Sequester

[BigRedBuster]

BigRedBuster, on 13 March 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

So, you claim the military budget increased 3% in one year. So, to compare apples to apples, you need to take 1% off of that for the sequester (10% divided by 10 years).

 

What?

 

I looked at your articles and they didn't address what I am saying.

 

Basically, like you said, the military budget increased one year (from 2009 - 2010) 3%. Over 10 years if that stays constant, that is roughly (not exactly) a 30% increase. The cuts are 10% over 10 years.

 

A better question is, what is the dollar amount of the budget today and what is it projected to be 5 or 10 years from now if the Sequester continues? What I'm saying is that it is going to still be larger but not as large as originally projected.

[carlfense]

Basically, like you said, the military budget increased one year (from 2009 - 2010) 3%. Over 10 years if that stays constant, that is roughly (not exactly) a 30% increase. The cuts are 10% over 10 years.

No. The percentage is per year. The percentage is a little lower this year but it goes up over time. It works out to 45-55 billion in military cuts each year. The military budget is around 700 billion and is smaller this year (before the sequester) than it was last year.

 

Less than 10%, yes . . . but a real "cut" and not just a smaller increase.

[BigRedBuster]

I know Wiki isn't the be all know all of everything. But, this was the first place I looked. Read the bolded part.

 

http://en.wikipedia....t_sequestration

 

 

Budget Control Act of 2011

See also: Sequester (2013)

 

In 2011, sequestration was used in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) as a tool in federal budget control.[2] This 2011 act authorized an increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the following ten years. This total included $1.2 trillion in spending cuts identified specifically in the legislation, with an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts that were to be determined by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives known as the "Super Committee" or officially as the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. In that event, a trigger mechanism in the bill was activated to implement across-the-board reductions in the rate of increase in spending known as "sequestration".[14]

 

 

It is a reduction in the rate of increase. Meaning, the budget is still going to increase. It's just not going to increase as fast as originally passed into law. I will continue to look for sources on this.

[carlfense]

It is a reduction in the rate of increase. Meaning, the budget is still going to increase. It's just not going to increase as fast as originally passed into law. I will continue to look for sources on this.

It looks like the defense budget will shrink (not a reduction in rate of growth but actually smaller) in 2013 and 2014.

 

Here's probably the most comprehensive look. Figure 1-3 shows projected spending as percentage of GDP.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf

[BigRedBuster]

It is a reduction in the rate of increase. Meaning, the budget is still going to increase. It's just not going to increase as fast as originally passed into law. I will continue to look for sources on this.

It looks like the defense budget will shrink (not a reduction in rate of growth but actually smaller) in 2013 and 2014.

 

Here's probably the most comprehensive look. Figure 1-3 shows projected spending as percentage of GDP.

http://www.cbo.gov/s...dgetOutlook.pdf

 

I'll look at this when I have more time. It appears to be a long report. However, the bolded part is another way Washington plays their games. You can have a reduction in spending as a percentage of GDP but still have an increase.

[carlfense]

However, the bolded part is another way Washington plays their games. You can have a reduction in spending as a percentage of GDP but still have an increase.

Agreed. But the projected defense budget in 2013 in actual dollars is smaller than it was in 2012 and it will be smaller yet in 2014.

[zoogs]

Honestly, maybe this is the best way to handle this. Spending needs cut more drastic than anything Washington has done in decades. At least now it is being accomplished. The one problem I have with this is that I feel like the attitude coming out of Washington/government is kind of a pissy attitude wanting to show the public how horrible life will be if certain programs have to cut their spending.

 

I think you mean 'for political appearances' and I'd agree with you there.

 

In terms of problem solving, this seems like the worst way to handle this. On the surface, have numbers go down in a feel-good manner. But instead of addressing the dead weight costs that are the excessive burdens on spending, we gut investments in the country's future across the board.

 

It is completely horrible for certain programs to cut their spending....it's a sacrifice of the country's future, when the real spending problems are the challenges we face with runaway entitlement programs. Driven, as carlfense I believe noted, by aging population.

[BigRedBuster]

Even though I fully support the military and believe we need a very strong military, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.

 

We have over 700 military installations outside the US. Why? Is the DOD telling us that all of those are 100% necessary? Really? We have technology now that we can touch any place in the world from an airforce base in Missouri. This isn't WWII era anymore. We have aircraft carrier groups that can carry thousands of people and hundreds of planes.

 

close some of those facilities, bring those people home, build a couple installations on the border of Mexico to secure the border and cut expenses.

[carlfense]

Even though I fully support the military and believe we need a very strong military, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.

