| OCR Text |
Show 4 Friday March 1, 2013 OPINION www.dailyutahchronicle.com `Sequester' signifies new meaning for cuts so if we do this I can get my money? Opinion Columnist w hen the term sequester is brought up, most people believe it means separating a person or a thing from its normal environment. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, in fact, it means just: "to set apart, seclude, withdraw, seize or place property in custody." However, the term is also used to define a series of spending cuts, which Congress passed as part of the Budget and Control Act of 2011. Unless you are a political news junkie and follow the news religiously, you probably wouldn't pay much attention to the word sequester. You especially wouldn't expect it to implicate trillions of dollars in spending reductions over the course of the next decade. The sequester has — as of today — taken effect. If you missed out on the terms of the Budget and Control Act of 2011, here's what you need to know about it, and about how the sequester came into being. The proverbial elephant in deficitreduction rooms in the halls of power is always how to effectively balance our enormous budget — which totals more than $3 trillion annually — and where to make cuts. A "supercommittee" of legislators — Congresspeople and senators alike — was supposed to figure out how to cut $1.5 trillion over the next LUIGI GHERSI/The Daily Utah Chronicle 10 years. No deal was reached, and as incentive to come together in the coming months, extremely punitive spending cuts that impact the totality of government programs, including Defense, were passed. The cuts were supposed to be and, in fact, are so stupidly punitive that no one, Democrat or Republican, would sit on his or her thumbs and let the cuts come to fruition. The biggest fallout for Utah is furloughs that affect jobs in lower levels of the military and government — such as at Hill Air Force Base. If an alternative deal is reached, House Democrats would like to have a broad mix of tax increases, while Senate Democrats have proposed a plan called the American Family Economic Protection Act, which is WE WOULDN'T WANT ANY OM JOE OFF THE STREET VOTING! WHO KNOWS WHO THEY'D ELECT? similar to what the House wants. Republicans, on the other hand, insist any alternative plan consists of only spending cuts and not tax revenues. They say revenues were had in the fiscal cliff deal reached in January. President Barak Obama then, in a way, used up all his bullets — and his negotiating leverage. Democrats and Republicans need to be forced to play nice with one another. Obama should sit down with them in a room and refuse to let anyone leave until the rough outlines of a deal are reached. No one in public elected office — not the president, not the Republicans and not the Democrats — should be paid until they take measures to resolve the sequester. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu Same-day voting registration won't fix Utah voters' apathy D emocrats in Utah have proposed HB 91, which would provide for same-day voter registration as ostensibly a means of countering lower voter turnout in Utah. For decades in the late zoth century, Utah had some of the highest voter turnout rates in the nation. Since then, we've fallen to the bottom third. Several factors are at play here — not least among them a series of vocal, anti-communist leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 'dos and '8os who fear-mongered the Democratic party — and with it, real electoral competition — out of Utah, thus leading to a pervasive attitude of apathy among Utah voters. (Recall that Utah voted for Lyndon Johnson in his re-election bid in the mid6os.) However, this does not completely account for low voter turnout rates, to which Utah House Democrats are vigorously trying to find a redress. A second cause of low voter turnout that has produced the same effect — pervasive voter Opinion Editor apathy — is safe Congressional districts. These are the first cause of low voter turnout to the extent that they serve as a disincentive for compromise and moderation, and an incentive not just to advocate extreme policies but to obstruct — or blatantly monkey-wrench — the mechanisms of government. Moreover, Utah voters have become so busy that there is no longer sufficient time to vote — though this seems more a cop out than a reason. Can we really put a time limit on democracy, and if so, can we really call ourselves small-d democrats in any meaningful sense of the term? The final and most explanatory cause derives from the fact that the pursuit of happiness has been perfected in a way such that it has discour- aged people from partaking in efforts that, on the surface, do not seem directly, but only tangentially or incidentally, related to their autonomy and sovereignty as individuals and freedom. So the consequent of the question, "what happens when the pursuit of happiness is perfected?" is that we stop acting like, or even being, Democrats — and thus we lose the condition that enabled the pursuit of perfection in the first place: our commitment to participating in small-d democratic politics. What does that make us then, those who have perfected their pursuit of happiness? It makes us democratic losers and voyeur patriots, choosing to watch democracy happen from afar rather than take democracy for ourselves. Utah Democrats have introduced HB 91 to solve this problem of low voter turn out, democratic loserness and voyeur patriotism. While sameday voter registration couldn't conceivably hurt voter turnout, the problem is much larger and much deeper than this. letters@chronicle.utah.edu LETTER TO THE EDITOR Debate comments offensive itiovAttt. ISAAC J. BROMLEY/The Daily Utah Chronicle Editor: I recently listened to the radio broadcast of the ASUU election debates. I have friends running for both parties, so I wanted to support both sides. As far as I could tell, in my opinion the HOUSE Party won the debate. The Peak Party seemed less prepared. The Peak Party has answers, but the HOUSE Party had answers and solutions with plans. So what I am trying to say is I am an unbiased party. The reason I am writing this letter is not to discuss who won the debate. I want to talk about a prejudiced remark that was made by one of the Peak Party members during the debate. The Peak Party discussed the plan of having "midget mud wresting." I want to bring this to your attention, because I could not believe how derogatory this comment was. It made me feel like our university just regressed about ioo years. Our campus has made huge efforts to value diversity, and it makes me sad that we have people who are running for our own student association making derogatory comments. Alexis Arnett, Junior, Social Work Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@chronicle.utah.edu . Letters should be fewer than 350 words and must include the writer's name. Letters from students should also include the writer's major and year in school. Letters from U faculty and staff should include department and title. Letters from alumni should include the year the writer graduated. All other letters must include the sender's name and city of residence. All letters become property of The Daily Utah Chronicle and may be edited for style, length and content. |
