The World Turned Upside Down, Redux

When is a cut not a cut?  When it's a decrease in a planned increase, at least in DC-speak.  All the sequestration talk is mostly of cuts in increased spending, not in current spending.  And some of the $85 billion in "cuts" (about 2% of the budget) won't even go into effect until after 2013.  Of course, the President is lying about the sequester, but that isn't anything new--the lying, that is.  Apparently, some journalists who are calling him on it are being targeted.  (It will be interesting to see how the media brothers and sisters react.  My guess it will be like the jellyfish they mostly are.)  It seem the President is bound and determined to make these "cuts" as painful as he can, to make political hay out of them.  The pain is largely unnecessary.  There is Presidential discretion to move some funds around and, besides, he's said he'll veto a bill that might come out of Congress that will give him more discretion.  Gee, I wonder if all those people who see Obama as a friend of the little guy will even realize any of this.  Nah, it won't matter.

Let's pick on the Republicans, too, boobs that they have become.  To date, twelve Republican governors have indicated they'll sign on to the Medicare/aid (I still get them confused) portion of ObamaCare.  The Supremes gave states the authority to opt out of ObamaCare.  But, these Republicans have changed their minds.  Hey, wait!  Aren't these the guys vehemently opposed to ObamaCare?  Weren't they elected in large part because of this opposition?  Ah, but hypocrisy knows no party affiliation in politics.  Oh, they have their "reasons."  The feds will fund, so the feds say, the first two or three years of Medi-whatever in states that opt in.  Of course, who can trust what this administration says?  And, don't these Republicans decry the federal spending as "unsustainable?"  So, more spending, given to the states, is going to ease federal spending?  Huh?  (Maybe that falls under "When is a cut not a cut?")  And, after the first years, the state(s) will have to pick up a chuck of the cost.  Where are these states going to come up with the money?  They are crying "poverty" now!  The governors reason that if they don't opt in, other states and their citizens will get the federal money, leaving their own states and people out.  Now, there's a principled stance.  It reminds me of the schools:  "We have to spend the entire budget this year, even if we don't need anything else, because if we don't spend it, we won't get as much next year."  More of that "It's easy to spend other people's money."  And doesn't this reek of the same "gimme, gimme, gimme" culture that the Republicans supposedly despise?  K is right--parties don't make any difference; they're both the same.

I listened to an interested talk by a Yale professor the other day.  Now, it's important to remember than he's an IT guy, teaching computers, at the Ivy League School.  He obviously finds a great deal of good in technology, as do most people.  (Even I, who won't ever get a cell phone or I-whatever they are called and will only read real books, not those e-books, agree technology has some merits.  Even I, who was nearly run over on my run this AM by some dingbat on her cellphone!)  He decried our loss of meaningful discussion, of insightful thought that has come with increased technology such as what is called "social media."  Oh, we're "talking" to each other more, but actually saying much less.  There's little thought behind our discussion.  It's too easy to just e-mail, tweet or twit or whatever that is, text, etc.  Nobody has to think about what they send.  It's sort of an inflation of conversation.  We say more, but it means less.  (Economic inflation finds more dollars in the economy, but they buy fewer goods and services.)  There's more I took from his talk, but I'll get to that later in the week.