Republicans Wrong About the Sequester


While all economic indicators show the economy improving, the effects of the Sequester are harming our Nation’s most vulnerable.  Republicans were wrong about the damage.

While the government is collecting armament for a fall budget battle, Americans are telling what effects the last inaction have had on their lives.

22 percent of Americans say they have been adversely affected.  The most affected group makes $30,000 a year or less.  And it could get worse if Republicans are able to enact planned additional cuts.

The national news media has reported specific hardship created by our governments continued protection of the wealthy, and lack of concern for its most needy.

In many cities response time for 911 calls have been noticeably increased, resulting in a plausible loss of life.

The most unforgiveable is the damage to those who serve in a military uniform.  Budget cuts in defense spending were, and continue to be, necessary.  They have been bloated since 2001.  Instead of cutting at the top, or attacking billions of dollars in waste, they were passed on to those who actually serve, those who were sent to immoral and unnecessary wars.

Service men and women have been forced to take mandatory furloughs, reducing their already meager incomes.

Civil workers on military bases have also seen cuts in their hours and pay.

Robert Deuel, a 61-year-old man in northern Michigan, told of his son, who works at Camp Grayling.  His hours have been drastically cut, affecting his paycheck and ability to support his spouse and two-month-old son.

“They offered him a job on the federal payroll and now they’re only paying him for half what he works,” Deuel said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Fox News on July 10: “The one lesson of the sequester is that there’s a lot of fluff that can be cut out before we actually have to get to things that are important, like paying our soldiers, providing for our wounded soldiers. All of that needs to be done, and if you cut out all the extra stuff we’re doing, we’d have plenty of money to take care of our soldiers.”  (We may ask where he derives his information.)

Ben Rhiger, a 28-year-old warehouse worker in Portland, Oregon, didn’t lose his job, but a close friend did.  He was a researcher, and Rhiger voiced his disgust with the government and its forced reductions which result in the destruction of upper mobility for the nation’s youth.

“In a time when we could have had more cash in the economy by having the government be a spender, be a customer to the economy, we didn’t do that. In fact, we took more money out of the economy. For that reason, there’s just less job opportunities for everybody entering the job market after college,” he said. “It just decreased any opportunity of getting more work experience, learning a trade or skill on the job, while being able to support ourselves.”

President Obama stated the overall opinion of working class America.

“Right now, what we’ve got in Washington, we’ve seen a sizable group of Republican lawmakers suggest that they wouldn’t vote to pay the very bills that Congress rang up.  And that fiasco harmed a fragile recovery in 2011 and we can’t afford to repeat that,” Obama warned during a speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. “Rather than reduce our deficits with a scalpel … we’ve got folks who’ve insisted on leaving in place a meat cleaver called the sequester that’s cost jobs.”

Republicans do not want to pay for the massive deficit incurred by eight years of their presidents untamed spending.  They deny the fact that he did not include the cost of his two wars in the national budget, and that average citizens will continue to pay for in decades to come.

The bottom line is that Republicans were wrong about the effects of the Sequester.

Alfred James reporting



One Response to "Republicans Wrong About the Sequester"

  1. William H. Wilson   July 28, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    I would really like to have facts posted, seriously. It is one thing to have an opinion, based on facts, there are many errors in your “report”. For example, “Service men and women have been forced to take mandatory furloughs, reducing their already meager incomes.” Tell me how active duty service members are being furloughed? They’re not. I looked on the site to ensure that it was not a parody site, didn’t see any written evidence. It seems to be based on the lack of facts being used here.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login