Sequester?

The "sequester" has been blamed for some of the more recent inefficiencies in gov't.  "See what happens when you don't let us spend money like drunken sailors?"  What hogwash!

First, the "sequester" cut about two and a half percent from the federal budget, the excessively bloated federal budget of $3.5 trillion--that's with eleven zeroes!  C'mon!  A couple years ago, for instance, my wife took a 6% pay cut, saw insurance premiums from her own pocket rise about 25% not to mention the higher co-pays and deductibles.  I figure she took a hit of about 15% or more.  This year, my taxes went up about $2500, which will translate to a 3% or more cut.  But the feds can't manage to cut 2.5%??????  How easy it is to spend other people's money, esp when the arrogant elitists who spend it are convinced they and their ways and ideas are superior to anyone else and other ways and ideas.  Maybe they could use a little help in finding things to cut!  Here are a few.

How about eliminating the ObamaPhone scam?  To date, the program (which may have had the best of intentions when begun under Reagan I believe, but double check) has cost about $2.3 billion.  And a government audit (you know, conducted by the government itself) reveals that more than 40% of the phones are now given to people who don't qualify.  Recipients don't even have to lie to scam the system.

How about the Air Force study that revealed men appear more masculine (manly?) when their carry firearms?  That one cost only about $700,000.

Another half million was spent by the National Science Foundation (from a gov't grant) to make a video that simulated a high school prom.  (Whose high school prom?)

There's about $354 million being tossed about by the Pentagon and Congress for the purchase of Russian, that's right Russian, helicopters to give to Afghanistan.  Apparently, a few years ago the Russian manufacturer sold the helicopters to private companies for about $4.4 million apiece.  Now, the price tag for the American taxpayer is about $19 million.  Ah...other people's money!

So, the federal gov't can't cope with the sequester cuts?  How about the increased costs the feds are foisting upon the majority of Americans, not taxes per se, but higher prices because of their actions?  Most Americans who don't buy health insurance (and, remember, purchase is required by law, you know, the law the members of Congress passed first and read second, if they did at all) from the gov't (and the estimated costs of that seem to be going up, up, up practically weekly) will have to pay increased premiums, some as has as about 40% more!, or will see no raises, cut pay, or reduced other benefits as employer-provided health insurance costs will go up.  The Senate is proposing a farm bill that advocates an increase in the price of milk, maybe 30 cents a gallon.  Granted, that increase will amount to only about $15-20 a year for me.  But what will that increase do to school budgets and those of other large providers such as gov't assistance programs?  Of course there are more.

No doubt the retaliation is "Oh, those are just drops in the bucket."  So, if these are just "drops in the bucket," why the gov't cuts in services and efficiencies?  And, to cite the late Sen Everett Dirksen, in challenging yet another spending spree by Congress in the '60s, "A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money."  Yeah, but it's other people's money, not ours......