Photography by Brea/Flickr
I know you don't want to hear about automatic sequestration spending cuts; I don't either. We just wrapped up a big fiscal fight a few weeks ago, and the very mention of the word "sequester" makes eyes glaze over from coast to coast. I get that.
But it's time to start taking this seriously, anyway, because in about 30 days, some significant, deliberately painful cuts are due to kick in, and they pose an important risk to the fragile economic recovery.
Remember, the sequester was designed to be horrible. Jon Stewart recently noted that these cuts are the equivalent of policymakers tying someone you care about to train tracks, on purpose, in order to create an incentive to find a solution before the train arrives. In this case, the solution would mean striking a bipartisan deal to replace $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts.
Both sides have said for over a year they fully intend to work something out, but with a month to go, they're actually moving further apart. Indeed, some Republicans now say they don't even intend to try to turn the sequester off.
On Sunday morning, Rep. Paul Ryan reiterated a message that House Republicans have been trying to push since the fiscal cliff deal happened: The GOP is unafraid to let the sequester take effect.
"I think the sequester is going to happen," Ryan said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Ryan, who used to believe sequestration would "devastate" the economy, added, "[W]e can't lose those spending cuts." The same day, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said of the sequester, "I'm pretty sure it is going to happen now. I guess the feeling is until everybody feels enough pain, we're not going to do the things that we really need to do. And that scares me."
Just so we're clear, these leading GOP officials are saying it's critically important to take money out of the economy, deliberately, no matter how much it hurts or how much damage it does. [Update: to see the effects of spending cuts on economic growth, see this morning's news.]
On the other hand, Republicans like Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham remain committed to turning the sequester off, fearing that the automatic cuts to defense spending, especially during a war, would seriously undermine national security.
This is already getting messy, and it's likely to deteriorate further.
As we discussed last week, there is a resolution here. Congress can replace the sequester with a balanced deal -- about $600 billion in cuts alongside $600 billion in revenue by way of tax reforms that enjoy bipartisan support.
The problem is, Republicans have ruled out the possibility of any compromise that includes revenue -- they don't want to reduce the debt; they want to shrink government. If there's a deal to replace these looming cuts, it can't be a 50%-50% split, the GOP says, it must be 100% cuts, 0% revenue.
For what it's worth, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) seems to have a plan.
"There are many low-hanging pieces of fruit out there that Republicans have said they agreed on previously," Reid added. "I'm not going to go into detail, but one of them, of course, is deal with oil companies."
That's a tip of the hand. As the sequestration deadline approaches at the end of next month, Republicans will be stuck with an absolutist line. Letting the sequester hit would be better than replacing it with even a penny of revenue; and their offer, from the last Congress, is to replace the entire sequester largely with deep cuts to social programs for the poor.
Democrats will have a counteroffer. Perhaps the parties can't agree on a complete sequester replacement. But they can pay it down for a few months with popular cuts and revenue raisers, including by eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies.
"[T]here's a lot of things we can do out there, and we're going to make an effort to make sure that ... sequestration involves revenue," Reid added.
Policymakers have a month to figure something out.
Leave a Comment:
Replace the sequester with a 5% across the board funding cut to all departments. (Except Social Security, and Medicare.)
Tell every department head to make the cuts without eliminating a job or lowering pay and benefits. Have them look at their budgets and what they are really paying for, have them decide what stays and what goes, but leave people out of the equation. There's a good bet they don't know what half the stuff they pay for really is, and there's a bunch of stuff they flat out don't need.
Then forward their newly trimmed budgets back to Congress and see what they do.
Git 'er dun, boys.
Really? They are supposed to cut programs without cutting people? That seems counter-intuitive to me - those programs are administered by someone, and if the program goes away, so does that person.
There are no cuts that don't hurt; however, the trick is to finding out the cuts that'll hurt the least, which is why stupid tricks like 5% reductions are silly, because they eliminate any sort of thought. Which is why they work; because to do otherwise would require lawmakers to make decisions and offend someone with a lobbyist.
Your so-called solution contains everything bad about the sequestration. Cutting across the board without even thinking about what programs we need, which we don't, and which have room to make cuts and which are already bare-bones. I suspect that what we need is a THOUGHTFUL solution, which is why it's going to have to come from the senate.
Yep.
It can be done. It's 5%.
I think every can agree that 5% is probably "fluff" that's not needed. It's the government for cripes sake, they spend money on really riduculous things. You have to really look at what you're spending your money on. We all know $4,000 toilet seats are a reality.
Half the time the "fluff" stays because they might offend a lobbyist or two. That's no way to run a country.
I'm saying this because within my company, we went after the "fluff." We saved thousands of dollars by trimming things, not people.
From all I have seen and heard these automatic cuts are far better than any republican offers.
Knobson:
You basically described the sequester, which is an across the board cut that supposedly only cuts employment through attrition and retirement. But you miss the fact that there have already been 10% spending cuts across most of the "cabinet" departments.
More can be cut, but it has to be done smartly, not the way you suggest.
a) if it was really that simple, ...
b) blanket statements like, "We all know $4,000 toilet seats are a reality." ... (98% of all quoted statistics, much like this one, are made up on the spur of the moment.
One of the more spectacularly successful smoke and mirror jobs perpetrated by the Taliban/Teaparty is the fear that all government is bad, ergo less is always better; that politics and politicians are dirty words - like any occupation, there is that much integrity in politics as one brings to the job.
As I understand it, the executive branch has all the discretion on where the cuts come from. There is some guidance for the sequester, but there is wide latitude.
If we are serious about massive spending on climate change infrastructure, money must be cut from other locations. Allowing the sequester as Barney Frank advocated answers the spending side. But I am unclear how Dems propose to answer the Keynesian need for spending to promote jobs.
My question is whether Obama is serious about stimulus via elevating the challenge of climate change a matter of national emergency, requiring massive changes in national industrial policy. Without congress, is he willing to jack up EPA fines to fund stimulative energy infrastructure projects?
I think you're correct, Paul. I also don't think it will actually happen. There are too many huge corporations involved in government contracts from the Defense Dept, and they are not going to be pleased. This is why the Republicans would rather gut Social Secuirty and Medicare than face dealing with corporate welfare. Hopefully Dems will hold tough, but it's always a coin toss.
The problem is that cutting this much and this deeply is going to throw us back into a recession, no matter what is cut. The best idea for cutting the deficit would be jobs, but that's apparently too simple a solution.
And the discussion isn't even touching upon the fact the deficit is already going down, just at rate that's a bit more sane and doesn't kill the economy. No drama there, so we continue to hear this kind of craziness.
Reid better get McConnell's approval in advance since with the filibuster in place nothing will get through the senate without the minority's approval.
The economy will deteriorate except for the wealthy...just like 1930.
Why all the drama? We're talking about a yearly $120 billion cut from a $3500 billion budget. That's only twice the money just voted for Sandy.
You'd get more revenue with an exchange tax on all wall street transactions.
Ryan, who used to believe sequestration would "devastate" the economy, added, "[W]e can't lose those spending cuts."
Spending cuts are people too, my friend!
Good for him. After all we know full well what kind of cuts he would impose if allowed. Go ahead republicans and keep pushing with the hope that democrats will cave and hurt the poor and the old , dump the pain on hungry kids and in general destroy the social fabric in favor of a huge military industrial complex and unregulated,untaxed corporate run government.
I don't like the cuts to social programs as laid out by sequestration. But I fear that if they changed anything (outside eliminating sequestration all together) they would eliminate the Defense cuts and put them all on the social programs and far too many Democrats would vote for that.
Having said that I'll hold my nose and support sequestration as I think it is the ONLY way that defense will get cut at all.
Absolutely agree with you 100%. I have been saying for a while now that the spineless critters up on Capitol Hill are afraid to make even necessary and smart cuts to the bloated and wasteful Pentagon budget for fear of looking weak on defense. The sequester is the only way I can see that meaningful cuts will be made, as it allows all of them plausible deniability when it happens....they can always blame the recalcitrant buggers on the other side of the aisle for the cuts. Defense contractors switched over to making more civilian goods once WWII was over and they prospered. Are the idiots at General Dynamics that much dumber than their predecessors that they can't do the same? Or do they recognize that they wouldn't be able to rip off consumers with overpriced, defective goods like they do with the government?
If that flake Graham wants to decrease defense cuts then social net cuts get more cash.
If the Repubs can't see their way clear to that then all the cuts go into effect and we hang the whole thing no the Repubs, where it belongs.
Totally agree.
"Republicans now say they don't even intend to try to turn the sequester off." To this I say: bring it, MoFos. When push comes to shove, are voters going to want to restore cut funds to programs that affect millions of citizens (and their relatives), or to continue to drop billions into the insatiable maw of the MIC in exchange for the perception of security?
Let it happen. It's time the citizens of this country have a real debate on what's the best use of our tax dollars.
Spot on kindness!!!
BDOP4
"continue to drop billions into the insatiable maw of the MIC in exchange for the perception of security?"
Just conjures up a vision.
I am so going to steal that
The only problem with perception is that congress does not give the first @!$%# about how We The People feel about anything. The GOP would cut social programs even though their own people don't want to see that happen.
It's only the lobbyists who matter. You and I and every other American are nothing but chopped liver.
Here's the problem with this: across the board cuts in defense are across the board cuts to people who work in defense. It means putting people out of a job who haven't worked long enough to be protected, and it means involuntary unpaid furloughs for people who get to keep their jobs. This means that things get tough for the economy right quick.
Thinking that defense needs to get cut doesn't mean that it's right to cut it indiscriminately in a fragile economy with too-high unemployment.
So it is better to indiscriminately cut off funds to people who are unemployed, need food and medical care? Not cutting defense funding because it costs jobs is a direct contradiction to the right wing assertion that government does not create jobs, only the private sector does. Yes, those jobs exist at private companies like Northrup Grumman, but in turn, those companies wouldn't even exist without government defense contracts. You want to cut off funding for basic survival like food stamps and unemployment, then I really could care less what happens to a laid off defense worker. It's a tragedy, yes, but apparently repubs only care about the jobs of people in the defense industry. Everyone else is apparently a moocher.
Are you responding to me, Uffdaguy? Because I didn't say anything implying that I thought we should cut off food stamps or unemployment or anything like that. I'm not even close to a Republican. I'm in no way saying I think government doesn't create jobs. All I'm saying, and all I said above, is that cutting the defense budget indiscriminately right now will undoubtedly take money out of the economy at a time when the economy can ill afford it. This is true of unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.
I agree, we don't need to indiscriminately cut from the Pentagon. There are plenty of deserving programs that need to be cancelled outright. The F-35 alone would cover a good portion of the defense sequester, along with the Zumwalt destroyer program.
Knobson, as much as I dislike the idea of across-the-board spending cuts, your idea has merit. As a large state agency budget manager for many years, I consistently argued for strategic (targeted) program reductions. But the plain truth is that in a political environment that just isn't possible. Axing everyone's budget in equal proportions at least has the cachet of being democratic. There are always exceptions, and their appeals can be intensely political as well as comical. In the end, though, ATB cuts force managers to examine their programs, and there's a lot of benefit in that.
Thanks, WisKoda.
I agree completely that it's more fair/democratic to make the cuts go across the board as smaller cuts.
It's not an easy thing to do, and politics will always bar common sense.
So, here we are.
I'm not sure whether to take you two seriously or not, but there is one major flaw in your proposal.
The agencies that have been well-managed in the past will be punished for that good management. If you have two agencies- one that years ago implemented an efficient budget without waste, and one that was content with a bloated budget- the agency that should be rewarded is instead going to have a much more difficult time responding to a 5% cut than the other.
You can label across-the-board cuts as "democratic" or "fair" or any other buzzword that you think will help frame your proposal in positive light, but in reality, it's illogical.
Jordan is correct. Agencies that are efficient will suffer with across the board cuts and that would not be fair. I think the President and the Defense Secretary come up with some proposed cuts and Republicans come up with closing a tax loophole(s). That would be the way out of the sequester. But don't hold your breath waiting for a loophole to be closed by Republicans if it affect their benefactors. Republicans are more likely to propose eliminating a something that affects individuals. All the Republicans need to do is end the hedge fund managers tax break treating their income as capital gains. That affects approximately 20 people in the whole country.
