Congressman David McKinley
(R-WV) believes there's unnecessary drama and hype attached to the
sequestration. McKinley says the President deliberately targeted things that would
cause pain to the public: air traffic controllers, food safety and airport
security. He said that money could have come from other places.
"Those are at the
direction of the president and his agencies. Because there's nothing mandated,
nothing in any of the legislation that's been adopted that says that's how you're
supposed to make the cuts," he said. "The president could just as easily reduce
the spending that is planned in other areas."
McKinley said it's a two
and a half percent cut, and it won't put anyone in danger.
"I don't think anyone's
lives are going to be in jeopardy," McKinley said. "We just need some
flexibility to deal with it because in the big scheme, we have to start
reducing spending in America."
The public is still trying to make sense of sequestration, an unfamiliar term standing for unprecedented cuts.
"So I think the Republicans are doing a good thing by not caving in right now," said Gary Gillman of Litiz, Pennsylvania. "Because when you look at the percentage, the percentage they want to cut out of the total budget is minuscule. And it's not really cutting the budget, it's reducing the increases."
"I think we may be in trouble and it's not something I'm looking forward to," said Joy Trubiano of Wheeling. "I'm glad actually that the Republicans actually did stand their ground."
McKinley believes the nation can't continue to spend beyond its means.
It's generational theft. We're taking away from our children and our grandchildren. And that really is not right," McKinley said. "These kids wouldn't be saddled with our obligations. If we couldn't come up with the ability to deal with it, why are we passing that on to them?"