I like sequestration. Automatic budget cuts might not be the best way of reducing the burden of government spending, but a sequester is better than leaving the federal budget on autopilot.
Particularly since the “cuts” are mostly just reductions in already-scheduled increases.
The only exception, at least in the short run, is the defense budget. I point out in this Cato Institute video that the defense budget absorbs 50 percent of the sequester even though the Pentagon accounts for only about 25 percent of federal outlays.
But even with a sequester, the defense budget ten years from now will be $100 billion higher than it is today.
And since the United States accounts from more than 45 percent of global military spending (and our allies represent another 24 percent of total defense outlays), two of my Cato colleagues explain in the video that it is silly to think that a sequester will leave America helpless.
Many Republicans want to cancel the sequester in order to protect the defense budget, and some of them are even willing to surrender to Obama’s demands and implement a tax increase to make that happen.
Before doing something that is both economically and politically misguided, they should take a few minutes and read George Will’s sober analysis.
While they’re at it, that may want to also peruse some writings by Mark Steyn and Steve Chapman. A defense sequester might be an especially good result if it leads to some long-overdue thinking about misguided overseas commitments.
[…] I’ve pointed out that sequestration wasn’t a threat to military preparedness. […]
[…] pointed out that sequestration wasn’t a threat to military […]
[…] reasons to list, including the long-overdue end of seemingly permanent unemployment benefits and falling defense outlays as forces are withdrawn from Iraq and […]
[…] was advocating for a sequester during Reagan’s second term over the objections of the hawks, a battle that was repeated back in […]
[…] was advocating for a sequester during Reagan’s second term over the objections of the hawks, a battle that was repeated back in […]
[…] was advocating for a sequester during Reagan’s second term over the objections of the hawks, a battle that was repeated back in […]
[…] was advocating for a sequester during Reagan’s second term over the objections of the hawks, a battle that was repeated back in […]
[…] while most domestic spending (specifically entitlement programs) is left unconstrained. But that doesn’t mean the nation’s security is […]
[…] we may even lose the sequester, the provision that was included in the 2011 debt limit that would have slightly reduced the growth […]
[…] we may even lose the sequester, the provision that was included in the 2011 debt limit that would have slightly reduced the […]
[…] previously explained that the defense budget is disproportionately impacted, but I’ve also cited Cato’s military experts when arguing that our national security will not be […]
[…] So let’s not just have a sequester. Let’s joyfully embrace it. […]
[…] Mitchell calls everything Obama says about the consequences of sequestration “utter bunk,” and concludes, “So let’s not just have a sequester. Let’s joyfully embrace it. […]
[…] So let’s not just have a sequester. Let’s joyfully embrace it. […]
[…] Some lawmakers want to tinker with the sequester because the defense budget is disproportionately impacted. That can’t happen without giving Obama and Reid a tax hike. So the only solution is to go with the sequester. […]
[…] Much to the horror of various interest groups, it appears that there will be a “sequester” on March 1. […]
[…] Much to the horror of various interest groups, it appears that there will be a “sequester” on March 1. […]
[…] Much to the horror of various interest groups, it appears that there will be a “sequester” on March 1. […]
[…] we may even lose the sequester, the provision that was included in the 2011 debt limit that would have slightly reduced the growth […]
[…] we may even lose the sequester, the provision that was included in the 2011 debt limit that would have slightly reduced the growth […]
[…] or going over the fiscal cliff, I’ll take the plunge without a second’s hesitation. At leastwe get the sequester if we go off the cliff, so there’s a tiny bit of spending restraint. Moreover, if the GOP […]
[…] over the fiscal cliff, I’ll take the plunge without a second’s hesitation. At least we get the sequester if we go off the cliff, so there’s a tiny bit of spending restraint. Moreover, if the GOP […]
[…] I would have no objection to these lawmakers arguing against a sequester if they based their concerns on national security, even if I think those concerns are exaggerated. […]
@Joe. I totally agree. Far from protecting the country from danger, the enormous size of the defense budget is a major cause of the danger! When you give the military toys, then they naturally want to use them!
The notion that the defense budget can’t be slashed by as much as 20%, if not more, is patently absurd. We are spending billions on weapons we don’t need and on hundreds of bases and depots that do little to benefit this country. Worse, many of these bases, weapons and munitions only give courage to the politicians running this country to use them on dangerous whims.