Let the Sky Fall: Sequestration as the Practice That Should be Abandoned Once and for All

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

There is hardly anything that people take for granted as easily as the state budget. Indeed, what the state budget is being spent on, as well as what cuts it is supposed to undergo and due to what factors does not interest an average citizen of the USA in the least. When it comes to cutting on the bare necessities and the everyday facilities, as well as raising the costs for services, the results sequestration become obvious, which leads to another bunch of economical, financial and political problems to solve.

Although demanding that a person should pay for certain services and pay the debts that the person has made is a rather legitimate demand, the idea of sequestration is still too severe a measure to impose on a person. In addition, some of the aspects of sequestration can lead to people questioning its actual usefulness and the reasonability if sequestering the state budget.

Despite the fact that currently, the U.S. government and the President insist on the need to sequestrate the budget, the results of the given procedure may turn out even more drastic than expected. Even though budget sequestration might lead to getting financial help for the state to cover the expenses, the costs that the USA will not be worth the effort.

To start with, the process of sequestration needs a definition. Described as “a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions to meet or enforce certain budget policy goals” (Saturno and Heniff 17–4), sequestration does not seem a fabulous perspective for the U.S. economy.

One of the most often expressed concerns about the sequestration concerns the way in which the budget cuts are carried out. According to what Larsen says, these are not just the cuts in budget that the U.S. state authorities talk about, but the cuts in the rates of the budget growth. Therefore, not only the current budget, but also the whole budgeting policy of the United States is threatened once the policy of sequestration becomes an integral part of the American reality.

The given event can be the point at which the U.S. economy starts going completely downhill. With the current spending levels as the basis for the future budget to be planned on, the government of the United States will practically reduce the future growth rates of the federal budget (Shick 82). Reconsidering the possible effects of the sequestration policy, one can assume that it might lead to the same deplorable economical situation as the one that the United States faced in 1990 because of the missteps taken in 1980 (Schick 82).

To its credit, the sequestration policy has certain positive aspects. No matter how scanty the obtained financial resources will supposedly be, it is still necessary to admit that the state government is still planning to use this money for the greater good. As the state report says, the budget cuts and the money obtained as a result of the sequestration are going to be used for a noble cause.

To start with, the cuts will serve the purpose of enhancing the state defense program, which is crucial in the light of the increasing tension in the relationships between states. As the report says, 10% ($55 billion) are going to be used for enhancing the defense program. Another important issue that the state is going to address as soon as the state budget increases is the concern for the citizens’ health.

Medicare will receive 2% of the revenues in addition to the money that is annually provided to the Medicare by the government. Making $11 million, this money will certainly be of great use for Medicare, helping the latter provide the U.S. citizens top-notch medical services (Congress 4969). It goes without saying that medical services must be improved in accordance with the latest advances in medicine and technology.

Therefore, from the given perspective, the sequestration process can be justified. The last, but definitely not the least, the development of educational facilities all over the country is a crucial process that must be encouraged. Though sequestration is not the only way to get the funding for education process development, it is admittedly helpful for education at present.

Still, the policy of sequestration does not seem to hold any water. For instance, the governmental authority and the ideas voiced by the President should be brought up when considering the sequestration issue.

Although there is sufficient evidence that the sequestration procedure as a result of defaulting on one’s payments seems rather threatening, the actions that the U.S. government is currently undertaking makes the given threat rather doubtful. According to Larsen’s judgment, “And all of those threats that the president made earlier about who won’t get paid, and what services would not be provided, are just that: empty threats” (Larsen).

Therefore, in addition to all the problems that it causes in the economical and financial spheres, the sequestration legislation does not make the U.S. government look good, either. Hence, another argument against the sequestration reform appears; for the U.S. government to keep its authority and remain trustworthy in the eyes of the American citizens, it is necessary either to keep with the sequestration policy fully, or to reject the given policy.

Given the absurdity of some of the existing governmental projects, such as “Moroccan pottery classes, an empty airport at Lake Murray State Park in Oklahoma, a robot squirrel funded through the National Science Foundation, or the Alabama Watermelon Queen Tour” (Larsen), it must be admitted that enhancing the policy on sequestration is not the best way for the U.S. government to prove its reasonability and regain its authority.

However, the aspect of trust in the American government is not the only reason for the latter to change their policy on sequestration; as the recently obtained data shows, the money that the sequestration process brings to the state authorities is quickly dispersed among several departments, split into rather small amounts (Dewhurst and Rausch 67).

Therefore, the value of the money that has been obtained in the process of sequestration reduces; being split between several departments, this money can hardly buy a required tool or pay for the long-awaited project. Bringing little to no profit for the government, this money can hardly help improve the situation regarding the federal debt:

The rest of the outlay reduction of $1.2 trillion triggered by the sequestration will be applied over the next ten years. But even with that reduction, the federal debt is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be a staggering $26 trillion. (Larsen)

Because of the drastic situation with the Federal debt, even the results of sequestration will not help improve the financial situation and solve the existing problems (Mauro 36). While using the money that have been sequestered from the mortgage owners does allow for sufficient financial support for certain projects, the amount of the Federal debt is still too great to be handled with such little sum of money that can be extracted from individuals.

As Larsen put it, “It’s going to hurt individual people and it’s going to hurt the economy over all” (Larsen). While the individuals are going to suffer, their possessions being taken away from them and government leaving them with little to no means of subsistence, the needs of the state are highly unlikely to be addressed anyway.

Addressing the issue of sequestration, one must admit that it does not lead to immediate satisfaction of the person who has suffered from a certain offence; moreover, in certain situations, the cost of the sequestrated property is not enough to cover even a half of the losses that have been taken.

In their turn, people suffer greatly. Apart from the aspect of humanity, the numerous economical issues are worth bringing up. For instance, the loss of the above-mentioned 1.2 % spending that the Wall Street financial markets will take as a result of the sequestration process is also quite a debatable issue (Naco).

Moreover, the fact that the sequestered amount of money will disperse among the numerous departments and will hardly suffice for completing any project that bears any significance, is rather disturbing. Taking everything that has been mentioned above into consideration, one must admit that the sequestration law is highly unreasonable and must not be adopted on any account.

Works Cited

Congress. Congressional Record. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010. Print.

Dewhurst, Robert E. and John D. Rausch. Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. 2009. Print.

Larsen, Richard. Sequestration 101, The Sky Is not Falling. n. d. Print.

Mauro, Paolo. Chipping Away at Public Debt: Sources of Failure and Keys to success in Fiscal Adjustment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print.

Naco. Federal Budget Sequestration 101. Washington, DC: NACO Virtual Learning Community, 2012. Web.

Saturno, James and Bill Heniff. The Federal Budget Process: A Description of the Federal and Congressional Budget Processes, Including Timelines. Alexandria, VA: The Capitol Net, Inc. 2009. Print.

Shick, Allen. The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2007. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

Let the Sky Fall: Sequestration as the Practice That Should be Abandoned Once and for All

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)