Editorial: Sequester  Even the name reflects stupidity

Thursday, March 7, 2013

And, as people who work with words, we can’t stand its name. “ Sequester” is a verb, not a noun.  A minor thing, but also emblematic somehow of just how useless our national leadership has become.  If you’re going to bludgeon the poor and middle class with spending cuts, at least show enough respect to give your hammer a grammatically correct name. 

The sequester, of course, refers to across-the-board spending cuts of about $85 billion, or roughly 2 percent of the annual federal budget.  It sounds trivial and, within the grand scheme of things, maybe it is.  The republic will survive. 

The damage comes in the way it’s being applied.  The injustice comes with whom will be affected.  Services that rely on federal money in every state will be affected, including defense installations in Pennsylvania. 

Let’s not forget how we got here.  It started with the congressional Supercommittee on Deficit Reduction of 2011, of which Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey was a member.  The sequester emerged as a fail-safe for cuts should the supercommittee fail, one designed (reportedly by the White House) to be so odious that it would force elected officials to compromise on a better solution. 

How incredibly naive.  Congress has no incentive to compromise, because state legislatures have gerrymandered districts so much that it’s almost impossible to affect its status quo with votes. 

Compounding the problem, as usual, is a national media willing to focus on everything but the core issues, the underlying reasons we’re saddled with a dysfunctional and non-representative government. 

An example?  Well, last week Speaker John Boehner equated the collection of federal taxes to theft, demonstrating a willingness to sabotage the principles of the U.S. Constitution to achieve a politically useful end.  Not long after, President Obama — in a contemptibly weak display — whined that he cannot not force House Republicans see reason with a “Jedi Mindmeld,” mixing his “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” metaphors. 

Guess which statement blew up as a pander to nerd rage in the national media? 

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania will lose $26.4 million in education funding; $21.4 million in support for teaching disabled children; $5.7 million in environmental regulation compliance; 2,300 children will lose Head Start services; seniors will lose almost $850,000 in nutrition assistance; 1,000 fewer domestic abuse victims will get help; some 1,800 children in poor families will lose day care that allows their parents to work; 26,000 civilian defense department employees will be furloughed. 

As you can see, these are services that predominantly affect the poor and middle class, the very same people Obama claims to be looking out for. 

But you know who won’t be affected by the sequester? 

Members of Congress.  The White House.  The people who got us here.  The people — we’re talking Congress now — who could still, to this day, pass a law to avoid this anytime they wanted.  And a president more interested in political gains than the people who re-elected him. 

It feels like an elaborate ruse, one intended to accomplish an ideologically motivated and largely unnecessary goal while covering those responsible from blame.  It’s hard to avoid the notion that both Congress and the White House wanted this to happen. 

If a 2 percent reduction (actually a decrease in the rate of government growth) is so important to ram through, then our leaders should make the case and take the consequences.  They should be honest and up front.  And, most of all, they should show some solidarity by taking on some hardship themselves.