No Money. More Problems.

The Editorial Board at Austin American Statesman published an article on federal spending. This is following the news on the ever so near Sequestration that will cut budgets on wide variety of public programs effective March 1 should Congress and the President fail to reach a middle ground. That is quite the feat given the party-line rhetoric that renders our elected officials the least productive in recent memory. The editorial focuses on the effects of sequester on the state of Texas. This is evident given the fact that $46 billion of the spending cuts will come from the defense department, which, among other things, affects our state significantly given the number of military bases and installations. 30,000 civilian employees and 5000 construction, contract and related civilian jobs will be lost from the two major bases in Killeen and El Paso alone. This will result the loss of over $180 million in salary and related payments that would have otherwise benefited the Texas economy. In total, Texas will suffer a loss of $2.4 billion as a result of sequestration that will mainly dent its Army, Air Force and naval facilities.

The Editorial also reports the effects of non-defense jobs that are at risk. According to a report by the Pew Center, 5.4 percent of the state’s economy is federal spending. Cutting that would harm public schools and universities, health care and most importantly (at least for those who rely on student aid to go to school) financial aid. I wish to leave the domino effect of all this up to everyone’s interpretation, but we will all agree that this is a personal matter and daunting to say the least. None of it could be taken lightly. And to those who claim to “get (or git) nothing” from the government, it will only be timely to say so otherwise.

Let’s face it, Sequester is an ugly word. And parties on both sides need to address this issue with much more resolve than what is at play. No one is interested in a crippled state and it does not warrant a lesson worth learning. Not at the expense of the deprived and desperate. However, The Statesman offers very little in the way of calculated, evidence driven analysis of the state’s predicament and the failures of both parties. Big numbers (job losses, et al) and a somewhat emotion driven, strong worded statement is destined to inflict fear to those in way of harm and instill despise towards those with different views. Republicans have the same stake at saving this state as Democrats. Emotions aside, the effects of the financial crisis are only here to stay until a resolution is reached based on empirical understanding of the American economy and the implications of spending based on a guarantee for reelection.

The Editorial fails to offer any tangible solution to the growing concern of national debt and its implications on our state. Like any other state, Texas receives federal grant for its programs. Part of the estimated $47 trillion that will be spent in the next ten years will certainly make its way to the state of Texas. If Congress has time to preach the cuts they wish to introduce to the amount of $1.2 trillion in ten years, then they should certainly be able to help the public understand why carving so little is not possible. The intended audience is certainly expected (or so The Statesman wishes) to rally behind not allowing the sequester to run its course. However, Texas is a largely conservative state. What is otherwise a mostly accurate analysis could have been fortified to voice the desperate concern: Cut federal spending responsibly.