Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.
We have heard the term sequestration discussed on the news, but how many have a firm grasp of what it entails?
Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute does a masterful job of explaining it and when the reader finishes the article and views the video they will understand why the Tax and Spend Liberals are not for it.
by Dan Mitchell
The looters and moochers in Washington are increasingly agitated by the prospect of sequestration.
Automatic budget cuts, we are told, will indiscriminately slash vital programs and undermine economic growth by reducing government spending.
This is utter bunk. I would like to “slash vital programs,” but the chart I prepared earlier this week shows that the federal budget will expand by $2.4 trillion if a sequester occurs.
So the net effect of sequestration, as I explain in this Larry Kudlow segment on CNBC, is that the federal budget won’t expand by $2.5 trillion.
I did this interview from London, by the way, where is was past midnight, so I hope you’ll forgive me for looking a bit groggy at the very beginning.
But I think I did a decent job once the juices started flowing, though it’s hard to have an argument with someone who still believes in the snake-oil of Keynesian economics.
It’s sort of like having a debate about sailing with someone who thinks the earth if flat. Just like Krugman, Bernstein seems to reflexively think that it’s always a good idea to have a higher burden of government spending. So a sequester is a bad idea if you have this mindset, just like it would be a bad idea to sail off the edge of the earth. (Entire article below)