The Sequester, ETC.

What really matters? Let’s talk a moment about this sequester thing that many do not fully understand or see the inherent importance, or lack of importance. Media talking heads are busy talking circles around it, though. It is now the fixation of the day, media-wise.

Let’s not forget that the sequester concept was initially suggested by the president and is now thought by the Oval Office to be highly undesirable. Same as they promoted the debt ceiling, this is just another cliff. With the habit of providing diversions and hoping people would focus on something other than what is more important. It is amazing that people are yet again being shell gamed and, in effect, themselves “sequestered.” The range of media talk show conversation, at least on Fox News, is that there must be “cuts” to existing programs but not once do I hear the word “elimination.” One only has to look at the Left’s explanation of how the sequester is so important and how the Republicans, once again, are the problem to see what is currently rattling around in the skinny skulls of the Left. It is what I call a person “having nothing to say but he/she goes ahead and says it, anyway.”

---

Sequester-related cuts can be renewed later. Subsequent arguments about societal “needs” designed to play on the public’s heartstrings in a way that people are led to believe that one would be heartless indeed to cut such a program regardless of being overly/excessively generous. To eliminate some programs that might relate to forestry or the environment would be fought tooth and nail by environmentalists but, under analysis, these programs are the type that have been instituted with a minimum of discussion and, of course, no view to the benefits compared to the expense. Will we someday be known as the poorest and yet the most-progressive nation regarding the environment? Of course we need to protect the environment and most educated people know and understand this. But, it is like the old union cry about how they are so essential and used as part of their claim that if not for the unions, there would be child labor and no mining safety. However, there are laws on the books not that provide relief from child labor and promote mining safety and the union’s defensive cries are no more than empty echoes from the past. Regarding the sequester thing, though, there’s not enough talk about elimination of programs and too much about merely cutting them. Cutting programs is no more than saying that the program or programs are more essential to politicians and not so much to society as it would be known if truth be told. As an old friend once told me, as he swept the surrounding area with his hand: “How much of this do we really, really need?” Programs designed to assist where assistance is really needed are, for the most part, unarguably desirable — with some idea of that there must be limits imposed lest the program becomes greater than the need. The conglomerate of programs has become one of The Program and is deemed untouchable in totality as is has become the existence of the IRS. This mindset was not presented suddenly but has grown from the early idea that Washington was a remote place, almost imaginary to some people, and untouchable. When an undesirable leader is replaced in other countries by someone who the local society believes to be a savior, as has been done in Egypt and other places such as Iran and the Philippines, then we can go back later and find that there was either no real change in how the people are treated or that the treatment worsened. But, can we not say that the same thing has happened in the United States? We got a “savior” and he was sent to Washington by the voters with full promise that there would be changes but now we see that those changes are not what people expected. There are those who reelected him and still think everything is good. Sometimes their rationale and excuses are disgusting where pity for the mindlessness of the Leftist Proponents of Societal Socialism is not the best evaluation. Those people will have to realize their mistake on their own since they will continue to protect and embrace their mistaken views. Change only comes from within. However, it is not a vain effort to provide information regarding failure/s while those on the Left may someday suddenly declare that the conclusions were their own idea when they “discover” them. Such is human nature, especially that of the Left. Instead of accepting blame, they are too busy looking around to blame someone or something outside their camp. Have you noticed how often the Left (Democrats) blame the Right (Republicans/Conservatives) of what they are actually doing? More smoke! Coming back to the sequester topic, there should be programs cut AND programs eliminated. Cuts are the old proverbial “kicking the can down the road” maneuver and it is not limited to politicians on the left. It is, to me, proof that there is no desire to go after expenses in a futuristic, long-range budgetary way but is designed to divert attention from what really matters. This is done with full expectation that the voting public will see the Left as the people with sympathetic hearts. Their arguments usually are devoted to address the emotional sympathies of people and common-sense logic is not truly apparent. Sure, some emotional sympathies are good and welcomed by most people but it cannot be done with abandon or lack of consideration for the budget, whether short-term or long-term. However, emotional voting is the mainstay of the Left and they play/prey on the concept. Raising the debt ceiling temporary, not making a permanent limit linked to the overall benefits, results in a way that the debt ceiling must be addressed again and again. There is little or no thought to the far future. It is often another attempt to cause people to focus on less-important matters. More obfuscation... It is obvious that people don’t see and understand that the antics of the Left are no more than an attempt at magic by unqualified magicians. It is a mystery to me how people are so easily fooled or maybe they are just too busy with work and trying to succeed that they depend on their local and federal representatives to take care of all problems. This then goes back to the selection of representatives and with the “gimme” mentality of the apparent majority of voters. With this gimme voter mentality we have what we see and get in Washington today. There are many voters who do not or did not vote, many who avoid the process “to send a message” when that message is one that will come back to destroy the country if allowed to continue. It boils down to voter apathy. Regardless of hating the concept of having candidate/s shoved down the voter’s throats, voters need to vote for the country and not for a man. The result of the last elections do not take into consideration the rank voter fraud combined with a fraudulent voting system we have seen where illegal voting actions are either promoted or ignored. And we see how our representatives in Washington stood by and allowed the promotion of the mistaken idea of “if you are here, working and driving a car — then you should be allowed to vote.” Where is the outrage, as the Left is prone to ask? Why do we allow our Representatives to get away with it? Could it be that the soft, unwillingness to do what is right by our representatives also represents our soft unwillingness in the equation??? We are always being told by the Left and the Left’s lapdog Media what is important. If we insist that we want change in ways not favored by the Left/Media, then we are accused of having a “birthing” type attitude or that we have an agenda. The Left does not have an agenda? Why do we continue to try to impress people with these simple ideas? Because many do not see how important they are and so others can place the ideas in a list of priorities in an attempt to reverse many of our society’s problems. The greater question then comes up: Do we have time to put society back on course? And, can it be done in time if only done piecemeal? But, it all boils down to the bigger question of, “Do we have enough people who really care?” We may find we are in a “fish or cut bait” situation but when there are no fish left, either one is a wasted effort. This may be our future if we sit idly by and allow the Sequestration of America. From the outgo, the Right/Republicans in Washington should have taken a “put up or shut up” attitude. However, just as our debt rating was downgraded by wrong approaches to the debt ceiling (one reason given was that there was no consideration directed to the debt which includes spending), it appears that all those keen-minded lawyers in Washington are too dense to learn from history. This is also why we need to be pounding on their doors to do the job they were sent there to do.