The move to ignore the sequester
By Norman Leahy | Monday, November 21st, 2011 | PoliticsSo if the supercommittee punts, as is likely, a sequester will ensue. That was part of the debt ceiling agreement reached during August and it was supposed to serve as a powerful incentive for the committee to reach a deal. Except deals are only as good as the parties who make them, and some in Congress are already making motions to prevent any across the board cuts from happening:
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they are writing legislation to prevent what they say would be devastating cuts to the military. House Republicans are exploring a similar move. Democrats maintain they won’t let domestic programs be the sole source of savings.
Others are leaping on the bandwagon to gut the sequester, as well…from inside the supercommittee:
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, co-chairman of the supercommittee, said he hopes the current projected split of half defense, half domestic, for the automatic spending cuts will be changed in the event no deal emerges from his panel.
“But I am committed to insuring that the American people get that deficit reduction that they were promised,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “But under the law, Congress will have 13 months to do that I n a smarter, more prudent fashion.”
And from the Democrats, we have this:
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said, “If they’re going to try to protect defense, there’ll be pushback.”
For all this, one might easily get the impression the sequester would be just about the worst thing ever to happen to the nation. But consider this chart (courtesy of Cato’s Dan Mitchell):
The federal government will still be spending money hand over fist. If a $2 trillion increase over the next decade even with an across the board cut counts as a calamity, then the political class is more removed from reality than I dared imagine.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "The move to ignore the sequester"
Nobody likes cuts. Cuts suck. But when you look at the above graph, how can we afford not to? Someone’s going to have to lose a job…someone is going to have to lose a benefit once promised to them…or someone’s pet project is going to have to go away. Or all of the above. And, yes, taxes probably have to be raised on someone…or everyone.
Thanks JR, for speaking the truth. Absolutely correct.
I think this needs to be added.
As long as America is going to remain a Democracy, the fortunate few needs to provide for the less fortunate.
If the wealth in America is going to increasingly going to be concentrated, then it is going to be the responsibility of those even more fortunate few to start paying for costs of keeping voters happy.
I love America. We do not nee violent revolutions, we only need non-violent revolution at the voting booth.
Reality check for you Republicans. Deprive more citizens of the American Dream and those citizens deprived are going to start voting against you.
No way, LD. That is the furthest thing from the American dream…it’s also the same approach that absolutely stifled America’s growth during the depression as the marginal tax rate skyrocketed and helped lead to our “malaise” of the late 1970′s.
Wealth, and the pursuit of it, is a good thing. Not something that should be punished because you have it. If that was the case, why would anyone bother to strive beyond mediocrity?
I’m not here to debate you because debating you is like debating a hula hoop – circular and full of air, but for the BD readers, don’t for a moment think based on my comment above that I advocate a “tax the rich” strategy.
There are many things we can do to promote revenue, simplify the tax code, cut spending, and grow the economy. Many of these ideas have already been posted on these pages throughout the years.
But part of the solution, just based on the sheer numbers, will have to include some sort of adjustment to the current tax code…and, by some folks on the right, the knee-jerk reaction will be to say it’s a tax increase. They might be right, but how do we meet our obligations without making that part of the package?
Shortest comment I have ever seen by MB in a pyrrhic victory for his constant haranguing about raising taxes and cutting programs.
JR,
Problem with debating a Hula Hoop is that where the round goes depends on which portion of the hoop you apply the weight. When the Republicans start applying the weight to social justice, me thinks I will be all ears.
Me thinks me is going to double post.
It is amazing that the Republican Party claims to be pro business until it comes to the transportation industry.
The ATA (American Trucking Association), VTA (Virginia Trucking Association), and OOIDA (Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association) all agree that fuel taxes should be raised if additional revenue is needed instead of relying on tolls. We agree with Ronald Reagan.
Where does Virginia’s Republican party stand on this issue?
They do not stand with Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan either. They stand with Grover Norquist on his side of the hula hoop.
You know, Little David, the old republican party was pro-business, but now, I think republicans are protective of the wealty corporate masters but work against the interest of main street businesses. In the development business, we need quality growth to stimulate the need for commercial real estate. A “grand deal” would have provided that, and would have been a signal that government can and will function and it is time for investment by the private sector that will provide jobs in the course of business.
Reality check Little David? When does Obama and the Democrats get their reality check? Or should I ask when will they confess to seeing the reality check?
Republicans had their reality check already. It was Bush and McCain. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did even worse (didn’t think it possible) than Bush’s 2nd term. When do you Democrats get in touch with reality? The congressional elections didn’t seem to be enough for you.
LD,
There is a minority in the Virginia Repulican party who thinks we should have a gas tax increase. Hopefully we will grow. But I want more tolls in addition to a gas tax increase. On the other hand, I want to get rid of all income taxes. So I don’t exactly fit your impression of the standard Republican.
JR
We had a deficit in 2007 of less than $200B with a B. What would we spend the increased tax revenue on, however tax revenue is defined? Haven’t we gone down this road umpteen times where Repubs agree to “raise revenue” as long as there are “spending cuts”? Then the Dems spend that and multiply by 5 and say Repubs are skinflints. There are no lockboxes so forget about saying it would go only to defense or Medicare etc etc. I’m sure you didn’t intend it but your statement as written would get a head nod from Pelosi Reid and Obama. Even Mike Barrett could agree to it. I think Repubs owe their voters a very very very specific plan whenever they say more revenue is needed, a practical way to block the funds being spent on something else and an explanation of why money can’t be moved from somewhere else the way a family would have to do it.
Leave your response