Sequester a dangerous step - The Packer

Sequester a dangerous step

02/15/2013 10:12:00 AM
The Packer Editorial Board

Expected federal budget cuts caused by sequestration could be popular among some taxpayers, but the approach is dangerous to the industry and the economy.

Unless Democratic and Republican leaders can agree on a plan to cut the deficit by March 1, a series of automatic cuts — or sequester — will reduce spending for domestic programs by 5.1% and defense programs by 8%.

If implemented, the cuts are expected to total $85 billion throughout the federal budget.

Among the notable hits to the industry, the Food and Drug Administration has said the cuts could result in 2,100 fewer inspections at foreign and domestic food facilities.

Other cuts would pare 600,000 women and children from the rolls of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. In addition, deep cuts to education, research programs and government services will cast a dark shadow over government work on behalf of the public and the agriculture community.

It would be a better plan if Democrats and Republicans could agree on a solution that provides deficit reduction without the drama of a “fiscal cliff.”

Unfortunately, it would appear that sequester cuts may be impossible to avoid. That may spark cheers from some quarters.

But sequester is no victory for good government.

In fact, implementation of sequester cuts should quickly wake our country’s leaders to the fact that government services for industry and consumers need to be reliable, consistent and not subject to the petty politics so common in Washington.

Did The Packer get it right? Leave a comment and tell us your opinion.

Comments (1) Leave a comment 

e-Mail (required)


characters left

Ted Schultze    
MN  |  February, 18, 2013 at 04:18 PM

Gutless congress cannot do it correctly and now they have to stand by and look at what they did by spending more then they had coming in. One has to ask what is the problem is if we only spend what we take in? It's all about being re-elected. Look at the conflict of interest they have. One term is what they all need. Gutless is to nice a word.

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight