se·ques·ter
v. se·ques·tered, se·ques·ter·ing, se·ques·ters
v.tr.
1. To cause to withdraw into seclusion.
2. To remove or set apart; segregate. See Synonyms at isolate.
3. Law
a. To take temporary possession of (property) as security against legal claims.
b. To requisition and confiscate (enemy property).
v.intr. Chemistry
To undergo sequestration.
vb (tr)
1. to remove or separate
2. (usually passive) to retire into seclusion
3. (Law) Law to take (property) temporarily out of the possession of its owner, esp until the claims of creditors are satisfied or a court order is complied with
4. (Law) International law to requisition or appropriate (enemy property)
[from Late Latin sequestr?re to surrender for safekeeping, from Latin sequester a trustee]
sequestrable adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Source: TheFreeDictionary
I love the way our government officials convolute things. Essentially, when they talk about the sequester or sequestration, they are talking about the automatic ($85 billion) budget cuts set to take effect on March 1st, ten days from today . Congress is now on recess and won’t be back until Monday the 25th; and though it’s possible that Congress could, as it did in January, further delay the sequester, there’s a very good chance that the cuts will take effect on March 1st.
As to the extent of the severity of the cuts, the reviews I have read have been mixed. Personally, however, I cannot imagine that they will be good. Anytime the people with the money stop spending, the people further down the line on the food chain suffer. Those who will be the first to feel the cuts will be the people who work in defense industries; and there, undoubtedly, will be many layoffs if the cuts are allowed to proceed in their present form. From there, the effects will proceed to ripple through the rest of the economy.
The whole thing seems ridiculous to me; setup automatic spending cuts, to be implemented at some point in the future, if “we” can’t find ways to fix the problem(s) before then. It’s absurd! It’s like saying: If I can’t get my budget in order I’m going to stop paying for my house alarm system, I’m no longer going to pay for my children’s education and I’m no longer going to send money to my elderly parents. If you can’t afford those things in the first place then why would you have to setup an automatic “stop payment” system. Just fix the problem(s) first and foremost. AND, be certain that you’re not cutting the things most important to you and your loved ones.
Sadly, cuts need to be made, and those who will feel the cuts most severely will be the middle class. And you can bet your bottom dollar that those outside the U.S. will not be affected (i.e. those who receive aid from the U.S.) — at least not as severely as U.S. citizens.
This past Sunday I saw the 60 MINUTES documentary on “Iron Dome,” the new Israeli missile defense system. The system is extremely impressive and worth the money. The only problem is that the U.S. Government and its tax payers are the ones who supplied much of the money for the project.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great to help others; the only problem right now is that we really need to help ourselves. As a nation, we can no longer afford to be the world’s police force, or the place where everyone goes when they need something. Granted, we have much to give, but we are quickly reaching a point where we are going to give away our last dollar before making any efforts to pay our own debts first.
In my humble opinion, I believe that, if the sequester is allowed to proceed, there will be a tremendous backlash. That event, coupled with rising fuel prices (which always seem to precede a recession) spell certain disaster for our economy in the months to come.
