That would be the headline for stories about the sequester, if truth be told. Because, of course, to sequester is to hide, in this case to segregate dollars instead of people. And hiding involves a diversion of things, even figments of the imagination, from where they ought to go. Indeed, the ultimate intent of sequestration, as of segregration, is to interrupt motion. Moving things are hard to control. And control, after all, is the object. That's true whether the segregation/sequestration is self-directed or imposed. What seems ironic is that it seems to be a strategy of choice for people lacking in self-control. They want to lock things up because things moving around make them feel insecure.
We used to hear a lot about inferiority complexes. Whatever happened to those?
What's new about the sequester isn't just the name. Although it's not well recognized, the Congress, which is charged with creating the currency that's being hidden, has been employing the power to provide and deprive -- i.e. rationing dollars -- for decades. What's different about the sequester is that it's not only widespread, but almost entirely punitive. Instead of just punishing the 53% of the electorate that didn't vote right, the Congress is putting the screws to the 99%, managing to antagonize their base along with everyone else.
Why would they do that? I expect it's because they expected that, as usual, they'd be able to blame the deviation on someone else. Notice how there's been no echo to the promise of tax cuts for the rich? Even the vassals on Wall Street haven't bit. Indeed, Capitol Hill should have taken a hint when one of the country's richest bankers took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to announce that letting the banks have their way had been wrong -- having taken the bit between their teeth, they had careened into the abyss of bankruptcy.
But this new Jehu spurs the hot-mounted horse,
Instructs the beast to know his native force,
To take the bit between his teeth and fly
To the next headlong steep of anarchy.
from John Dryden's satirical poem The Medal, 1682
It may seem ironic, but bankruptcy is not something banks seem particularly keen to avoid. Indeed, as in other enterprise, the frequency with which it occurs and the legal provisions that have been made for it suggest that throwing in the towel has become a standard operating procedure. Of course, it's easy to do when someone else's assets, particularly money, are involved. Perhaps "trust" used to be such a common word in finacial circles because the behavior it references is required, but not honored by the conmen. Perhaps "In God we Trust" was a warning, all along.
In any event, if bankruptcy is not shunned but, indeed, welcome, one wonders if there is something the banksters are afraid of. And, I think we've found it. Debt, it seems, is the banksters' dread development. When they take in dollars from depositors, they call it an asset and when they lend them out, they call them credit. Or, at least, the Federal Reserve Bank does, as in "Consumer Credit Outstanding." $2.7 trillion dollars is what Americans currently owe to various financial institutions, including over half a trillion to the Federal Treasury itself. That's not what might be owed to the IRS, nor is it that "national debt" we hear so much about needing to be "fixed." Nor is it considered a deficit.
At best, I suspect that long-term and revolving "credit" constitutes a major reason for banker angst. After all, credit accounts represent steadily increasing amounts. "Debits" and "debts" are reserved for accounts that are either decreasing or have stopped growing. (If I've got that right, then what the Club for Growth would seem to have been about is securing an increasing flow of dollars into bank accounts -- a flow that, ironically, the candidates they sent to Congress under the Tea Party banner have virtually brought to a stop).
The Cons seem allergic to debt. Perhaps it's just a matter of their politicians feeling "out of their depth" when it comes to dealing with numbers. More likely, it's a matter of the instinct-driven, who obviously make good candidates for public office because of their public speaking skills, being deficient in the art of giving out anything but talk. "All hat, no cattle," isn't just applicable to Texans. (Poor Bush I. Having a silver foot in his mouth, instead of a silver tongue, proved disastrous once the Reagan Gilt wore off). Perhaps, as I've suggested before, the Cons, both politicians and pundits, can't tell the difference between "owe" and "own" -- between the self and the other. If so, then that would account for why they are endemically unfit for public service. Mistaking ownership for obligation is, it seems, not correctible.
People, who can't tell the difference between what belongs to them and what belongs to someone else, probably can't understand that debt is a good thing and that the alternative to debt is theft -- i.e. bad. It's a sharp distinction -- one, one would think, that is easily understood by our binary thinkers, who see everything in black and white. But, that involves opening their eyes or taking the blind-fold off, giving up the self-deception they've devised. Perhaps that too, having been practiced long enough, becomes a habit they can't give up.
"Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice to Deceive." This line from Sir Walter Scott is telling. That there are so many deceiving Scotts in the American political arena is eerie.