FOXNews — According to the FOX News report, parks are closing, government workers are being furloughed. The Department of Defense is issuing warnings about compromised military readiness. The Department of Homeland Security is making similar claims about border security.

I have to admit, in the little bubble that is my world, I haven’t seen any effect of the sequester.  As a matter of fact, I didn’t even know what a “sequester” was until all of this hit the news. I always thought that sequestration was what you did to a jury in a big murder case or something. …the jury was isolated.

According to the official White House definition, the Sequester is explained like this:

“In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if they couldn’t agree on a plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion — including the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction lawmakers in both parties have already accomplished over the last few years — about $1 trillion in automatic, arbitrary and across the board budget cuts would start to take effect in 2013.”

“Unfortunately, Congress hasn’t compromised, and as a consequence, harmful cuts — known as the sequester — begin March 1.”

“These cuts will jeopardize our military readiness and eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research, and don’t take into account whether they eliminate some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or cut a vital service that Americans depend on every single day.”

“The whole design of these arbitrary cuts was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that Democrats and Republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. And so this was all designed to say we can’t do these bad cuts; let’s do something smarter. That was the whole point of this so-called sequestration.”

—President Obama

You know this seems like one of the dumber things that have come out of Washington.  The idea of setting up something stupid like across the board cuts, with the only way to avoid would be to actually agree on spending, cuts and taxes at some time in the future.  What were they thinking?  It took over 4 years to come up with a budget, a budget that has no chance of getting passed, but a budget none the less.

I’m starting to think that maybe this sequester thing isn’t such a bad thing after all. 

Hear me out…  I agree that the sequester is not an example of brilliant budgeting but I do like the idea of cutting federal spending. I contend that the high federal deficits should be controlled, and that the government could use the same kind of belt-tightening that millions of private households have gone through in recent years.

I think that these “automatic spending cuts” might be the only way to get the federal government to make spending cuts.  With the government spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no offense to you drunken sailors) something needs to be done.

It’s not a popular stance but I think the spending cuts and or reform needs to be with the entitlements. If I had to choose between tax hikes or entitlement cuts, such as a one-year boost in the eligibility age for Social Security, my vote goes for the entitlement cuts.

All of the entitlements, in their current state, are unsustainable.  There will come a time when we will not be able to meet those obligations and then real drastic cuts will have to happen.  That’s when you get rioting in the streets like what is starting to happen in Europe.

There is a saying that is applicable in this situation we are in, “It may be an unwise man who doesn’t learn from his own mistakes, but it’s an absolute idiot that doesn’t learn from other people’s. “

Well, I guess we must be absolute idiots.