Well, Republican refusal to consider any new revenue by closing loopholes in tax laws for the rich has insured that the so-called "sequestration" cuts will happen as scheduled. These are across-the-board cuts in federal discretionary spending that will amount to about $85 billion. The cuts to the military make sense, because the military budget makes up more than half of all discretionary spending (and over 45% of the military spending in the entire world). There is a lot of fat that can be cut from the bloated military budget -- which up to now has been immune to government cuts.The other cuts are going to hurt though. That's because those areas have already been cut pretty substantially, and these new cuts will involve a substantial number of layoffs and reductions in government services. It will also stunt the growth of the nation's GDP (with most economic experts predicting it will knock at least a point off of expected GDP growth). That's because these cuts are the same as taking $85 billion out of an already struggling economy.
Some have wondered why the Republicans would allow these cuts to happen. After all, the president offered to make $2 in cuts for every $1 in increased revenue -- a very reasonable offer which would still have hurt, but not nearly as bad as the "sequestration" cuts will. I think it's because they are still playing the same political game they have been playing since President Obama was elected in 2008 -- to delay or block anything that might improve the economy (like job creation) so the economy (and citizens) would continue to suffer, in hopes of blaming it all on the president and increase their political chances.
That silly political game did not work at all in 2012, but the Republicans are not ones to let failure change them. They are convinced that if they just stay the course, their strategy will someday start to work. There are a couple of things wrong with that line of thinking. First, poll after poll has shown that a clear majority of voters blame the Republicans for the "sequestration" cuts, and I believe even more will do so as the cuts begin to hurt Main Street.
Second, these cuts are likely to be felt the most in areas where the Republicans do the best electorally. Note the map above -- which shows what the states get back from the federal government in relation to what they send that government. The states in white get less from the federal government than they send to the federal government -- and the colored states get more back than they send (with the darker colored states getting the most).
With the exception of Texas and Arkansas, every single solidly Republican state gets more from the federal government than it provides in revenue -- and these states are going to feel the sequestration cuts the most. Meanwhile, the most Democratic states tend to get less back than they send in. In other words, the Republican desire to let the sequestration cuts take place (so they don't have to increase taxes for the rich) will be felt the most in those states where Republicans get most of their votes -- they are hurting their supporters more than anyone else.
Personally, I think they're playing a dangerous political game. It could very well come back to bite them on the butt in 2014.
