The deal to avoid the fiscal cliff included a two month delay to sequestration. For those who do not recall, sequestration is the automatic cut of roughly $120 billion per year in federal baseline spending for 2013 to 2022; it is divided into two parts of about $50 billion in cuts to defense and about $70 billion in cuts to domestic discretionary spending. These automatic spending cuts are the result of the deal reached in 2011 to authorize an increase to the debt ceiling. The so-called super committee was supposed to come up with $1.2 trillion in cuts over the decade with the automatic cuts of sequestration being the unpalatable backup plan fear of which was going to force an agreement. Of course, no agreement was reached.
So now we have come to the point where these cuts are about to kick in. Remember, these are not really $120 billion of cuts; they are just cuts in the language of Washington. The amounts that were to be spent in 2013 were going to rise by about 7% with anything less than that being considered a "cut". In other words, if $100 billion were spent in fiscal year 2012 on the Agriculture Department and $105 billion were spent in fiscal year 2013, that would be called a $2 billion cut even though the feds actually spent an additional $5 billion. There would be an actual reduction in spending if sequestration kicks in, but the real cuts would be more in the area of $30 billion rather than $120 billion. Even so, the frenzy of the Washington media/governmental complex is building up as I write this. One would think that the world was about to end. But here's the real question: why is sequestration a bad thing to be avoided?
As many have noted, sequestration has the opposite impact of the fiscal cliff. Had the fiscal cliff not been avoided, nearly every American would have seen his or her taxes rise substantially. The deal resolving the fiscal cliff prevented a middle class tax increase of roughly $400 billion per year, a disaster that no one wanted for the long term. On the other hand, absent agreement sequestration will actually reduce the level of spending, an outcome that many folks would like to accomplish.
Many commentators tell us that the Democrats do not want to see discretionary spending cut while the Republicans do not want to see cuts to defense. I do not buy this. Remember in fiscal 2012, the USA spent roughly $700 billion on defense. Sequestration would take this to the area of $650 billion. Are we actually to believe that the Pentagon cannot manage on a mere two-thirds of a trillion dollars per year? Of course not. Here are just a few items that could be cut with no appreciable impact on the quality of our armed forces:
1) The number of American troops stationed overseas could be cut. Right now, we still have tens of thousands of troops in South Korea. Their purpose is not actually to stop an invasion by the North Koreans; there are not enough troops there to do that task. Rather, the American troops in Korea are in place so that any invasion from the North would necessarily draw the USA into the fighting. We could easily bring half the troops home and still have close to 20,000 in place to create the same guarantee.
2) The number of flag rank officers could be cut dramatically. Forty years ago, our armed forces had about 50% more enlisted men and women, but there were only about half as many generals and admirals. We need a leaner management for the services. Cuts at the top could easily save big bucks.
3) Some of the bases used by the military in this country could be closed. Base closures are usually fought by the politicians in whose state or district the bases are located. Nevertheless, were the Pentagon to put forward a rational proposal for base closures, it would be hard for Congress to veto it in this age of sequestration.
4) The mission enlargement of the last few decades could be reversed and the military used just for their traditional roles. In other words, let's stop the nation building around the globe.
5) A new hard look should be taken at all of the weapons development programs underway to see which ones are actually needed. Do we really need billion dollar fighter planes or could we manage to make do with ones that cost only half as much?
In the long run, sequestration does not do enough to solve our budget woes. It does do something, however, and the Republicans in Congress ought to be prepared to let the cuts take effect unless and until president Obama and the Obamacrats actually come forward with proposals for substitute cuts that make sense.
So now we have come to the point where these cuts are about to kick in. Remember, these are not really $120 billion of cuts; they are just cuts in the language of Washington. The amounts that were to be spent in 2013 were going to rise by about 7% with anything less than that being considered a "cut". In other words, if $100 billion were spent in fiscal year 2012 on the Agriculture Department and $105 billion were spent in fiscal year 2013, that would be called a $2 billion cut even though the feds actually spent an additional $5 billion. There would be an actual reduction in spending if sequestration kicks in, but the real cuts would be more in the area of $30 billion rather than $120 billion. Even so, the frenzy of the Washington media/governmental complex is building up as I write this. One would think that the world was about to end. But here's the real question: why is sequestration a bad thing to be avoided?
As many have noted, sequestration has the opposite impact of the fiscal cliff. Had the fiscal cliff not been avoided, nearly every American would have seen his or her taxes rise substantially. The deal resolving the fiscal cliff prevented a middle class tax increase of roughly $400 billion per year, a disaster that no one wanted for the long term. On the other hand, absent agreement sequestration will actually reduce the level of spending, an outcome that many folks would like to accomplish.
Many commentators tell us that the Democrats do not want to see discretionary spending cut while the Republicans do not want to see cuts to defense. I do not buy this. Remember in fiscal 2012, the USA spent roughly $700 billion on defense. Sequestration would take this to the area of $650 billion. Are we actually to believe that the Pentagon cannot manage on a mere two-thirds of a trillion dollars per year? Of course not. Here are just a few items that could be cut with no appreciable impact on the quality of our armed forces:
1) The number of American troops stationed overseas could be cut. Right now, we still have tens of thousands of troops in South Korea. Their purpose is not actually to stop an invasion by the North Koreans; there are not enough troops there to do that task. Rather, the American troops in Korea are in place so that any invasion from the North would necessarily draw the USA into the fighting. We could easily bring half the troops home and still have close to 20,000 in place to create the same guarantee.
2) The number of flag rank officers could be cut dramatically. Forty years ago, our armed forces had about 50% more enlisted men and women, but there were only about half as many generals and admirals. We need a leaner management for the services. Cuts at the top could easily save big bucks.
3) Some of the bases used by the military in this country could be closed. Base closures are usually fought by the politicians in whose state or district the bases are located. Nevertheless, were the Pentagon to put forward a rational proposal for base closures, it would be hard for Congress to veto it in this age of sequestration.
4) The mission enlargement of the last few decades could be reversed and the military used just for their traditional roles. In other words, let's stop the nation building around the globe.
5) A new hard look should be taken at all of the weapons development programs underway to see which ones are actually needed. Do we really need billion dollar fighter planes or could we manage to make do with ones that cost only half as much?
In the long run, sequestration does not do enough to solve our budget woes. It does do something, however, and the Republicans in Congress ought to be prepared to let the cuts take effect unless and until president Obama and the Obamacrats actually come forward with proposals for substitute cuts that make sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment