To save America from the supposedly “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts caused by sequestration, President Obama has instead asked Congress to approve an alternative fiscal package containing additional tax increases.
So why is the sequester so bad? Does it slash the budget by 50 percent? Does it shut down departments, programs, and agencies?
Sounds good to me. We need to reduce the burden of government spending, so some genuine budget cuts would be very desirable.
The pro-spending lobbies in Washington certainly are acting as if spending would be “cut to the bone.” As documented by my colleague Tad DeHaven, they’re claiming horrible things will happen.
So what’s the real story? Well, the Congressional Budget Office today released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and Tables 1-1 and 1-5 allow us to see the “brutal” impact of the sequester.
As you can see from this chart, the sequester will “cut” spending so much that the budget will grow by “only” $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.
Rather anticlimactic, I admit. No widows dying in snowbanks. No blood flowing in the streets.
So you can let the women and children back in the room. It turns out that all the hyperbole and hysteria about the sequester is based on the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – i.e., when spending doesn’t rise as fast as projected in some artificial baseline.
Yes, some parts of the budget are disproportionately impacted, such as defense. But even the defense budget climbs over the 10-year period and the United States will still account for close to 50 percent of global military outlays when the dust settles.
The bottom line is that there’s no reason to worry about the sequester and there’s certainly no reason to go along with Obama’s plan to replace the sequester with a tax-heavy budget deal.
[...] danieljmitchell [...]
Regarding defense spending, your claims are blatant lies. Defense spending will not rise under seq – it will shrink to 469 bn this FY and not return to todays level (or even to 500 bn) for the remainder of the next ten years. Moreover, as myself and others have extensively documented, these deep budget cuts will gravely impact training, ops, the maintenance of current equipment (e.g. ships and aircraft – the Navy will have to cancel it for at least 23 ships and 250 aircraft), and
the dev and procurement of new equipment. The SECDEF has no flex in making these budget cuts. And no, the US already doesnt account for “nearly 50%” of the worlds military spending, barely 41%, and under seq, it will account for even less.
[...] Dan Mitchell for the [...]
Can anyone tell the Americian people why the us armed forces pays $26.00 a gal for fuel for its vechicles that we pay 4.00 for? Sound like we need better checks and balances everywhere. Why won’t they listen? Fix what we got first…Maybe Sequester will open their eyes to their own waste. were tired of paying for it…..
[...] http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/exposing-the-absurdity-of-washingtons-anti-sequester… [...]
[...] Before I get to the Wall Street Journal’s Op-ed: the unscary sequester, I want to show you two graphics that illuminate the fact that even with the sequester, federal spending increases not decreases. In other words; there are not any actual cuts to federal spending. Let us start with this chart from Dan Mitchell demonstrating how “the sequester will “cut” spending so much that the budget will grow by “only” $2.4 tr… [...]
[...] to follow up my post and Fiscal Times column for today, Dan Mitchell provided us with the chart of the day on Tuesday. How bad, exactly, will these sequester cuts [...]
[...] is utter bunk. I would like to “slash vital programs,” but the chart I prepared earlier this week shows that the federal budget will expand by $2.4 trillion if a sequester [...]
Reblogged this on We Can Do Better.
[...] how bad will the sequestration really be? Look at this chart showing the share of the federal budget the sequester will eliminate. Quelle [...]
[...] combat Obama’s dishonest bullying and shut down his latest tax-hiking class warfare ploy. Be very afraid, [...]
[...] it does is restrain spending so that it grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. We need a much greater degree of fiscal discipline to address the [...]
[...] it does is restrain spending so that it grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. We need a much greater degree of fiscal discipline to address the [...]
[...] if for no other reason that it calls attention to the fact that people are myopically fixating on a very small sequester while ignoring a giant long-run entitlement [...]
[...] run the numbers and reached the same conclusion. I’ll link to two. A couple weeks ago, economist Dan Mitchell produced the following chart in which he poses a key question for Obama and his fellow travelers on [...]
[...] I shared a couple of amusing sequester cartoons the other day, and I’ve previously written about the absurdity of anti-sequester hysteria in Washington when all it means is that the federal budget will grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] I shared a couple of amusing sequester cartoons the other day, and I’ve previously written about the absurdity of anti-sequester hysteria in Washington when all it means is that the federal budget will grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] I shared a couple of amusing sequester cartoons the other day, and I’ve previously written about the absurdity of anti-sequester hysteria in Washington when all it means is that the federal budget will grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] if for no other reason that it calls attention to the fact that people are myopically fixating on a very small sequester while ignoring a giant long-run entitlement [...]
[...] for the umpteenth time, here are the actual numbers from the Congressional Budget Office showing what will happen to spending over the next 10 years if we have a [...]
[...] favor fiscal sanity into the arms of those who support Obama’s spending frenzy and grotesque budgetary fear-mongering. And without a fiscally conservative, socially liberal center, that pain is just going to keep [...]
