SIMMONS: Sequester cuts could present opportunities

Story Topics
Question of the Day

Should Congress make English the official language of the U.S.?

View results

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In Hammond, Ind., a city of about 81,000 people near violence-plagued Chicago, police are concerned they may lose federal money to purchase laptop computers and radar guns.

In Iowa, milk and meat producers don’t anticipate an immediate impact on their farming income, but they are nervous about threats to health and jobs if food inspectors lose their jobs, which the Obama administration said are on the line because the White House and Congress failed to reach a deal to avoid the sequesters.

Since these and other fears have us all wedged between a man-made rock and an uncomfortable hard place, perhaps now is the time to focus on the real problem. It’s the spending, stupid.

Automatically taking effect March 1 because of Washington’s inaction, the across-the-board spending cuts present an opportunity to begin rethinking the role of our ever-expanding federal government in general, as well as public schooling and public safety.

According to federal estimates, Virginia, a state whose northern and middle regions heavily depend on Defense Department spending, stands to lose an estimated $14 million from the federal government for primary and secondary schooling and nearly $13.9 million for educating children with disabilities.

Those “lost” federal revenues would be on top of cuts to programs that give youngsters a so-called head start.

Considering that federal education spending has grown by leaps and bounds since the Carter administration in the 1970s while math, science and reading scores have remained virtually stagnant since then, fewer federal dollars could be a blessing in disguise.

True, it’s certainly challenging that Virginia might have to adjust its state budget — and localities reconsider theirs, too — to keep nearly 350 teachers inside classrooms. Those teaching posts never should have been tethered to federal purse strings anyway — purse strings that are manipulated not by local parents or state leaders answerable to voters but in the tight grasp of inside-the-Beltway bureaucrats.

The same is true regarding critical public-safety policies.

During the George W. Bush administration, the federal government began subsidizing local firefighter salaries and firefighting equipment. Now look.

In the nation’s capital, by way of example, Congress and the White House usually agree on public-safety appropriations for the city, and that’s usually a good thing.

But instead of officials in city hall optimizing that money, they are putting on a poor imitation of Smokey Bear, who ultimately needs firefighters to keep him safe, too.

And police?

Suffice it to say, the Metropolitan Police Department is undermanned and underpaid because officers and city officials remain at an impasse over a contract. The officers have been working without a contract since 2007 — when Mr. Bush was in office.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

About the Author
Deborah Simmons

Deborah Simmons

Award-winning opinion writer Deborah Simmons is a senior correspondent who reports on City Hall and writes about education, culture, sports and family-related topics. Mrs. Simmons has worked at several newspapers, and since joining The Washington Times in 1985, has served as editorial-page editor and features editor and on the metro desk. She has taught copy editing at the University of ...

Latest Stories

Latest Blog Entries

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks