American political life continues to produce terms and definitions that dominate news coverage and political talk shows. Once it was all about the fiscal cliff and now all we hear is sequester or sequestration. The jarring political talk can be numbing and most of the time uninteresting. However, sequestration, which was passed on Friday, will have wide-ranging consequences.
The term itself simply refers to comprehensive budget cuts. As a result of the deficit-reduction package, several federal programs will see spending reductions which will come into force over the next 10 years. The cuts total $1.2 trillion, and will concern both defence and non-defence spending.
The history of sequester is rather odious. When talks between Congressional Republicans and democrats broke down in 2011, parties agreed upon the BCA (Budget Control Act) which meant that warring sides would set up a super committee that would decide on a deadline which would automatically activate spending cuts, now better known as sequestration. It was agreed that if Congress, and consequently the super committee, were unable to pass new cuts by January 2012, $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts would be triggered - hence the term sequestration.
Most reason-loving politicians understand the urgent need for spending cuts.
However the sequester plans seem to suggest that American politicians are scared to make tough decisions and instead take their cues from artificially concocted, pre-planned programs which constantly relieve campaigning politicians from any responsibility. In a way, the sequester is equally a political necessity, victory and a failure for both parties. It shows that high-minded rhetoric seldom leads to decisions that influence policies.
However, a vast number of Americans want spending cuts and fiscal responsibility. President Obama is a master of rhetoric and makes most decisions far away from the blinding limelight.
Obama has portrayed himself as the champion of the unemployed and struggling segments of American society. But Obama has defended the need for sequestration which will impact Obama’s base: mainly the low-income minorities.
However, a recent NBC/WSJ poll showed that 53 per cent of Americans want spending cut sand 39 per cent want even further cuts. Obama does not have the pressure of re-election therefore he can continue to blame the “ineffectual” Congress for forcing the sequester on Americans while supporting it behind closed doors.
In terms of the dynamism of the US economy the sequester is a step in the right direction, but hardly even grazes the surface when it comes to Washington’s acute and incurable spending binge.
