How stupid do I think you are?

Svaneke Harbor, Bornholm, Denmark. Phil Degginger, Mira.

This is Mr. Haven Pell, retired naval officer and investment banker, and doubtless a dab hand at tying a bow tie. Apparently between the 19th hole and cocktail hour back at the old hovel, he finds time to maintain a blog called LibertyPell, maybe while dressing for dinner. It's his trophy career.

Late last February he predicted that the dread sequester was not likely to end up pooping anybody's party, given that the federal government already has far more money than it really knows what to do with from its ridiculously persistent taxation of the Pells and the Havenses and all their in-laws and fraternity brothers and dance partners and bridge companions, and offered the following as a way of keeping tabs on the issue:

As a public service, here are 10 questions you can ask to anyone who suggests plagues of locusts or frogs because of the sequester.

1.  How many White House staff personnel will be furloughed?
2.  How many Congressional staff personnel will be furloughed?
3.  If a departmental budget reverts to the level of 2007 or 2008 (when that level of spending was presumably satisfactory) is that a problem?
4.  Is anything useful found in any part of a budget other than the top line?
5.  Has any elected official given up even one of his earmarks?
6.  If you had to bet your own personal funds on the threatened outcome actually happening, would you do so?
7.  Are you telling the truth or is it time to bring back Congressman Joe “you lie” Wilson of South Carolina who shouted those words at the President?
8.  Would you be willing to tender your resignation if your statements about the effects of sequestration proved to be hyped or indeed false?
9.  If this tiny percentage is so important, why don’t we spend that and cut all the rest?
10.  How stupid do you think we are?

Whatever the actual impact of this political silliness, be assured those whose job it was to avoid it will feel it least.

So, hm?

1. So far 480 staffers at OMB, plus slowed hiring and refilling of vacant positions, with more pay cuts and furloughs possible.  President Obama has given himself a five percent pay cut. All 60,000 employees at Customs and Border Services have received furlough notices, almost all 47,000 of the Federal Aviation Administration's personnel will be on furlough one or two days per pay period, 20,000 federal court employees will be furloughed for 16 days, 4,700 employees of the Labor Department will be furloughed between April and September, 20,500 NASA contractors may lose their jobs, and so on. For a detailed idea of how ongoing cuts affect every aspect of government work see the list of 100 prepared by Sam Stein and Amanda Terkel for Huffington Post (via Ed Kilgore).

2. With the exception, of course, of the Congress. With the sure instinct that has made them the least popular institution since the disbanding of the International Brotherhood of Public Executioners, they exempted themselves. As a matter of fact they were required to, by law. But they are going to lose staff and support, they just aren't talking about it. That's because Congress is run by Republicans who say that the sequester is no big deal.

3. The levels of spending were not satisfactory in 2007 and 2008, unless you were in war propaganda. They were already staggering under a decade of ruthless cuts, first to balance the budget (Clinton), then to unbalance it beyond anyone's wildest dreams (Bush). Does that answer your question?

4. Yes. That is why they consist of more than one line. Did you say you used to work as an investment banker?

5. Earmarks were banned two years ago. (Now they have something else which may be considerably worse, but I've made the point I wanted to make.)

6. Ooh, shall we say $10,000?

7. It is never time to bring back ex-Congressman Wilson, if you've been brought up properly.

8. Are you sure you used to work as an investment banker?

9. Huh? How about we do that with your tax bill? Since you're so desperate to hold on to that additional 4.6% on income over $450,000, which I'm sure you're out there creating jobs with, why don't you just keep it and let the government take the rest of your income in exchange?

10. Explain how question 9 is supposed to work and we'll talk.

Seal Harbor, Maine, Greg A. Hartford.