Federal cuts put women and children last

IN forcing the sequester, House Republicans have ensured cuts to programs that fund breast and cervical cancer screenings, child-care assistance and more.

By Susan Feiner, Posted in Maine Sunday Telegram

The congressional GOP, like the captain of the Titanic, put women and children first.

The Titanic’s captain was trying to save people’s lives. In contrast, House Republicans, having contrived the sequester — $85 billion in federal budget cuts — are steering straight for that iceberg. And when the economy hits it, when the sequester cuts are fully implemented, women and children will go down first.

Read the rest of the article in the Maine Sunday Telegram.



4 responses to “Federal cuts put women and children last

  1. Yea!
    Congress Sequesters budgeting is now starting to make a dent in the economy. Texas had 80K (a record) new jobs in Feb. and then in Mar., Texas lost 7K jobs. At this rate maybe US will have its first dip in GDP growth by Jun. 30th Qtr end. Then you will have the White House/Obama making up some illogical excuse for the downturn like Boston marathon terrorist attack. Any President that is willing to accept changing Social Security payment increases to chained CPI rate, you bet will find some excuse for these new dips in his fantasy outlook of US economy.

  2. “The sequester’s origins can’t be blamed on one person–or one party. Republicans insisted on a trigger for automatic cuts; Jack Lew, then the White House budget director, suggested the specifics, modeled after a sequester-like mechanism Congress used in the 1980s, but with automatic tax increases added. Republicans rejected the latter but, at the time, took credit for the rest. Obama took the deal to get a debt-ceiling increase. But he never accepted the prospect that the sequester would occur, nor did he ever agree to take tax increases off the table,” according to “Five myths about the sequester,” Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, February 28, 2013 (see http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-28/opinions/37345109_1_sequester-automatic-cuts-supercommittee ).”

    The President had at least two ways to avoid the debt-ceiling “crisis” and head off the sequester mess: the 14th Amendment and Platinum Coin Seignorage (the latter described in detail by Joe Firestone in many NEP posts). Mr. Obama rejected them. (Whether he “never accepted the prospect that the sequester would occur” may or may not be accurate. At best, the characterization shifts the discussion from intent to incompetence.)

    To me, the sequester is bipartisan and a symptom of our failing democracy: the megaphone of the 1% now drowns out the voices of the 99%. Attempting to blame one party simply obscures the big picture, which Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis summarized succinctly: “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

  3. I have been looking at the arguments for MMT for the last month or so. It appears to me that most who espouse it are simply looking for a way to keep the welfare state, government spending alive. I see very little in the way of arguments for tax cuts, which if I have looked at the MMT information correctly, is a way to stimulate the economy as well. Where is the outcry against all the recent tax increases.
    I see MMT economists on liberal (i.e. big government) radio shows. If nothing else, this creates doubt about the true goals of those who champion MMT. This article is the most recent example. Outcry over reducing the GROWTH of government spending. Lastly, is there an example of an economy that implemented this
    economic model with success?


  4. The president is as much to blame for this mess as the Republicans.