the past two years, and the
annual defiict could be cut in half by 2016. In addition while they very kindly
don't "want" to hurt cancer patients and others in need..those
programs may in fact need trimming and very possibly elimination. So no facts
just right wing idelology at it's core, with a little humanitarian blush
applied for cosmetic effect.
" I am not sure item 3 is that high on their list (if it even appears at
all)."OK Twin. You got me there. What is also very
sad is that many of the voters seem to be happy with the priorities of their
"The U.S. Treasury Department (USGG10YR) projected it will reduce government
debt this quarter for the first time in six years as tax receipts exceed
forecasts and spending diminishes.The pay-down in net marketable debt was
estimated at $35 billion in the April-June period, compared with a projection
three months ago for net borrowing of $103 billion, the department said in a
statement today in Washington."(Bloomberg, April 29, 2013)CA budget is in much better shape as well, thanks to spending controls AND tax
increases. As Reagan said, Social Security does not add to the
debt. But we should increase the amount of income subject to Social Security
If something hurts the 1 percent's business, republican will solve it.
Re: pragmatistferlifeI just checked out the national debt clock.
Debt clock. org. Our deficit increases by one million dollars every 37 seconds.
Our income tax increases by one million every 2 minutes. You do the math.
Even if the trajectory is less, it is still in the wrong direction. Those are
facts, not right wing ideology.
One of the biggest tools to bring down the deficit is economic growth. So how
is austerity going to promote economic growth? It isn't--look at the EU.
More austerity should be delayed until the economy and employment
We don't need more austerity to fix this economy.We need more
stimulus.I say take away the tax breaks for richies like Romney and
oil subsidies to EXXON until they start to create good jobs domestically.
Uh, Maverick, even if ALL the money was taken from the richies, it wouldn't
even begin to deal with the budget/debt problems of this country. More
stimulus? Just what did Obamas first trillion dollar stimulus get us?
A lesson I learned from the air traffic controller incident is that Obama is
perfectly content to make my life more difficult if it serves his political
interests. In other words, he is not my friend.
@Mickey Kovars 2:59 p.m. May 3, 2013So you have no problem with
denying medicine to cancer patients, kicking children out of Head Start, and
letting low income children and seniors go hungry, among other thing. THAT type
of program is what should have been removed from the sequester, not abating an
annoyane factor like fight delays. But, then, cancer patients, needy children
and the elderly aren't as important as annoyed (rich) travellers . . .