I don't understand why people seem so surprised about this. Look at it from the Republicans perspective.
The GOP has a vested interest in all of these things. Why do people think Romney wanted to "Let Detroit go Bankrupt"? Because it would have destroyed organized labor in this country. This is the same thing on a grander scale. It forces the economy to a point where the vast majority of Americans would be forced to take what they can get and be grateful for it. Remember these are people who think Ayn Rand was a economic and philosophical genius and if you read her books you realize that she thought things like this were a good idea. Economic restructuring with a wrecking ball.
You can say I am crazy and paranoid or reading to much into this but I honestly don't think so.
You may be right, but repubs are smoking some serious crack if they think they are not going to feel the full brunt of voter backlash from draconian cuts to needed programs. I hope and pray that voters are finally starting to realize that we don't need a "defense" budget that is larger than all other countries combined.
If they cut the don't-work F-35, the plane with less of a mission than the F-22, they'd make all the cuts needed - $1.2 trillion over 20 years. Of course that would mean harming all the sub-contractors in 400 congressional districts - which is why they call it the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex.
Aw, c'mon, the F-35 is a GREAT plane. We've only spent $396 BILLION on it over the last decade, and we've gotten a plane that still can't fly, that has fuselage cracks and fuel leaks, can't communicate with anything other than another F-35, doesn't have a complete set of software, has no special helmet that is integral to the operation of the plane and its weapons systems, and can't even get its weapons bay doors to operate properly. A report out last week said the program is "immature". Yep, that's what I call a real return on the taxpayer's money. I wonder how repubs would react if all that money had been spent on healthcare for the poor, only to find out that it actually made everyone sicker? With that money, NASA could have had a base on the Moon or Mars by now.
I watched a show about drones the other day on PBS. The F-35 is pretty much obsolete anyway and it hasn't even been deployed. Don't tell me the pentagon didn't see that coming a decade ago.
The F-35 was to be the poor man's F-22, (which by the way, also has a major issue with its life support system, severe enough that it has killed some of its pilots, and is therefore to restricted to flying no further from base than a suffocating pilot can fly). Lockheed Martin and the US government were able to persuade other gullible governments around the world to buy into this turkey. Some are now reducing or even cancelling their orders, making the remaining planes even more expensive on a per airframe basis. With the great strides made on drones, I'd be shocked if manned combat aircraft make up more than 50% of air combat forces within 25 years.
I recall Boehner saying something to the effect that since the Tea Party House didn't get to "hurt some people" with their fiscal cliff and default threats, he would have to throw that dog a bone with a sequester and possible government shutdown. These folks are doing so much damage to the country. They're a continuing disgrace all the way around.
They are a disgrace yes, but the people who got them elected, now they are an embarrassment, can you fathom what goes on in the mind of someone who would vote for a Michele Bachman or Louie Gohmert or Ron Jhonson. And the amazing thing is the people they elect never do anything to make their lives any better it just makes no sense at all.
Cuts to military spending will only last until the next war, then congress will open the floodgates of money, but the cuts to entitlements, social programs, education and everything else, that money will be gone for good. And if anybody thinks we are not going to war anytime soon, just look at all the hawks twitching to pull the trigger.
The dots have to be connected back to Iraq, Bush's tax cuts, Part D and the pharmaceuticals robbing the taxpayer's kitty to the repubs--methodically bankrupting this country in order to make their so called "budget crisis." I recall that that we had a bigger chunk of debt vs gdp after WWII.
I'm all for it. The populace clearly enjoys pain, this is demonstrated by their choice of federal level legislators. Plus, I don't mind one bit cutting anything from the military as it is a no-gain industry that is already over-paid.. Bring on the pain!
"I'm not going to go into detail, but one of them, of course, is deal with oil companies."
Let's add to that:
Agri-business
Pharma
Off-shoring "tax credits"
Stop the welfare to the corporate oligarchy & WE will find quite a bit of money to close the deficit....
