Roger Ruthhart's Sunday column about the effects of sequestration read more like talking points from the White House.|
I did notice the possibilities were attributed to Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Leon Panetta, Dave Loebsack, Travis Bacevich, "reports" and "some" information was used from Rep. Randy Forbes article of 2011.
Besides, sequestration will not happen. President Obama said it wouldn't during his Oct. 22 Foreign Relations Debate. So why shouldn't we believe him? Why are we worried when the president said it wouldn't happen? Didn't we believe all his other barnyard scrap?
The real reason for being distraught, however, is that after reading Ruthhart's article, I heard Sen. Rand Paul on FOX News tell Chris Wallace that the $1.2 trillion cuts over nine years isn't really a cut in spending! It's a cut in the INCREASE in spending!
So people are telling us all these bad things are going to happen because they aren't going to have MORE to spend than they did before, and even with those cuts spending will still increase!
I don't know about you Roger, but I don't get it. You said "it will probably take some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts."
Obama and the left got their increase in taxes on the "rich".
Where are the spending cuts? If it doesn't "cut" what was spent before, how can sequestration be a spending cut? By my way thinking, it isn't, and I'm wondering why you think it is. What happened to the Fourth Estate?
Dennis J. English,