Sequester may not be so bad

Sequester two-step

A plan for moving forward  By Kevin D. Williamson

http://www.nationalreview.com/sequester-two-step-kevin-d-williamson

Topic: the article discusses how the recent sequester has not dratically or immediately affected any of the regular government workings, comparing it to the mess that was the clinton-gingrich government shutdown. However, this is not to say that both sides are satisfied with the results. The issue is that politicians were not able to effectively prioritize programs and institutions that should receive the most or the least funding.  The author notes that the executive will play a prominent role in the ultimate result of the sequester and the budget to come. "Obama's most important constituencies are those receiving direct payments from the government, in the form of either paychecks or welfare benefits. So he is courting Republicans, hoping they’ll sit down and hash out another broad, long-term deficit deal." Republicans should not be oppossed to it, because being flexible in one area may result in a reward in the other. The author really sticks the republican perspective as it is a NRO article, which is probably the most bias source in my library. What is needed now is a simple, two-step program for achieving a better sequester regime. So what it comes down to is this rather simple 2 step plan, hence the title...Step One: Pass a simple, straightforward bill that keeps the sequester spending controls in place but empowers federal-agency heads to decide for themselves how to divvy up the non-cut “cuts” among their programs. Step Two: Do Nothing. The spending controls imposed by the sequester will not be the end of the world, but adding an element of flexibility will require the administration to make some difficult choices. While the author's plan does make sense in a way, I disagree with his explanations of how they will affect our government funding, my interpretation will be explained below.

Opinion: The plan will force a bipartisan effort to prioritize spending as they never have before. When the legislation is present to force congressmen to recognize the legitimacy of both claims, each can come forward with the programs that they are unwilling to give up, limiting debate and controversy over the governments that both parties would hold with esteem. The fact of the matter is, there is too many smaller programs that the parties are unwilling to surrender simply because of the principle of surrendering any sort of leverage. Republicans have already made a move in this direction in the House’s continuing resolution, which would allow defense officials some flexibility in how they meet sequester targets."Conservatives realize that some programs are more worthy than others, and there is no reason to fund the USDA or spend nearly $300,000 a year for three official White House calligraphers while we’re taking funds away from meat inspectors." The sequester is the classic bipartisan compromise: an imperfect deal that nobody likes but both sides supported.

Conclusion:What we are forced to recognize as responsible citizen's is that there is never a PERFECT plan, but there are plans that hold our country together and uphold the values that it was established upon. Deeper reforms of the entitlements, federal spending, and the tax code will be necessary as well, but they all depend on something that will not be easy to achieve: reclaiming the Republican party’s reputation for fiscal prudence. "The best way to get a start on that is by allowing the sequester to become the new normal and by giving the administration the flexibility to help implement it more intelligently." Narrowing the specturm based on what our congressmen deem most valid and immediate will subsequently create an analysis of the budget on a case by case basis. So I guess the sequester is good in a way, it has brought to light the necessity of compromise and will provide the government with empirical data to create a new budget, based on the standardized sequester spending.