Last Updated:September 1 @ 10:22 pm

Do voters know what sequestration is?

By Matthew Barakat

LEESBURG, Va. (AP) - In many ways, it's an odd topic to make a central campaign issue: sequestration.

Many voters greet the word with a blank stare or slightly glazed eyes, and when Republican George Allen brings up the issue in his Senate campaign, he first has to explain what he's talking about.

What's more, the issue will come to a head before either he or his opponent, Democrat Tim Kaine, will be sworn in.

Still, in a state like Virginia where a big chunk of the economy is dependent on government spending and military dollars in particular, the automatic, across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration are a critical issue. Whether it's a political issue that connects with voters remains to be seen.

"I think Virginians are well aware of it," said Allen, who perhaps more than any other candidate has latched on to sequestration as a campaign issue. "People in northern Virginia and Hampton Roads (parts of the state with large populations of military workers and contractors) are really aware of it."

In the last of the presidential debates Monday night, President Barack Obama said flatly that sequestration "will not occur." But the White House also has made clear that Obama hasn't given up making any alternative include higher taxes on the wealthy.

In a nutshell, sequestration was put into play as part of a budget compromise in August 2011 that averted a default on the federal debt. Under the compromise, which had bipartisan support, Congress would have to come up with $1.2 trillion in alternative budget cuts by the end of this year.

If it were to fail, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion over nine years would begin on Jan. 2, 2012, with half coming from defense. The sequester cuts were designed to be so painful that Congress would be compelled to act. They are a big part of the so-called fiscal cliff, from which the country could plunge back into recession, economists warn, if Congress also lets all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire at the first of the year.

Obama signed the budget deal. The Republican vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan, voted for it. So did House Speaker John Boehner. Neither Allen nor Kaine was a member of Congress at the time.

The looming, one-year defense cuts of about $55 billion also have popped up in House races in California and Colorado, where Democratic challengers have criticized incumbent Republicans for jeopardizing military dollars and jobs. In key states and districts, the obscure deal is a pocketbook issue with voters still jittery over jobs and bills in the wake of recession.

In a newly redrawn San Diego-area district, Democratic challenger Scott Peters has criticized GOP Rep. Brian Bilbray for voting for the budget plan, warning of the potential loss of 30,000 jobs in the region. Bilbray insisted that it wasn't ideal, but it was the best bipartisan solution available.

In a suburban Denver district that is home to Buckley Air Force Base, Democratic challenger Joe Miklosi assails Republican Rep. Mike Coffman, arguing that the congressman and other House Republicans have forced the crisis by refusing to compromise on a budget deal.

"Some of these people are going to get a pink slip because Congress didn't do its job," said Miklosi. "We're playing with people's lives here. They're nervous, they're concerned."

Coffman, who served in Iraq with the Marines, said most voters are broadly concerned about the national budget but aren't yet attuned to the latest fiscal deadline and what it would mean. He believes a spending deal will be reached in time to avoid the cuts, saying he gets questions about sequestration mostly from business executives in military industries.

"They're very worried about it, but it hasn't filtered down to the rank-and-file employees in those same businesses," Coffman said.

Kaine, a former governor and chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a debate in July that he supported the default-avoiding budget compromise. Allen seized on the remark and has run ads accusing Kaine of supporting a deal that holds the military hostage. He cites studies that have shown that as many as 200,000 jobs in Virginia could be lost if sequestration takes effect.

Kaine, for his part, makes clear that he opposes sequestration and the defense cuts associated with it. He has offered an alternative that would mix other spending cuts with higher taxes on those making above $500,000 a year.

His spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said the issue shows a difference in the candidates' philosophies: Kaine was willing to accept an imperfect compromise to prevent the potential catastrophe of default, while Allen would have shunned compromise and risked default to pursue an all-or-nothing agenda.

"Business people know that a default would have had a very serious impact on the entire economy, including defense," Hoffine said.

In Loudoun County, an outer suburb of Washington and home to some tech companies and defense contractors, the issue of sequestration is not pervasive, said Tony Howard, president of the county's Chamber of Commerce.

"Inside the Beltway it dominates the conversation." Howard said. "Here, I don't think it's something that a lot of the rank-and-file business owners are focused on."

Business owners, Howard said, more generally see the sequestration dilemma as a broader symptom of the general dysfunction in Washington.

"A lot of the business people I talk to, they don't get it. They don't understand why compromise is a dirty word," he said. "In business, you have to compromise."

At a rally last week for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in Chesapeake, Va., part of the Hampton Roads region that has a large military presence, the issue was important for some voters but not others.