 

We have over 700 military installations outside the US. Why? Is the DOD telling us that all of those are 100% necessary? Really? We have technology now that we can touch any place in the world from an airforce base in Missouri. This isn't WWII era anymore. We have aircraft carrier groups that can carry thousands of people and hundreds of planes.

 

close some of those facilities, bring those people home, build a couple installations on the border of Mexico to secure the border and cut expenses.

I agree . . . but the sequester doesn't allow that kind of discretion. They can't just choose to close a couple installations instead of cutting tuition and TRICARE benefits.

 

In principle, I agree that spending can be cut in the defense budget. I just think that the sequester is a particularly dumb way of making cuts. (And that was the point . . . it was supposed to be so dumb that it would force a compromise. Unfortunately, past Congress underestimated the stupidity of present Congress.)

[zoogs]

My only thought on that is our extended military presence has some strategic value to us that perhaps isn't readily apparent.

 

Mainly, my issue with military cuts is on technology programs that are feeling the squeeze. I think we can probably save more than a handsome amount relative to recent years just by bringing the wars we've fought to a close, which we are doing.

 

Also what Carl said about discretion. And yeah, more than anything, this is like saying "If I can't finish my homework tonight, no nachos for a week! .... crap. Now I can't eat nachos. Well this sucks."

[carlfense]

It is completely horrible for certain programs to cut their spending....it's a sacrifice of the country's future, when the real spending problems are the challenges we face with runaway entitlement programs. Driven, as carlfense I believe noted, by aging population.

Yep. Instead of actually addressing the real problem we're doing things like cutting benefits for active duty military and their families.

[strigori]

It is completely horrible for certain programs to cut their spending....it's a sacrifice of the country's future, when the real spending problems are the challenges we face with runaway entitlement programs. Driven, as carlfense I believe noted, by aging population.

Yep. Instead of actually addressing the real problem we're doing things like cutting benefits for active duty military and their families.

In the short term, instead of cutting a few thousand from the military members. It should come in Congressional pay cuts. And the outright removal of Congressional pensions, and post-office health care plans. The GoP likes to say 'what would a business do?' They would take away the pensions, reduce benefits and cut pay. Pretty much everyone working over the last several years has experienced this. How about the rich men in Congress practice what they preach? Tighten our belts? How about they tighten theirs too?

[tschu]

Congress's pay is an incredibly insignificant amount of the budget, despite what the witty Facebook posts that people spam all the time might tell you. That might save a couple million dollars in the short term which won't solve anything. Congressmen aren't getting rich.

[BigRedBuster]

Even though I fully support the military and believe we need a very strong military, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.

 

We have over 700 military installations outside the US. Why? Is the DOD telling us that all of those are 100% necessary? Really? We have technology now that we can touch any place in the world from an airforce base in Missouri. This isn't WWII era anymore. We have aircraft carrier groups that can carry thousands of people and hundreds of planes.

 

close some of those facilities, bring those people home, build a couple installations on the border of Mexico to secure the border and cut expenses.

I agree . . . but the sequester doesn't allow that kind of discretion. They can't just choose to close a couple installations instead of cutting tuition and TRICARE benefits.

 

In principle, I agree that spending can be cut in the defense budget. I just think that the sequester is a particularly dumb way of making cuts. (And that was the point . . . it was supposed to be so dumb that it would force a compromise. Unfortunately, past Congress underestimated the stupidity of present Congress.)

 

 

I agree. But, congress is not mature enough to do that. On top of that government agencies (by nature of how they are ran) are not going to propose cuts. MAYBE this will force that to change. Maybe the Secretary of Defense needs to come to congress and say..."Hey...the way you are doing it isn't working. I propose we make the cuts by doing XYZ."

 

This way sucks. But, sometimes the logical way to do something isn't how it ultimately gets done.

[strigori]

Congress's pay is an incredibly insignificant amount of the budget, despite what the witty Facebook posts that people spam all the time might tell you. That might save a couple million dollars in the short term which won't solve anything. Congressmen aren't getting rich.

So the 'insignificant' amount here is fine, but the same amount getting chopped out of some other program or field is OK? Congressmen start at $170k and get raises every year. A healthcare option list most Americans can only dream about and then get pensions, with the continued healthcare for the rest of their lives. Millions of dollars is millions of dollars. Waste is waste. Do you think our congressmen should be making salaries this large? I sure dont. and I think most Americans would agree with me. They will force people making $40k a year to take a 10-20% paycut in the shape of furloughs but they are immune? Goose and gander. Is it going to take a huge chunk out of spending? No. But pretty much anything not Medicare, Social Security or Defense falls into the same category.