Is it too late to avert the sequester's deep spending cuts?

The Week ^ | 13 Feb 13 | Harold Maass

[SkyPilot]

epublican leaders in Congress predicted Wednesday that painful automatic spending cuts — the sequester, in Washington lingo — will hit at the end of the month, as scheduled. "I think the sequester’s gonna happen," Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership, said at a Politico post-State-of-the-Union event. Indeed, Democrats and Republicans have made little or no progress on a compromise deficit reduction deal that would head off the across-the-board budget cuts, which would hit the Pentagon and social programs especially hard.

President Obama warned in his address that allowing the sequester to hit would be disastrous, and called for a "balanced" deal reducing the deficit with both new revenue and spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the sequester is bad policy but House Republicans had already submitted their proposal to avert it, so it's up to the Democrat-controlled Senate to act now to avoid cuts designed to save $85 billion this year and $1.2 trillion over a decade. Should Americans brace for the worst, or is there still a chance for a compromise to head off the potentially damaging sequester?

Unless Obama changes his tune, Anneke E. Green argues at U.S. News & World Report, the sequester is going to happen, as long as Republicans don't lose their nerve. The president is warning "with a straight face" about the danger ahead, Green says, but "the impending spending cuts package was his idea from the start." During the 2011 debt talks, the White House praised the arrangement as a win-win, and Obama clearly "counted on Republicans in Congress to choose defense spending over fiscal restraint." Now he's "singing the sequestration blues," and it's his own fault.

[OneWingedShark]

Well, I say leave the military alone, and fire millions of other “government employees”.

I'm going to disagree -- it wasn't until after WWI (maybe after WWII) that we had a regular Army -- the two-year funding limit on the army makes it rather clear that the intent of the founders was that the Congress was to commission/fund military missions [read campaign] on an individual basis. Deep cuts to the military/defense could have the very good effect of making the States nervous enough to fund their own armies (read militia).

We can get over that—there are millions that are either unnecessary or redundant. Line ‘em all up, and count every 5th one and fire him.

That's rather arbitrary: I'd go with dissolving whole departments: USDA, FDA, DOE, EPA, DEA, BATFE, FBI, [other] DOE, SSA... basically everything that's not directly authorized by the Constitution:

• DOT (fedgov has the authority to regulate, as in make regular, interstate commerce)
• Post Office (explicit)
• Army & Navy (sorry Air Force, you got to die or go to the States)
• IRS (the congress DOES have the authority to collect taxes)
• Secret Service (they investigate counterfeiting)
• Actually, that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[SkyPilot]

Any cut is a good cut!

I know, that seems to be the prevailing mood, unless it is "their" program.

Myself, I care deeply about Defense. It is a Constitutional enterprise, it represents the best of our nation, and I have seen first hand the foolishness of gutting Defense only to see our nation have to rebuild later. We have been fortunate these last few decades - we have not been caught with our pants too far down around our ankles. That may change.

Any cut is a "good" cut, except if it is someones unemployment check, their Social Security, their Medicare, their pension, their contract, their COLA increase, etc.

I realize that. I am a realist.

[SkyPilot]

Butter has far more constituents than guns.

Or in this case:

[3Fingas]

In the main, the democrats have no problem cutting Defense spending. The DOD is not a dem constituency. So, they accomplish two things at once by allowing the sequester to occur. First, they hurt a Republican constituency. Second, they can foster division and rancor on the right by making the Republicans seem callous or incompetent or both.

[basil]

Yes—but you’re thinking it through, and I’m being flippant. I think it’s called “sick of government syndrome.” I came down with it about 4 or 5 yrs ago, when I realized how screwed we actually are.

[JustTheTruth]

Let the cuts happen. Also, we need to start properly referring to this as:

THE OBAMA SEQUESTER He, after all, is the one who wanted it and who signed it into law.

[kabar]

Thanks. So nothing has passed the Senate. This is just the Dem plan.

[metesky]

...cuts designed to save $85 billion this year and $1.2 trillion over a decade.

So 120 billion (average) cut out of annual budget of 3.5/4 trillion dollars is gonna ruin gubmint?

Blow that smoke up someone else's arse.

[kabar]

The problem with the cuts is that they are exemptions, which amount to about two thirds of the budget, i.e., so-called mandatory programs. So the real impact is almost 10% on the remaining third of the budget, i.e., discretionary spending.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They are NOT "spending cuts" by any rational definition.

We are talking the baseline-budgeting scam here.

In baseline budgeting, if you were budgeting a 5% increase in spending, but cancel the increase, it's a 5% cut.

