« | »

WH Threatens Food Shortages If Sequester Hits

From the Washington Post:

Automatic cuts are getting a big yawn from Washington

By Lori Montgomery | February 15, 2013

As deadlines go, the March 1 sequester lacks punch. Nobody’s taxes will go up; the U.S. Treasury won’t run out of cash. Government offices won’t immediately turn out the lights and lock the doors. Most federal workers won’t face furlough for at least 30 days.

So Washington felt little need to cancel the Presidents’ Day break. On Friday, President Obama flew to Florida for a long weekend of golf. And Congress left town for nine days, with scant hope of averting deep cuts to the Pentagon and other agencies in the short time remaining when lawmakers return.

Instead of negotiating, party leaders were busy issuing ultimatums and casting blame. Before they left, Senate Democrats unveiled a bill to replace the sequester in part with new taxes on millionaires, which Republicans oppose. And House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed “the sequester will be in effect until there are cuts and reforms that put us on a path to balance the budget in the next 10 years,” an idea Democrats oppose…

And, mind you, the sequester does not come anywhere near doing that. Even if it were in effect for ten years, federal spending will still skyrocket.

Behind the scenes, there was real concern that the cuts eventually would disrupt critical government functions, hamper economic growth and destroy 750,000 jobs…

It won’t do any of those things. The sequester cuts $85 billion dollars a year from the annual spending of $3.8 trillion. It is a 2.2% cut, which is more than overwhelmed by the built-in spending increases thanks to baseline budgeting.

But here is some more of the hysteria that is not ‘behind the scenes’ that this reporter seems to have not noticed.

From CNN’s Money.com:

Federal worker furloughs could start in April

By Jennifer Liberto | February 17, 2013

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) – Federal workers could start facing furloughs as early as April, according to federal agencies trying to prepare for the worst.

Unless Congress steps in, some $85 billion in massive spending reductions will hit the federal government, doling out furloughs to much of the nation’s 2.1 million federal workforce, experts say.

A 2.2% cut of $85 billion from a budget of $3.8 trillion is being called "massive spending reductions." $85 billion dollars is just 50% more than the spending for Sandy Relief.

The cuts coming as a part of the "sequester" will end up carving some 9% from non-defense programs and 13% from defense programs. They’re part of a larger effort to trim $1.2 trillion from federal deficits over 10 years…

Again, we are talking about ‘trimming’ $1.2 trillion from a ten year budget of at least $40 trillion dollars. This is simply being put out to scare the lowest of the low information voters. This is no information. This is disinformation.

But there’s more, even from the normally sane Washington Times:

Budget-busting burgers: Beef, chicken supply could be casualties of Congress, Obama sequester fight

Food shortages may be one effect

By Seth McLaughlin and Stephen Dinan | February 14, 2013

If the spending sequesters happen, get ready for the great beef shortage of 2013.

The Obama administration said Thursday that the across-the-board cuts would mean furloughs for food safety inspectors, and if those inspectors aren’t on the job, meat-processing plants can’t open.

That means 2 billion pounds of beef and pork and potentially more than 3 billion pounds of poultry will never make it to the market, causing shortages and price spikes across the economy.

“This is going to adversely affect every consumer in America,” said Sen. Mark L. Pryor, Arkansas Democrat

Under federal law, the service’s inspectors must be present at meat processing plants. Because most of the service’s budget is salaries for inspectors, furloughs will be required for the agency to meet its new lower budget — which means plants will have to close for 15 days because of the lack of inspectors.

Mr. Pryor said that means a loss of 3 billion pounds of beef and pork production, up to 3.3 billion pounds of poultry, and more than 200 million pounds of eggs…

And we thought only tin pot dictators tried to control the masses through starvation and artificial food shortages. (Well, we still could be right.)

Aside from the preposterous fearmongering here, this proves the insidiousness of government infiltrating every aspect of our lives. On a moment’s notice, the government can pull a switch and cut access to our food. As dictators have realized throughout history, if you control the food, you control the masses.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, February 18th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “WH Threatens Food Shortages If Sequester Hits”

  1. $7 million Hawaii vacation. Check.
    $500 million ‘gun control’ E.O. Check.
    Florida vacation with a golf pro. Check.

    But a slight reduction in federal workers? WE.RE ALL. GONNA. DIE.!!

    God save the Republic.

  2. John Carter

    There will be no shortage of BULL from the present day government.

  3. NO sweat.
    We raise our own.
    Cut the damn spending.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »