<\/p>\n
More akin to a bad Western cowboy drama than a forum for thoughtful, intellectual debate, today\u2019s Congress defines itself by last-minute hold ups, rhetorical shoot-outs, and braggadocious \u201cthis town\u2019s not big enough for the both of us\u201d ideologues content to draw X\u2019s over their very townspeople\u2019s eyes before they dare lose a battle of the egos. In January, this culminated in the self-constructed and poorly-executed \u201cfiscal cliff\u201d fiasco, and as of this Friday will rear its ugly head again in the form of sweeping budget cuts known by the media as \u201cSequester 2013\u201d. Yes, I\u2019d rather watch Django Unchained<\/em>, too. <\/p>\n But unlike your typical B drama, the effects of these pinstriped outlaws\u2019 errant actions aren\u2019t confined to the Hollywood Hills; they will be felt across the country, and primarily by those already most financially vulnerable to fluctuations in an already feeble economy. To stick with the metaphor, the money hungry GOP isn\u2019t headed for the bank come sundown; it\u2019s headed for the pockets of teachers, children and ultimately the poor.<\/p>\n On Sunday, the White House released distressed statements to all 50 states specifying how they would each uniquely feel the $85 billion in spending cuts over the next seven months, and the picture isn\u2019t so pretty. In Constable Mitch McConnell\u2019s \u201cunbridled\u201d state of Kentucky, around 21,000 individuals<\/a> may find themselves shackled to the inevitable sense of self-doubt that comes with unemployment this year. In his pursuit of so-called fiscal responsibility, the Republican wrangler is also content with denying the bluegrass state $12 million<\/a> in public school grants, which could send 160 teachers and aids home for good, and prevent over 1,000 children from attending Head Start, a decades-old preschool intervention program meant to (and with demonstrable success<\/a>) foment stable family relationships and enhance the cognitive, emotional and physical skills of children in low-income families.<\/p>\n The possible consequences are just as damning in Ohio, Speaker of the House John Boehner\u2019s home state. There, the state would give up to 8,000 fewer HIV tests<\/a>, snip away a cool $1 million to help upgrade the state\u2019s ability to respond to infectious diseases, natural disasters, biological, nuclear and radiological events, and turn away approximately 57,000 unemployed people from job search assistance, referral and placement. Oh, and around 5,000 children wouldn\u2019t be issued valuable vaccines for diseases like measles, influenza, Hepatitis B and the whooping cough. Some responsibility.<\/p>\n Nationally, the outlook is just as grim. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that not even scientific innovation and research, two of the very things in which the United States needs to invest should it retain its spot atop the hegemonic totem pole, are immune from deficit hawk lassoing. According to the OMB, the National Institutes of Health would be forced to \u201cdelay or halt vital scientific projects, and make hundreds of fewer research awards,\u201d which could effectively result in the job loss of several thousand personnel (re: innovators). The same applies for the National Science Foundation, whose 1,000 fewer grants would negatively impact around 12,000 scientists and students committed to research. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n If there is one thing to be thankful about regarding this arbitrary quagmire, it’s that we won’t feel it right away. It’s meant to be gradual. Nevertheless, when testifying before the Senate Banking Committee<\/a>, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said that the proposed policies will “slow the pace of real GDP growth by about 1-1\/2 percentage points this year, relative to what it would have been otherwise,” and that a significant portion of that will derive from the cuts scheduled to begin March 1st. Bernanke added that “this additional near-term burden on the recovery is significant. Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions.\u201d<\/p>\n Perhaps the most disturbing part of the sequestration, though, is that it symbolizes a different kind of American progress; and not one that Eisenhower or any pre-Reagan and post-New Deal president ever foresaw. That \u201cstupid\u201d splinter group about whom Ike griped to his brother has steadily grown into a widely spread, well-funded and highly influential cabal that, thanks to its uncompromising \u201csmall government (for those who need help) is best government (for those who don’t)\u201d dogma, seeks to dismantle the very programs that gave birth to the model middle class so admired by countries around the world. Despite having presented a platform and a poorly-whittled candidate that failed to resonate with nearly 66 million people at the polls, the GOP persists in dragging Americans back to the good ole days–no, not the ones defined by high employment, increased economic equality and labor receiving its fair share of income–but the ones marked by minimal regulations, high poverty and even more dramatic levels of economic inequality.<\/p>\n And if the sequestration is to serve as any sort of indicator of things to come, that is precisely where we\u2019re headed. 2010 marked the United States\u2019 return to wealth disparity gaps unseen since 1928<\/a>, with the American South–the same states whose constituents continue to vote for Tea Party Republicans whose policies only aggravate economic inequality, mind you–taking the harshest blow<\/a>. Food-stamp use reached a record high of 46.7 million people last June<\/a>, and it should come as no surprise that the program is most highly sought in southern red states<\/a>. Thus the shrill, conservative cant of tight wallets and tighter limits on federal programs is not only morally misguided, belied by historical data and economically irresponsible, it\u2019s wholly hypocritical.<\/p>\n The numbers are certainly sobering, especially in light of the fact that we do<\/em> have a deficit problem. But we also have more than one way of reducing it, and one that won’t come at the expense of those who already have little and yet stand to lose so much. Though it’s almost futile to discuss that avenue with today\u2019s mutated crop of conservatism; after all, they deal in lead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a 1954 letter to his brother Edgar, Dwight Eisenhower wrote, \u201cShould any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":530,"featured_media":137631,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259,260],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n![\"Mitch](\"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/mitch-mcconnell.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Income](\"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/income-gains.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Food](\"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/food-stamp-usage.png\")
<\/p>\n