I'm Just Sayin' - A Dr. Suess-style explanation of the sequester

Talk about it

If you have been paying attention to the children arguing over the candy bowl in Washington, you have heard about the “sequester.” My intention was to write a column about the silliness of what is going on and how it is being portrayed to the public. Instead, I found it said in a better way. I read a Dr. Seuss-style explanation of how our government approaches their insatiable appetite to spend our money (remember, it was ours, and now they think it is theirs). I hope you enjoy it. It comes from The Heritage Foundation website, and the author encourages it to be shared:

On Pennsylvania Avenue, right near the end, there lived a president who wanted to spend. He knew spending meant power, so hour by hour, he thought up more spending from his Washington tower. “I’ll spend without limits; I’ll spend without blame! Raising taxes to pay; that’s the name of the game.”

Down the street though, a House filled with thriftier folk had a budget to pass, or the country would go broke. “We can’t spend all day; we’ve got bills to pay! Let’s keep deficits and higher taxes away.” The Senate next door to the house just refused. “We don’t like your budget. We’ve got some bad news: The president says we can spend all we want, and we’ll simply raise taxes whenever we choose.”

So they spent and spent and then borrowed some more. And when all was spent, they spent same as before. But not everyone thought the spending was nice. In the House and the Senate, some spenders thought twice. “We’ll cut down on spending. We have a bad feeling…” then – smack – right on schedule, they hit the debt ceiling. Then said the president, confronted with debt: “It’s cuts they want now, then it’s cuts they shall get. We’ll threaten such cuts that no one would take, and show them that cuts are not smart to make. This will make the Congress move. We’ll just float out a tester…broad, haphazard cuts that we’ll call the sequester.”

The Senate and even the House said, “OK! That will motivate us to find a good way. We’ll figure this out and stave off those cuts. To allow them to happen, we’d have to be nuts.” So, the deadline was set, but the spending went on. A year and a half had soon come and gone. The House passed a budget; the Senate said no; the president very much enjoyed the show. “Spend higher! Spend faster! Grow the welfare rolls! Soon, love for the spending will show up in the polls.” He even raised taxes, but it wasn’t enough; the levels of spending grew too fast to keep up.

“Don’t mind the sequester,” he told Capitol Hill. “You said you would fix it, and I’m sure you will.” But, they could not agree on ways to cut spending, and before they knew it, the sequester was pending. “Oh, no!” they all cried. “We can’t let these cuts stand!” And the president said, “Who thought of this terrible plan.” They didn’t remember his plan all along. He distracted them with his spending cut song. Now he returned to save them from harm, and to keep them forgetting all but his charm.

So the president said, with a glint in his eye, “You tried to cut spending. I saw how you tried. But it’s just too painful. I’m sure you can see. From the beginning, you should have listened to me. I’ll save you all from the spend cutters’ axes. You see, the solution is just to raise taxes.”

• • •

DuWayne Paul of Alexandria is a regular contributing columnist for the Echo Press.

Tags: opinion, columns