Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, January 18, 2019

White House

Art first, most of the coverage of the sequester cuts has focused on White House tours and the Easter Egg Roll. Recently, news that air traffic control towers would be shuttered got people a little worried. But even the president has moved on from arguing against the cuts, which were included in the continuing resolution he signed in March.

Tuesday the Huffington Post‘s Sam Stein and Amanda Terkel surveyed 100 separate instances of the sequester’s automatic cuts having an effect on the local level:

Organizations and companies have begun laying off workers, while many more have decided not to staff vacant positions. Schools on military bases are contemplating four-day weekly schedules. Food pantries have closed, as have centers that provide health services. Farmers have been forced to go without milk production information, causing alarm in the dairy industry and the potential of higher milk prices. Workers at missile-testing fields are facing job losses. Federal courts have closed on Fridays. Public Broadcasting transmitters have been shut down. Even luxury cruises are feeling the pinch, with passengers forced to wait hours before debarking because of delays at Customs and Immigration. Yes, sequestration is creating the possibility of another poop cruise.

But the “evil genius” of the sequester is that the sum total of these cuts will never grab the nation’s attention the same way as the possibility of the stock market crashing because the debt limit is nearing, or Social Security checks being delayed.

We all know the real reason the sequester isn’t being covered by the media. The people it hurts most are  society’s most vulnerable — the poor, soldiers, seniors and workers. And it hurts them in a slow-motion way that doesn’t make great headlines.

Still the impact of this haphazard austerity is now starting to take its toll.Here are five examples of how the sequester is hurting America.

Photo: dcJohn via

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit4
  • Print this page
  • 187

9 responses to “5 Examples Of Real-World Hurt From The Sequester”

  1. republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck says:

    Lets dissect this.

    The government does not want to clean up hanford, this is convenient.

    Floods? Buy insurance or move. Who does this hurt?

    Drug trafficking investigations? The drug laws are a fucked up mess and need to be changed anyway. Plus, they dont investigate legal drugs effectiveness anymore.
    Thats all done in India.

    Rural hospitals are not profitable. Since Obama is all about for profit health care, just like the republiCONs, this makes closing those hospitals convenient

    The poor have been fucked ever since Obama got in office. Big talker, only interested in helping those that donate to him and the poor dont do that.

    This is just more republiCON/Democrat bullshit.

    Time to get rid of both parties..

  2. Sounds like the Republican agenda has succeeded.

    ..this is what the corporate honchos backing them *want*.

  3. Part of the spending reductions will be absorbed by not staffing vacancies and by eliminating those vacancies altogether. However, some reductions in services and layoffs or furloughs are inevitable. The biggest problem related to the sequester is the fact that it prevents the public sector from investing in infrastructure, modernization, R&D and pursuing new sources of energy. The key to sustained prosperity and a robust economy is investment. The Republicans that pushed for across the board spending reductions are well aware of the impact of the sequester. They support it because they are well aware of its impact, and because they know how it will affect economic and fiscal strategies conducive to economic growth and prosperity. In their zest to demonize President Obama and guarantee uncertainty during future elections they are willing to impact the livelihood of fellow Americans to attain their goals. Sounds to me like high treason.

    • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck says:

      Since Obama has done none of that for the past 5 years, whats the difference?

    • sigrid28 says:

      If members of congress who voted for the sequester are sincere about their claims that it is absolutely necessity, they should each take a voluntary cut in pay equal to the percentage that the sequester removes from the budget of each of the departments affected by it. Secretary Hagel and the president just cut their salaries, and they didn’t even support the retention of the sequester.

      Let’s go further. Corporations that had these sequester-loving members voted into congress should also dedicate the same percentage of corporate profits to improving wages and benefits for low-wage employees (not CEOs and management). If corporations object, they should ask the senator or representative they helped elect why he or she did not run for office on a platform of making clumsy cuts that harm economic recovery.

      Just to get a taste of how disproportionate the pain from economic instability is within our economy, consider this: One high ranking executive at J. C. Morgan Chase took a cut in pay after its latest debacle that lost the too-large-to-fail bank billions, because of questionable trades in derivatives (essentially high stakes gambling with depositors’ money), while this guy apparently looked the other way. His salary went from about $9.5 million a year to $5 million.

  4. montanabill says:

    I didn’t bother reading past the first page, simply because the premise is miserably flawed. If this country cannot reduce proposed increases in spending by even the extremely small percentage that the sequester represents, let alone any decreases to real spending or to our deficit, then we relegate our nation to the dustbin ever so much faster. We already have a national debt that simply can never, keyword: never, be repaid. It will require sacrifices by every single one of us to right this rapidly sinking ship.

    Remember, when you were cheering for this statement:

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

    The person making that statement appeared to be the leader we needed. Unfortunately…

  5. A.J. Cariaga says:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.