Wehrwolfen
Senior Member
- May 22, 2012
- 2,750
- 342
- 48
By Anthony B. Sanders
03/10/2013
The sequesteria (irrational fear of sequestration) continues. For example, Newark Mayor Cory Booker claims that the sequester “is brunt, brutal and blind.” The Obama Administration suspended tours of the White House “because of sequestration.” George Mason University City and Regional Planning Professor Stephen Fuller claims that 2.14 million jobs could be lost because of the sequester.
Now, take a deep breath.
The only way that the sequester is a “cut” in spending is if corporations and the government PLANNED on increased spending and it does not happen. Moral to the story: do not count your chickens until they hatch.
Well, the government has made erroneous predictions before (or oversold the impact of spending). Take for example Chrissie Romer and Jared Bernstein’s prediction of unemployment with and without the economic “stimulus.”
As Don Adams from Get Smart once said: “Missed it by that much.”
[Excerpt]
Read more:
Economic Mirages: House Prices, Unemployment, Stimulus Spending and Sequesteria | Confounded Interest
03/10/2013
The sequesteria (irrational fear of sequestration) continues. For example, Newark Mayor Cory Booker claims that the sequester “is brunt, brutal and blind.” The Obama Administration suspended tours of the White House “because of sequestration.” George Mason University City and Regional Planning Professor Stephen Fuller claims that 2.14 million jobs could be lost because of the sequester.
Now, take a deep breath.
*** Sequestration reduces the rate of increase in federal spending. It does not cut a penny of actual spending.
*** Under the sequester, total federal spending goes up, just by less than it would have gone up without sequestration. HOW is this a “cut” in spending?
*** Total federal spending in 2012 was $3.53 trillion. The PresidentÂ’s budget request for 2013 was $3.59 trillion, an increase of $68 billion (about 2%). Under sequestration, total federal spending in 2013 will be $3.55 trillion, an increase of only $25 billion (a little less than 1%).
*** Under the sequester, total federal spending goes up, just by less than it would have gone up without sequestration. HOW is this a “cut” in spending?
*** Total federal spending in 2012 was $3.53 trillion. The PresidentÂ’s budget request for 2013 was $3.59 trillion, an increase of $68 billion (about 2%). Under sequestration, total federal spending in 2013 will be $3.55 trillion, an increase of only $25 billion (a little less than 1%).
The only way that the sequester is a “cut” in spending is if corporations and the government PLANNED on increased spending and it does not happen. Moral to the story: do not count your chickens until they hatch.
Well, the government has made erroneous predictions before (or oversold the impact of spending). Take for example Chrissie Romer and Jared Bernstein’s prediction of unemployment with and without the economic “stimulus.”
As Don Adams from Get Smart once said: “Missed it by that much.”
[Excerpt]
Read more:
Economic Mirages: House Prices, Unemployment, Stimulus Spending and Sequesteria | Confounded Interest