You're still spending the same amount of money as you did before, but they call it a "cut."

That's not a "cut."

[jeffc]

...but "the impending spending cuts package was his [Obama's] idea from the start."

That was my impression, but I've read that it was Congress's idea (or the "committee" to work things out or whatever). I just think the "media" is trying to lay blame on the Repubs no matter what. If the sequester is bad, then it's the Repub's fault; sequester=good, then it's Zero's brilliance.

I forget, are we at war with East Asia today or West Asia?

[Cyber Liberty]

What cuts? It's something like $60 Billion per year. With a budget well north of $3.5 Trillion that's a rounding error.

[SkyPilot]

See post #49.

[SkyPilot]

The DOD is not a dem constituency.

Apparently it isn't a Republican constituency anymore either.

House GOP unafraid of defense cuts

House GOP thinks unthinkable on defense cuts

I don't think Ronald Reagan would recognize the current crop we have in there.

[SkyPilot]

Thanks. So nothing has passed the Senate. This is just the Dem plan.

Yes, sorry. It is their plan. Reid put it together, and I read a news story saying the Democrats would go along with it. They will probably pass it after their nice long mid-winter paid vacation.

By now I know the "DC game" very well. Boehner will reject it out of hand, point to what the House passed last year that the Senate rejected and that Obama will not sign, and then the Congress will move onto more "important" things like giving away amnesty to millions of illegals so we can pour more Billions down a rabbit hole.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks! That makes it more clear. All the “cuts” will be in the discretionary stuff, amplifying the effect. I still think they should do it. Out here in the private sector, directives to make these kinds of across-the-board cuts go out all the time, and every department finds its own way.

I maintain the public-sector bureaucrats are going to deliberately cut the front-line, important stuff first (Close parks that actually make money, suspend highway projects and furlough the “first responders”) in order to maximize the pain to the public, while keeping the most worthless and destructive of the drones operating at full force. Safest place in the government is probably enforcement at IRS and EPA.

[what's up]

My theory is that the Republicans are much more fond of "spending cuts" as a political issue to win votes as opposed to "spending cuts" as policy

Don't think so in this case. I do believe this policy is going to happen.

[3Fingas]

The Reagan coalition has come apart when it most needs to come together.

The three pillars of that old coalition: Strong Defense Advocates, Social Conservatives, and Fiscal conservatives are moving in different directions. I don’t see a leader on the horizon who can unify us again anytime soon.

I do know that the GOP establishment is doing everything it can to antagonize all three. This is stupid politics to say the least.

I think our best hope is a veteran out there who remains undiscovered. This person could unite us all again. Since, he would come from the military, he would most likely be socially conservative. His military background would naturally make him an advocate of strong defense. Lastly, the military mind is inclined towards efficiency of action, so fiscal stewardship would likely also be favored.

So, Tea Party folks, FReepers, if you know such a person let’s encourage them to run. The time is critical and we must get moving.

[metesky]

I’m at the point where I really am tired of it all. Step off the cliff or this kabuki theater will go on endlessly and we’ll be so far in the hole we’ll never see blue sky.

[SkyPilot]

The Reagan coalition has come apart when it most needs to come together. The three pillars of that old coalition: Strong Defense Advocates, Social Conservatives, and Fiscal conservatives are moving in different directions. I don’t see a leader on the horizon who can unify us again anytime soon. I do know that the GOP establishment is doing everything it can to antagonize all three. This is stupid politics to say the least.

I read an article about how the Republicans are divided - and what you said is also completely true.

How far we have fallen from when Reagan had his "11th Commandment" and the GOP was united on the very issues you mentioned.

The issue of Sequestration is simply highlighting the cracks and fissures.

GOP Divided on Sequestration

Instead of Ronald Reagan, we have people like Rand Paul and Rod Bishop.

I don't disagree with them on every issue, but they are the type of Senator and Congressman whose seem "out there."

Here is what I believe in regards to what you said:

1. Social Conservatism is a direct linkage to Judeo-Christianity; if we don't follow that, we won't get a strong country or a strong economy because God will not bless us. Period.

2. A strong Defense directly relates to a strong economy, both in domestic research, manufacturing, and production as well as internationally because you cannot be a global economic power with a weak military (liberals and the deficit hawks never seem to understand this).

2. Fiscal conservatives have failed us, time and time again, to reign in Entitlements. We just lost the Senate and the Presidency 3 months ago, so in their frustration the Tea Party is looking to kick whatever loyal dog is still lying on the porch. And that loyal dog is the military.