[...] is utter bunk. I would like to “slash vital programs,” but the chart I prepared earlier this week shows that the federal budget will expand by $2.4 trillion if a sequester [...]
[...] Exposing the Absurdity of Washington’s Anti-Sequester Hysteria [...]
[...] The sequester is a good thing, albeit too small. [...]
[...] The sequester is a good thing, albeit too small. [...]
[...] the jaws of victory, and I’ve been busy on Capitol Hill talking to folks about the issue, but this post already says everything you need to know about that [...]
[...] think that a 1.2 percent reduction in overall spending for the current fiscal year (which means the federal budget would still be larger than it was last year) represents a “sledgehammer of budget [...]
[...] think that a 1.2 percent reduction in overall spending for the current fiscal year (which means the federal budget would still be larger than it was last year) represents a “sledgehammer of budget [...]
[...] think that a 1.2 percent reduction in overall spending for the current fiscal year (which means the federal budget would still be larger than it was last year) represents a “sledgehammer of budget [...]
[...] did “defy his wishes” and it’s the worst possible outcome for the President. The growth of spending is being slowed and taxes are not going [...]
[...] Republicans did “defy his wishes” and it’s the worst possible outcome for the President. The growth of spending is being slowed and taxes are not going [...]
[...] If there is one explanation for why the equity market is rising despite the onset of what those on the left are calling a draconian cut in goverment spending, it is that the “sequester” that was triggered the other day doesn’t cut spending at all. It merely slows the growth of government spending by a tiny amount. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute did a good job of illustrating this in a post a month ago, titled “Exposing the Absurdity of Washington’s Anti-Sequester Hysteria.” [...]
[...] In this appearance on Canadian TV, I debunk anti-sequester hysteria, pointing out that “automatic budget cuts” merely restrain government so that it grows $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] is going to be “slashed” by 1.2 percent, which means – gasp! – that spending will “only” grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 [...]
[...] to end because spending is going to be “slashed” by 1.2 percent, which means – gasp! – that spending will “only” grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 [...]
[...] that a modest reduction in the growth of government (under the sequester, the federal government will grow $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion) will somehow hurt the [...]
[...] that a modest reduction in the growth of government (under the sequester, the federal government will grow $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion) will somehow hurt the [...]
[...] In this appearance on Canadian TV, I debunk anti-sequester hysteria, pointing out that “automatic budget cuts” merely restrain government so that it grows $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] In this appearance on Canadian TV, I debunk anti-sequester hysteria, pointing out that “automatic budget cuts” merely restrain government so that it grows $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] to sequestration, which (gasp!) slightly slows the growth of the federal budget so that it is only $2.4 trillion bigger 10 years from now rather than $2.5 trillion [...]
[...] to sequestration, which (gasp!) slightly slows the growth of the federal budget so that it is only $2.4 trillion bigger 10 years from now rather than $2.5 trillion [...]
[...] that we’ve achieved is a tiny reduction in the growth of federal spending (the budget will be $2.4 trillion bigger in 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion bigger). But a journey of many trillions of dollars begins with a first [...]
[...] I shared a couple of amusing sequester cartoons the other day, and I’ve previously written about the absurdity of anti-sequester hysteria in Washington when all it means is that the federal budget will grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] I look at the Ryan budget in the same way I look at sequestration – as a very modest step to curtail the growth of government. Sort of a rear-guard action to [...]
[...] This appears almost as an afterthought in the Washington Post article, but it should be the lead story. The White House wants to get rid of a policy that genuinely limits the growth of spending. [...]
[...] The sequester is a good thing, albeit too small. [...]
[...] if for no other reason that it calls attention to the fact that people are myopically fixating on a very small sequester while ignoring a giant long-run entitlement [...]
[...] To be more specific, the net effect of the sequester is that the burden of government spending grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[...] To be more specific, the net effect of the sequester is that the burden of government spending grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion. [...]
[…] opulence, sequestration – a political budget maneuver designed to achieve merely a tiny reduction in the growth of federal spending over the next decade – isn’t likely to […]
[…] Washington’s opulence, sequestration — a political budget maneuver designed to achieve merely a tiny reduction in the growth of federal spending over the next decade — isn’t likely to […]
[…] opulence, sequestration – a political budget maneuver designed to achieve merely a tiny reduction in the growth of federal spending over the next decade – isn’t likely to […]
[…] opulence, sequestration – a political budget maneuver designed to achieve merely a tiny reduction in the growth of federal spending over the next decade – isn’t likely to […]
[…] opulence, sequestration – a political budget maneuver designed to achieve merely a tiny reduction in the growth of federal spending over the next decade – isn’t likely to […]
[…] Washington’s opulence, sequestration — a political budget maneuver designed to achieve merely a tiny reduction in the growth of federal spending over the next decade — isn’t likely to […]