Your story in the Feb. 23 issue, "Obama, GOP see no need to stop automatic reductions," requires further explanation. Due to the budgeting process--which only politicians could love (and Congress could enact and a president sign)--each year, the budget automatically increases by some (magical?) amount. If the budget increases by less than that amount, it is considered (by the politicians) to be a cut.

Sequestration is nothing more than a reduction in the amount of increase--it is not a cut. I assume that since reporters are skilled in the art of journalism, each and every one of them should be able to figure out when a "cut" is just a smaller increase and is not a cut. All the government "services" provided in one year could be provided in the next year and still have money left over (ignoring inflation).

If I get paid a yearly salary, it affords me a certain lifestyle. Getting an increase (ignoring inflation) would provide me with at least the same lifestyle. Since I keep hearing from Washington politicians that inflation is practically nonexistent, I should have no problems maintaining said lifestyle!

Now, in story after story, I read that sequestration is some "monster" to avoid at all costs (no pun intended).

Can we please have at least one story that speaks to the smaller increase that sequestration will cause, and doesn't call it a cut? If not, Mark Twain was correct when he said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." Come on, FLS, at least in this instance, prove Mark Twain wrong.

Richard Lorey

King George