<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The brutal politics of sequestration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/02/27/the-brutal-politics-of-sequestration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/02/27/the-brutal-politics-of-sequestration/</link>
	<description>News and views on Utah public policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 23:35:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Mero</title>
		<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/02/27/the-brutal-politics-of-sequestration/#comment-2235</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Mero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/?p=4803#comment-2235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ But it is true...as long as the specter of sequestration combined with out-of-control federal spending exists. The 30% is at stake...always. That what&#039;s currently being debated isn&#039;t the full 30% is beside the point...not irrelevant, just beside the point. If your concern with my point has to do with the congressional politics...that is, congressional Republicans are trying to downplay sequestration and Obama is trying to emphasize it...then I can&#039;t help you. Even when I worked on Capitol Hill, I never read the Republican talking points. :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> But it is true&#8230;as long as the specter of sequestration combined with out-of-control federal spending exists. The 30% is at stake&#8230;always. That what&#8217;s currently being debated isn&#8217;t the full 30% is beside the point&#8230;not irrelevant, just beside the point. If your concern with my point has to do with the congressional politics&#8230;that is, congressional Republicans are trying to downplay sequestration and Obama is trying to emphasize it&#8230;then I can&#8217;t help you. Even when I worked on Capitol Hill, I never read the Republican talking points. <img src='http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronald D. Hunt</title>
		<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/02/27/the-brutal-politics-of-sequestration/#comment-2234</link>
		<dc:creator>Ronald D. Hunt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/?p=4803#comment-2234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/immigrants-released-ahead-of-automatic-budget-cuts.html?_r=2 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/immigrants-released-ahead-of-automatic-budget-cuts.html?_r=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/immigrants-released-ahead-of-automatic-budget-cuts.html?_r=2</a> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zach Jacob</title>
		<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/02/27/the-brutal-politics-of-sequestration/#comment-2233</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach Jacob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/?p=4803#comment-2233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul, I don&#039;t doubt that we agree on the basic premise here: Utah needs to become more financially self-sufficient. However, sequestration will happen, but the way you illustrated it is completely misleading: &quot; Think about your own personal paycheck. If you made $4,000 a month, 30 percent would be $1,200. How difficult would be your family’s monthly budget decisions if that $1,200 disappeared over night? That’s what Utah is facing with sequestration.&quot; That&#039;s simply not true.

Sequestration needs to happen. It&#039;s a very small step in the right direction of getting federal spending under control. However, without meaningful entitlement reform, a balanced budget amendment, and some serious fiscal discipline in DC, it&#039;s going to be looked back upon as a symbolic measure at best.

Utah&#039;s budget issues are a separate, but related, issue. Utah receives more back from the feds than we pay in federal taxes, and that&#039;s a problem to start with. If Utah could break free of the federal purse strings (and having control of our own currently-federally-owned land would more than suffice in that regard), we&#039;d be a lot better off. However, for that to happen, DC would have to give up control (read: power), and we all know how much they like to do that.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul, I don&#8217;t doubt that we agree on the basic premise here: Utah needs to become more financially self-sufficient. However, sequestration will happen, but the way you illustrated it is completely misleading: &#8220; Think about your own personal paycheck. If you made $4,000 a month, 30 percent would be $1,200. How difficult would be your family’s monthly budget decisions if that $1,200 disappeared over night? That’s what Utah is facing with sequestration.&#8221; That&#8217;s simply not true.</p>
<p>Sequestration needs to happen. It&#8217;s a very small step in the right direction of getting federal spending under control. However, without meaningful entitlement reform, a balanced budget amendment, and some serious fiscal discipline in DC, it&#8217;s going to be looked back upon as a symbolic measure at best.</p>
<p>Utah&#8217;s budget issues are a separate, but related, issue. Utah receives more back from the feds than we pay in federal taxes, and that&#8217;s a problem to start with. If Utah could break free of the federal purse strings (and having control of our own currently-federally-owned land would more than suffice in that regard), we&#8217;d be a lot better off. However, for that to happen, DC would have to give up control (read: power), and we all know how much they like to do that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Mero</title>
		<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/02/27/the-brutal-politics-of-sequestration/#comment-2232</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Mero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/?p=4803#comment-2232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Ha! I wasn&#039;t trying to &quot;go all Chicken Little.&quot; I was trying to say this is important and we ought to get our (state) house in order. If you&#039;re actually suggesting that the federal debt and spending aren&#039;t that big of a deal for Utah, I would disagree...but I don&#039;t think you&#039;re saying that.

