I think that word was ‘sequestration’, was it not. It was a term that both houses agreed upon should they not be able to balance the budget and rein in out-of-control spending. We had that Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction convened (otherwise known as the Super Committee) that was primed to make that bad old deficit booboo go away. Remember? They (both houses) would either get the budget balanced or then they would allow ‘sequestration’ to kick in on or about January the 2nd, 2013. This was when a series of automatic $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts would take effect. This so-called Economic Armageddon, if not stopped, would plunge the US into an immediate and possibly even dire depression.
Now, after the election is over and Obama has reigned supreme; at the virtually the eleventh hour what has really changed? Answer: Absolutely nothing. He is still entrenched on the concept that we can buy our way out of all our problems by socking it to the rich. He expounds the idea that if we would just tax these folks at a rate of 50%, all would be well. Well, maybe so or maybe not so. Someone told me that if you took all the folks who make one million dollars or more and taxed them at 100%, you’d have enough extra money to run the government for just three months! You see, as long as the spending is out of control, it really doesn’t matter who you tax and at what rate; the structure still goes bust. So, what’s Obama’s take on spending? Is he for ‘change’ or ‘more of the same’.
By all accounts, our leader of the free world (lower case intended), is all for maintaining the status quo. He firmly (although perhaps not accurately) believes that the US can handle 18 or 19 or 25 trillion in debt, because that’s what its going to take to continue on the road we are on. Even if you end up taxing all the people all the time, you will still need to have the Fed run those printing presses 24/7 in order to ‘float’ the economy. That is, until it all falls down the crapper.