4 myths about the spending cuts

[BlueGin]

4 myths about the spending cuts

The political bickering over the automatic spending cuts has done little but cloud the public's understanding of what's going on and why.

So we'll try to set the record straight on at least a few oft-repeated misconceptions

- See more at: 4 myths about the spending cuts - Mar. 1, 2013

this part of # 3 was pretty interesting. And not surprising.

To make matters worse, agencies will have little discretion about what gets cut since the sequester mandates that the cuts be made by the same percentage to every non-exempt area. Efficient programs will be axed right along with bloated or duplicative ones.

"The sequester mechanism was drafted in order to prevent flexibility by imposing the cuts all the way down to the program, project and activity level. The point was to make sequester so unpalatable that it would force Congress to address difficult choices," budget expert Charles Konigsberg said.

 

[kyzr]

That was not setting the record straight. Here are a few factoids that are actually true:
1. BO created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and yet did not push for the "big deal"
2. BO preferred the sequester to working on a practical solution
3. BO gambled that the GOP would fold rather than cut Defense. Bad Bet.
4. BO even yet refuses to manage the cuts responsibly
5. Since there is no Budget, they still need to pass "Continuing Resolutions" to fund the government
6. Why don't they work on a "big deal" to save SS & Medicare? The GOP could give in on a barely noticeable "transaction tax" closing loop-holes, and cutting subsidies and foreign aid, and the dems could pony up some entitlement cuts, like removing the cap, raising the age 1-year, etc.