A debate among friends over the meaning of "sequester," once a word I knew only as something done to juries, sent me to the dictionary. It means several things but they center around separating, walling off, one group of things from the rest. These days, of course, it refers to the big spending cuts that are just ahead unless Congress acts before the end of next week.
Now there's a thought--imagine Congress acting, or at least acting sensibly. Hard to imagine.
I suppose it's just nostalgia, but it seems to me those guys made better sense years ago when I first covered them. Their ranks included actual grown-ups--Lyndon Johnson, Phil Hart, John Sherman Cooper. I could go on; it's a distinguished list. (For the moment let's forget those less distinguished—McCarthy, et al.)
They tended to pass real bills that dealt with real issues--Vietnam, the Cold War, the Civil Rights Act--you remember. Nobody "sequestered." It's a difficult thought to imagine, looking back at the hardships and tragedies of that time, but maybe those were the good old days of governing. At least they got something done.
Could we sequester Congress?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Ann Hawthorne" <aphawthorne@verizon.net>
Date: Feb 22, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: FEBRUARY 22, 2013
To: "Wittenberg, Holly" <holly.wittenberg@gmail.com>
A debate among friends over the meaning of "sequester," once a word I knew only as something done to juries, sent me to the dictionary. It means several things but they center around separating, walling off, one group of things from the rest. These days, of course, it refers to the big spending cuts that are just ahead unless Congress acts before the end of next week.
Now there's a thought--imagine Congress acting, or at least acting sensibly. Hard to imagine.
I suppose it's just nostalgia, but it seems to me those guys made better sense years ago when I first covered them. Their ranks included actual grown-ups--Lyndon Johnson, Phil Hart, John Sherman Cooper. I could go on; it's a distinguished list. (For the moment let's forget those less distinguished—McCarthy, et al.)
They tended to pass real bills that dealt with real issues--Vietnam, the Cold War, the Civil Rights Act--you remember. Nobody "sequestered." It's a difficult thought to imagine, looking back at the hardships and tragedies of that time, but maybe those were the good old days of governing. At least they got something done.
Could we sequester Congress?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Ann Hawthorne" <aphawthorne@verizon.net>
Date: Feb 22, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: FEBRUARY 22, 2013
To: "Wittenberg, Holly" <holly.wittenberg@gmail.com>
A debate among friends over the meaning of "sequester," once a word I knew only as something done to juries, sent me to the dictionary. It means several things but they center around separating, walling off, one group of things from the rest. These days, of course, it refers to the big spending cuts that are just ahead unless Congress acts before the end of next week.
Now there's a thought--imagine Congress acting, or at least acting sensibly. Hard to imagine.
I suppose it's just nostalgia, but it seems to me those guys made better sense years ago when I first covered them. Their ranks included actual grown-ups--Lyndon Johnson, Phil Hart, John Sherman Cooper. I could go on; it's a distinguished list. (For the moment let's forget those less distinguished—McCarthy, et al.)
They tended to pass real bills that dealt with real issues--Vietnam, the Cold War, the Civil Rights Act--you remember. Nobody "sequestered." It's a difficult thought to imagine, looking back at the hardships and tragedies of that time, but maybe those were the good old days of governing. At least they got something done.
Could we sequester Congress?
No comments:
Post a Comment