Summary, comments, and thoughts How Federal spending would be cut under the Sequester Paletta offers an informative approach to the Sequester approach by answering some of the common questions that people have regarding the economic concept that was proposed to help in reducing the nation’s budget deficit. The Sequester is expected to become effective at the beginning of March. The concept resulted from ann agreement between the executive and the legislative arms of the government with the aim of curtailing budget deficit. The republicans and the democrats reached a compromise that would meet each party’s interest by raising debt ceiling and reducing budget deficit and the Sequester would be the mode of implication should law makers fail to derive an alternative.
Effect of the economic move would however not be immediate as different level of government and other stakeholders would be given time to consider federal cuts and to communicate their respective cuts to their stakeholders. The proposed cuts are not general. It affects agencies such as “departments of energy, state, defence, labor, transportation, justice, and National Institute of Health” but excempts “the Federal Reserve and the Postal service, ” “benefits paid by the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and military pay for uniformed personnel” (n. p.).
Spending would be cut by reducing particular expenses and changing involved bureaucracies. The cuts will be allocated by programs and subprograms and will be implanted with a level of flexibility. the cut has raised diversified reactions among government contractors but most contractors are comfortable because their contracts are not permanent. Even though the proposed cut only forms a small percenmtage of the total budget, it will be significantly felt because it only concentrates on a few sectors. The article is informative and explores the proposed cut adequately.
I however concure with the proposed allocation of the cuts because budget allocations to different agencies has been different and some agencies are more sensitive than others. The flexibility in the cut also allows for appropriate transition. Sequester of fools Krugman criticizes the Sequester that has led to imminent cut on government spending and blames it on weak and selfish political ambitions. While both republicans and the democrats signed into the Sequester in case of lack of an agreement, they failed to agree on the way towards economic solution and the Sequester has to be implemented.
He however notes that the problem should not be to blame parties but to identify possible solutions to the already weak economy. Solution to the problem however faces political battle with opposition from the republicans over proposal by democrats’ senators for a tax increase among the wealthy population. Even though a more neutral solution could e established, the sequester offers advantages that disadvantages (Krugman n. p.). The author’s title, though offensive, is representative of the case behind the Sequester scenario because the legislators signed the Sequester agreement without considering their political ambitions that that they would not sacrifice.
The author is also explorative, offers an alternative to the political gap and I concur with his position that budget cuts are important to economic stability. How scary is the sequester The author identifies the problem of budget cut as a characteristic of the American government. Even though this practice is not popoula among