Inconvenient cuts
If only poor children had the same influence as airline passengers
All it took for Congress to prevent passengers at airports from being inconvenienced by the sequester with a special bill to avoid furloughs of air-traffic controllers were complaints from these passengers.
For one moment, the image of standing tough behind the cuts disappeared, as well as in some cases, the mockery of many GOP lawmakers who arrogantly thought that $85 billion in cuts to be made in what remains of the fiscal year would not have a significant impact, at least among their constituents.
The tens of thousands of children impacted by cuts to the Head Start program, and the infants, children and women affected by cuts to the WIC federal nutrition program, did not get the same attention from lawmakers. Neither did 6,200 food inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture who are going on furlough or the thousands of cancer patients on Medicare who are not receiving health care because of federal cuts.
However, executives and travelers having to wait at the airport for a few hours unleashed outrage among lawmakers.
Republicans claimed that the White House was seeking political brownie points by inconveniencing passengers instead of channeling cuts to another area. They probably would have wanted to cut funding for some safety net program, the kind they would love to eliminate.
The hypocrisy of those who support the implementation of the sequesterwhich was supposed to involve across-the-board government cuts, no matter the consequencesbecame clear in this case. Now we can see that the cuts are only for those who lack influence in Washington.
This is another result of Washington’s inability to come to a consensus on the budget. Being on autopilot replaced the common sense that only responds to complaints by the most influential. Shame on Democrats and Republicans.
ImpreMedia/La Opinion