I bet you $0.25 that they end up kicking the can down the road. Kick, kick, kick, so we'll pay more and more to service the debt. I agree that the deficit isn't a crisis, and that we need to address the costs of health care first, but I don't think this Congress is up to making a deal. Too many members of congress have promised deals to their states. Until they feel comfortable breaking those promises, nothing will change.
They will kick the can down the road until January, 2015.
Hopefully, we'll have a personnel switch that favors a a better outcome.
It will remain utterly difficult throughout our remaining days on this planet to compromise with anyone who truly believes he must destroy something in order to save it!
Thanks a lot oh Republicans of a crazy stripe! -Kevo
The Republican caucus in the House doesn't have to take any serious action. They may write up and pass a fake bill with huge tax cuts for the rich and voucherization of everything, but this is just for the benefit of their base. Then when the deadline actually comes Boehner can allow a real Democratic bill (maybe agreed on in the Senate) to come up for a vote, and there will be enough Republicans to get it through. We've seen this bad movie before.
Steve, I recognize that Congress is still working out the details. But, when do we need to start worrying about it getting to be 'too late' to finish in time?
Our press is not really pushing or highlighting the relevant points of discussion (standard for our MSM) on this issue. When do we need to really start 'amping up' the pressure on lawmakers? How much more time do we give them to 'work things out' before we start making calls and really going after these guys?
I think the fact that Republicans that won't consider even 1% of revenue would put massive pressure on Republicans from Americans who are 'now aware of the facts.' And then put that with, oil companies are not paying taxes on billions in record profits.
Which is more important, our Defense budget and social safety nets or some very rich oil companies that won't pay taxes on their record profits (in the 100's of billions per year)? I'm sure there are other sources of revenue to this (or even sources of spending cuts) but that's a blaring one, for one.
Nine times out of ten, we'll win that fight.
I'm in a RED state but I think I'd (and others) have a lot of leverage when I call my GOP congressman (spit), and senators (spit, spit) who represent me.
Nickels and dimes, Brother Knobson. Beer money. Waste of effort for little return. Wrong priorities.
The big savings are in reform of military procurement by the Pentagon. Scandal after scandal. Start there first before you start beating up on the poor and what's left of the middle class.
You could also save a lot if you privatize social security.
You could save even more by executing everyone who started drawing social security or Medicare.
I would bet that there are people who would back that idea.
Please I peg you Johnny Waygood
Please just one (1) example where a government ran program that was privatize turned out better than, or even equal to, what it was before. All I have seen is piss poor work for higher cost.
16.1 Maybe we should privatize the military. I bet that'd save a ton of money.
Old Bat, Australia privatized their pension system and it is extremely successful. Eventually all governments will probably follow their model.
Sorry, guys... I accidentally gave an 'agree' to Johnny Waygood'...
I meant to 'Ignore', instead...
Johnny, all privatizing Social Security would do, is enrich Wall Street gamblers while putting Social Security benefits for millions at risk... YOU KNOW IT, and you still want to hand Trillions to gambling addicts...
Stupid is as Stupid wants...
SA...
"Privatizing the military" is how I lost my job... I used to develop logistics programs for the military, modernizing antiquated 80-column card systems to Windows-type drop-down systems...
Then, GWB privatized my unit, selling it to a software vendor... They immediately threw out 20 years of my work, and put me to work converting the National procurement database (National Stock Number Master Data Records) to their own proprietary system, making my old job obsolete and ensuring the government would NEVER be able to get rid of them... After I was a little too vocal about how bad an idea that was, at the earliest opportunity, I was 'downsized' in 2004...
When I tried to get a new job, I found myself 'blackballed'... Apparently, I'm "not a team player"...
David M. Johnston, no need to degrade the conversation with insults. Please maintain some degree dignity if you expect to be taken seriously.
I am an Australian-American, and from my experience with both systems, the Australian privatized pension plan is far and above Social Security.
So before you go blabbing about something you know nothing about, do some research.
Everyone knows that you cannot retire on Social Security alone. Social Security is nothing but a safety-net, it is not intended as your main source of retirement income.
