ROBINSON: Contempt for Washington's pseudo-crisis

<WC1>I hate the sequester, beginning with its name. "Sequester" is a verb, not a noun. This ridiculous exercise is not just unwise and unproductive, but ungrammatical as well.

I hate the way the sequester diverts attention from issues that actually matter, like unemployment, gun violence, climate change, failing schools and the need to spur economic growth.<WC>

<WC1>I hate the way it heightens our insularity at a time when we really ought to be paying attention to the rest of the world. Remember Syria? Dictator Bashar al-Assad is still slaughtering civilians left and right. Wasn't he supposed to be gone by now?<WC>

<WC1>I hate the sequester's artificiality. With all the nation's problems, our leaders created a new one for political reasons — and then, for those same political reasons, they didn't even try to solve it.

I hate the sequester's essential ambiguity, its Janus-faced dual nature. It is punishing, cruel and counterproductive, as the White House insists; and it is also no big deal, as Republicans contend.

President <WC>Barack <WC1>Obama is correct when he says that the sequester's blunt-instrument cuts will cause needless hardship, even if the administration has been alarmist and flat-out wrong with some of its warnings.

The president's claim that janitors at the U.S. Capitol would receive a pay cut and Education Secretary Arne Duncan's report that some teachers have already gotten pink slips both were awarded Four Pinocchios by <WC>t<WC1>he Washington Post's "Fact Checker" columnist, Glenn Kessler. This roughly translates as "not even remotely true."<WC>

<WC1>But the administration's dire warnings of airport congestion and flight delays are plausible, Kessler found, and perhaps inevitable. And while there have been no immediate furloughs or layoffs — in schools, government agencies or firms dependent on government contracts — the math suggests there will be.

However, Republicans are correct when they say: Come on, get real, we're talking about an across-the-board cut of $85 billion, just 2 percent of the budget. While they're wrong to claim that a cut of this magnitude will be painless, they're right to point out that the republic will not crumble into dust.

Medicare will see no more than a 2 percent cut, while Medicaid and Social Security will be untouched. Since these programs are so big and costly, other parts of the budget will have to face much deeper cuts to make up the total $85 billion savings.

© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View