Many no-doubt-sincere persons are Facebook-posting about their choice of "ruthless, lying villains" who are "responsible" for the Sequester "crisis" that is upon us.
Despite my overuse of those quotation marks, I'd sincerely like to join the chorus-- but despite no small amount of researching, and despite my earlier (also sincere) plea for assistance on Redroom, FB and other venues...
...I still cannot find a reasoned explanation of how an $88 billion cut (even if enacted) in a $3 trillion-plus spending plan --one which will spend $15 billion MORE than was allocated during the now-ended fiscal year (again, even with this relatively puny $88 billion "cut")...
...could in any way result in the litany of "disasters" that I am being told, ab infinitum and ad naseaum, will result.
None of these problems happened last year; with $15 billion more in the total spending-pot, why would --how could?-- so much catastrophe occur now?
It doesn't add up. At least, thus far I can't make it do so.
(chuckle) I'm asking for help with the math here, so please: let's eschew any partisan politics and/or ideological outrage (from either side of the divide). Let's see if we can engender that elusive "civil discourse" in search of an answer, okay?
-- Earl Merkel
A Faithful Reader Replies. Unhelpfully.
From Faithful Reader Bob (via Facebook): "oh earl, don't be a spoilsport. there hasn't been a decent disaster movie since titanic. people wanna worry about nothing. y2k was such a flop."
EM Response: And, even if true, that doesn't help me. (grin) Tho it IS an interesting theory to mull. Later. Whatever the outcome of the current issue.