"It's a big issue, not only because I work in the shipyard, because if the federal government is going to spend money, it should spend money to protect and defend the country," said Vitor Maruues, a retired Air Force maintenance officer and now an engineering analyst at Newport News Shipbuilding. "I'd rather have paid workers in the shipyard and other defense contractors that are scientists, engineers, metal cutters, pipe fitters, plumbers than provide for people on unemployment, on food stamps and on welfare."

---

Associated Press writers Brock Vergakis in Chesapeake, Va., Kristen Wyatt in Denver and Henry C. Jackson in Washington contributed to this report.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 8.6/10 (22 votes cast)
Do voters know what sequestration is?, 8.6 out of 10 based on 22 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

6 Comments

  1. nickster99Comment by nickster99
    October 25, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

    I would say that the majority of the obummer supporters and his base do not know what it means! That word is much too long for them to understand. All they understand the phrase,……….. free sh**!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (27 votes cast)
    • way2coolComment by way2cool
      October 25, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

      This is a good point to emphasize for the Romney Campaign: they need to s-p-e-l-l it out. This was one of the crucial points of the debate: Cutting Military Spending. If you recall, Romney was against it and I believe one of the points that pivoted the voters to him. So, it needs to be explained many times, loud and clear!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (21 votes cast)
  2. rrg51Comment by rrg51
    October 25, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

    And I don’t see in this article a good feel for what it is…only that it’s bad. I don’t question that. I don’t have a feel for what percent of the overally budget it is, and which sacrificial lambs are closest to the altar. I fully understand that neither the legislative or executive branches have gotten up off their dead ***** to take action, and likely the victims of the cuts haven’t lined up what’s least painful to sacrifice. If I saw that coming in my personal budget, I know that’s what I’d have done.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (14 votes cast)
  3. rosechComment by rosech
    October 25, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

    I think Ryan stated the obvious, the Demos would not cooperate on anything better and the issue being critical needed votes, so Ryan voted for it. Common sense, BUT things can change once Romney and Ryan are in the catbird seat and we get at least 4 more so we have the Senate. With Reid still in, nothing will get done again! Reid news to retire but he just can’t let go of his little kingdom and a lot of lazy and/or stupid Demos in the Senate following his dictates. Obama, Reid and Pelosi are dictators and need to be removed.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
  4. jjb54Comment by jjb54
    October 25, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

    The thing that still amazes me with the DEM’s .. is the word “Compromise”. LMAO.

    IF they are so ready to “compromise”, how is it that most all the BILLS that the HOUSE Passed are still sitting on Harry’s Lame Duck Desk?

    The Senate have steadfast prevented any BILLS to go foward. (Spelling on purpose.) REASON? – Well they still control the SENATE, and the only reason Harry will not take those BILLS to the floor? Even his own party will vote the opposite of the way Obama and Harry want. Otherwise, we all know, they would be on the FLOOR – VOTED ON AND READY for Obama to sign, pure and simple. This is NOT Rocket Science or Politics 405. That is simple Politics 101. If you have the votes to pass what you want … YOU PASS THEM ASAP!

    So please, spare me the REPUBLICAN FAULT and they don’t know how to “compromise”.

    I have not seen Obama or Harry on the floor ‘preaching’ this! They are just as GUILTY of holding to “PARTY LINES” and more so. (Again, just look at how many BILLS the House have/has passed and how many have NOT passed in Harry’s Court.)

    They have been steadfast on TAX THE RICH – PERIOD. Even after it was stated and proven: Even if you took every penny – dime and nickel of everyone making over a MILLION DOLLARS, it would not make a dent in the budget. Not a DENT. So obviously that is NOT the answer. You want to start to make a “DENT” …..

    So obviously taxing the RICH is not the answer. Lowering taxes so Business’s large and small can afford to HIRE – PRODUCE MORE and thus …. the bottom line is good and so are Tax Revenues.
    The answer is simple economics. IF I have a product, I WANT TO SELL THEM. As many as I can.

    Here let me show you.

    I have a product that costs me $50.00 to make. I sell it at a $100.00 and in one month I sell 5 of them. So I make $250.00 dollars profit. But IF I lower the price to $75.00 and sell more .. say 20 of them … well do the math. I make a better profit.

    So if you lower taxes, so people can afford to sell their products for a little less .. they sell MORE and thus get taxed MORE for their profit. Sell less, you get less taxes coming in. This is NOT “Rocket Science”. But then again, maybe it is?

    Can we please quit drinking the Kool-Aid??? Please?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (17 votes cast)
    • canada3dayerComment by canada3dayer
      October 25, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

      with the Democrats, “TAX IT!” is a knee-jerk reaction. I bet if you were to wake one suddenly from a nap the first word out of his/her mouth would be TAX IT! and given that, it’s sorta amazing that all manner of drugs, prostitution, etc aren’t legal and taxed flat to death.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (6 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer