If Congress cannot come up with a replacement to the sequester before the end of the week, we should eliminate the sequester entirely. One million wor...
The Diamond Bar strike is much bigger than just resolving the amount of furlough days that should take place in the coming year. It is about fighting for the right for a quality education.
In short, the sequester is not just about money and political power for the Republicans in the House. It is mostly about what they see as the right direction for the country: maximal elimination of the public sphere.
The problem with many in Congress (and I am not even discriminating by party here) is that they get incredibly out of touch with how the decisions they make in the halls of Congress actually affect Americans' lives. For once, shouldn't they be the first ones to feel the impact of their actions (or, in this case, inaction)?
All 200 Democrats and 15 Republicans could come to the House floor, while the remaining Republicans stay home. Since there are currently three vacancies, the House of Representatives requires a quorum of 215 votes in order to vote on a bill.
Sequestration will impact all Americans but will have a particularly harmful effect on communities of color, who were hit first and worst by the Great Recession and have yet to significantly feel the effects of the recovery.
Me, I'm not too worried because these cuts can't touch Social Security, Medicare or active-duty military. But there will be some sacrifices...
The sequester, and all the sequential sequesters over the next decade, deprive Democrats of the resources that they need to be, well, Democrats. Obama can proclaim big, bold initiatives as he did in the State of the Union Address, but they are all mere gestures -- because there is no money to spend on any of them, thanks to the bipartisan obsession with budget cutting. Even worse, Democrats end up colluding in eviscerating very popular and necessary signature programs like Medicare and Social Security, which literally define the core differences between the two parties. So by 2016, and even by 2014, nobody will much remember who was more at fault in the sequester battle of early 2013. The voters will be looking at their own economic situation, and it won't be pretty.
As a proud American, as a woman who worries about my children's future, and as the wife of an American hero, you have let my community down.
The "sequester" debate is the latest stage of an ongoing hostage crisis that's forcing austerity economics on an unwilling population -- cloaking it in a false debate about how to do it, not about why we shouldn't do it at all.
All week long, administration officials have been making a strong case that if the sequester happens, there will indeed be consequences that the country will face, and so far they've been doing an excellent job at making that case.
Can we please stop referring to Republican "conservatism" and call the party's philosophy and actions what they truly are? I vote for "destructionism," a mix of obstructing and dismantling.
Congress must come to its senses before the country suffers a completely self-inflicted grievous wound that weakens our economy and imposes gratuitous hardship on the least fortunate.
There is a right way and a wrong way to cut federal spending, but the sequestration plan about to go into effect is perhaps the most boneheaded approach that could possibly be concocted.
It's the foregone conclusion that no matter which hand the folks in Washington try to play, the fact is taxes will be higher... much higher in the future.
Until mainstream Republicans stand up to that radical view, there is little likelihood that the president can craft a bipartisan deal to avert sequestration--or, for that matter, reach any compromise on any of the pressing issues facing the country going forward.