That said, Australia still has an age pension, which is sort of like Social Security for the poorest of the elderly, except that it is truly socialized, not a ponzi scheme, so there is a safety-net. However, most people will never need to access that fund because their superannuation should be more than enough.
Looks like we need to call the bluff of the GOP again. This seems to be pretty straight forward messaging.
In order to force action on the debt problem the Congress built a bomb to blow up the economy to force action. Now the GOP says you either do it our way (cut paid for social benefits) or we pull the trigger.
Call the bluff-we do not negotiate at the end of a gun barrel-Not with bib-laden or anyone else!
If I have to choose between sequester and the Ryan Budget I choose sequester. That said, I don't like sequester. My greatest concern is America dropping into a recession as a result of sequester.
If you pay attention to the defense industry the contractor community seems resigned to cuts sequester or no sequester.
The tax increase didn't make a dent in the deficit. We still need to cut over a trillion dollars in spending each year.
The tax increase hasn't kicked in yet. And why do we have to cut over a trillion dollars in spending right now?
We need to focus on getting job growth.
Why do we need to wait for the tax increase to kick-in? We already know that over the next 10 years it will bring in less than a trillion dollars in revenue, currently the deficit is around 1.5 trillion dollars EACH year. So the rest has to come from massive spending cuts.
When I think about "Republicans doing the right thing" I'm reminded of a truly awful horror movie, called Bats. Midway through the movie, a doctor, played by the usually awesome Bob Gunton, describes to the rest of the main cast the damage and bloodshed this particular breed of bat is capable of, and what it will do once it reaches populated areas. Our heroes say something along the lines of "if we can't stop them, we have to get head of them and warn everybody before it's to late." At which point Gunton (who looks a little like John Boehner, to hammer home my analogy), spits out a maniacal little giggle and asks "why would I want to do a thing like that?" At which point, you in the audience go "aw, s***, he's crazy, and he wants this to happen! He wants the s*** to hit the fan! He wants to see people suffer and endure agony. What a d***!"
Yeah, that's what I think of when I think about whether or not Republicans can do right by America, and Americans. Bob Gunton in Bats, giggling over the mere thought of doing something that would save lives.
This is all posturing by the GOP to gain leverage.
One way to start would be to look at all the things that the repubs love and cut them. Oil and gas subsidies are just one. Aid to banks and other financial corporations in the form of tax preferences would be another. Cut Ryan's tax break for arrow makers, about the only thing he did legislatively as a congress critter.
Too bad Harry Reid can no longer be trusted. I suspect he'll fold his royal flush and betray the American people again. Democrats no longer have a majority leader with either brains or guts. Brace yourselves. Under Harry Reid's leadership, the Republican's are in charge.
The AcBbCc rules of Congress, as easy as 1, 2, 3.
A) Congress created this problem.
B) Congress can fix the problem they created.
C) Or they can blame Congress.
a. The sequester problem was created by Congress deliberately, because they refused to work to earn their pay from the tax payer.
b. The solution to the sequester problem must by law be solved by Congress, but because they refuse to work to earn their pay from the taxpayer, they make the public suffer.
c. But because Congress works for Lobbyists, and not the Public, Congress will work to find someone else to blame, while collecting the pay from the taxpayer.
Hum: sesquicentennial and sequester sound similar, perhaps Congress can only collect their pay after 150 years. This might be a payment to the estates, but that in turn suggests a new Idea; that we can send the bills from bad legislation to the Congress persons estate.
No. . . sorry. . . but in this case, Obama's team suggested sequestration.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/02/19/172425370/whose-sequester-is-it-anyway
"The problem is, Republicans have ruled out the possibility of any compromise that includes revenue. . . ."
True, but Democrats have ruled out the possibility of any compromise which doesn't include revenue.
Republicans compromised on taxes already. The Republican led House has already passed two bills which would end the sequester.
It's time for the Senate to act! When one party controls the House and the other the Senate, compromises made in the Senate usually pass the House; it's how legislation gets passed during times like these.
Sequestration was the Obama team's proposal. If Democrats want to avoid the president's idea, they are the ones who must compromise this time.
Or Obama must lie in the bed he made.