Re-read my intro...&quot;idle threats at best.&quot; That said, Utah&#039;s reality is that we&#039;ll always face a problem with 30% of the budget coming from the Feds.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Ha! I wasn&#8217;t trying to &#8220;go all Chicken Little.&#8221; I was trying to say this is important and we ought to get our (state) house in order. If you&#8217;re actually suggesting that the federal debt and spending aren&#8217;t that big of a deal for Utah, I would disagree&#8230;but I don&#8217;t think you&#8217;re saying that.</p>
<p>Re-read my intro&#8230;&#8221;idle threats at best.&#8221; That said, Utah&#8217;s reality is that we&#8217;ll always face a problem with 30% of the budget coming from the Feds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zach Jacob</title>
		<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/02/27/the-brutal-politics-of-sequestration/#comment-2231</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach Jacob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/?p=4803#comment-2231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul,

You&#039;re almost as bad as the president in using scare tactics to exaggerate the consequences of the pending federal budget cuts. Yes, 30% of the state budget (if not more, as I&#039;ve heard in some estimates) comes from the federal government. Yes, sequestration is a contraction of federal spending (not really -- in reality, it&#039;s a contraction of estimated future spending, not actual cuts). But sequestration will not cut ALL federal funding that Utah has grown dependent on. Yes, it will impact us, but it will not be a 30% hit to the state budget. The estimates I&#039;ve heard range from $300 to 500 million dollars, which, on a $13 billion dollar state budget amounts to approximately 2% - 4% less money -- even if it all hit in the same fiscal year, which it won&#039;t. And before you ask if the average family can live with a 2% cut in its take home pay remember this: We already are. The payroll tax &quot;holiday&quot; that expired on January 1 (remember sequestration 1.0?) cut all of our take home pay by about 2% already.

So let&#039;s not go all &quot;Chicken Little&quot; and scream about the sky falling. Rather, let&#039;s use this as just more evidence that Utah has grown too dependent on federal handouts from a national government that can&#039;t even sustain its own issues, let alone continue to fund state budget needs. Utah needs to become more self-reliant. And learning to live with a little less federal pork is a good first step in that direction.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul,</p>
<p>You&#8217;re almost as bad as the president in using scare tactics to exaggerate the consequences of the pending federal budget cuts. Yes, 30% of the state budget (if not more, as I&#8217;ve heard in some estimates) comes from the federal government. Yes, sequestration is a contraction of federal spending (not really &#8212; in reality, it&#8217;s a contraction of estimated future spending, not actual cuts). But sequestration will not cut ALL federal funding that Utah has grown dependent on. Yes, it will impact us, but it will not be a 30% hit to the state budget. The estimates I&#8217;ve heard range from $300 to 500 million dollars, which, on a $13 billion dollar state budget amounts to approximately 2% &#8211; 4% less money &#8212; even if it all hit in the same fiscal year, which it won&#8217;t. And before you ask if the average family can live with a 2% cut in its take home pay remember this: We already are. The payroll tax &#8220;holiday&#8221; that expired on January 1 (remember sequestration 1.0?) cut all of our take home pay by about 2% already.</p>
<p>So let&#8217;s not go all &#8220;Chicken Little&#8221; and scream about the sky falling. Rather, let&#8217;s use this as just more evidence that Utah has grown too dependent on federal handouts from a national government that can&#8217;t even sustain its own issues, let alone continue to fund state budget needs. Utah needs to become more self-reliant. And learning to live with a little less federal pork is a good first step in that direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
