Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Is it the "Obamaquestor" ?

"The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it. House Speaker Boehner then announced that he got "98% of what I wanted" in the deal..." (Wikipedia)

That's the bill that set up the sequestration, to be triggered if both parties couldn't come to an agreement, on 1/1/13. A bill passed on that day delayed/mitigated some aspects of the sequestration. An even bigger majority of Senate Republicans voted for that as well, along with nearly 1 out of 3 House Republicans.

Hardly a pure Democratic scheme--according to the Republican Speaker of the House and just tallying up the vote counts.

As for its being inconsequential due to only reducing added spending....

"Economists predict the sequestration will contribute significant economic headwinds that will slow the recovery of the U.S. labor market. In February 2012 the CBO reported, 'In the absence of sequestration, CBO estimates, GDP growth would be about 0.6 percentage points faster during [the 2013] calendar year, and the equivalent of about 750,000 more full-time jobs would be created or retained by the fourth quarter.'"

But I guess to a Republican, losing out on 750,000 jobs and having the nation's credit rating downgraded and overall economy hobbled by 24% is just ducky, as long as the deficit is reduced. Even though no rational economist thinks cutting spending in a recession is a good idea (just as not cutting spending once you're out of a recession is also not a good idea)--as the sad example of Europe's countries that adopted austerity measures has proven.

It is not managing the economy to spend wildly--or to cut spending wildly. Nearly every big businesses borrows money when it needs to, but doesn't spend the loaned money on luxuries. It invests in manufacturing, infrastructure, training etc.  

No comments: