Campaign 2010

Mar 03, 2013

FACT CHECK: Boehner claims he “doesn’t know” if sequester will impact economy

On Meet the Press today Speaker John Boehner continued to stick his head in the sand and deny the disastrous consequences of the sequester that he and Tea Party House Republicans have refused to stop, claiming he “[doesn’t] know whether it’s going to hurt the economy or not.”

Speaker Boehner should read a newspaper—or listen to his own Congressional Budget Office. The non-partisan Congressional Budget office found that the sequester will lower America’s GDP by at least half a percentage point, potentially driving the economy toward recession,  and that it will cost about 700,000 jobs.


Sequester Will Cost 700,000 Jobs and Lower Economic Growth. Private and government forecasters project that sequestration alone will cost about 700,000 jobs this year and will shave at least a half percentage point from economic growth. [New York Times, 3/02/13]

By The Numbers: Sequestration Will Target Women, Children, Veterans, and the Most Vulnerable

According to an analysis by U.S. Senate’s Appropriations Committee on the impacts of sequestration, as reported by the New York Times:

  • 4,000 workers would be furloughed every day at the F.A.A., causing flight backups.
  • 70,000 children would lose Head Start.
  • 14,000 teachers and other school employees could lose their jobs.
  • 125,000 families would be put at sudden risk of homelessness because their rental assistance would end.
  • 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and severely emotionally disturbed children would most likely lose their treatments.
  • 600,000 women and children would lose nutrition aid from the Women, Infants and Children program.
  • 251,000 civilians employed by the Army could be furloughed for up to 22 days.
  • $3 billion would be the potential shortfall in the military’s health insurance program; some services could be denied for retirees and dependents of active-duty personnel.
  • 7,750 Customs and Border Protections agents could be laid off.

[New York Times, 2/16/13; House Appropriations Committee, 2/13/13]