WSJ: “Scary” sequester a 5% reduction in discretionary spending –after 14% increase since 2008

posted at 12:01 pm on February 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama and his allies have attempted to derail the sequester that his own White House demanded in the summer of 2011 by issuing lots of scare stories about the consequences.  Layoffs, national-security crises, and an economic plunge are just a few of the dire predictions being offered if Republicans don’t cave on the automatic cuts to which all sides agreed less than two years ago.  Poppycock, says the Wall Street Journal, which points out that the sequester amounts to a third of the increase in discretionary spending since 2008:

Republicans have rightly concluded after two years of being sucker-punched that the sequester is the main negotiating leverage they have and may be the only way to restrain spending. So now Democrats and a gaggle of interest groups are denouncing Mr. Obama’s fiscal brainchild because the programs they cherish—from job training to education, to the EPA and energy subsidies, to money for Planned Parenthood—are about to get chopped too.

Fear not. As always in Washington when there is talk of cutting spending, most of the hysteria is baseless. The nearby table from the House Budget Committee shows that programs are hardly starved for money. In Mr. Obama’s first two years, while private businesses and households were spending less and deleveraging, federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84% with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets.

Spending growth has slowed since Republicans took the House in 2011. Still, from 2008-2013 federal discretionary spending has climbed to $1.062 trillion from $933 billion—an increase of 13.9%. Domestic programs grew by 16.6%, much faster than the 11.6% for national security.

The chart shows the increase, with and without the 2009 Porkulus spending bill that was supposed to keep Americans employed as the Great Recession grinded forward:

wsj-spending

Even without the stimulus spending as a baseline, each of these areas — defense included — has seen double-digit percentage increases in federal spending.  The sequester amounts to a 5% reduction in discretionary spending after this spending spree, hardly a crisis that will bring Washington to impotence.

Nor will it kill the economy, as the WSJ points out:

The most disingenuous White House claim is that the sequester will hurt the economy. Reality check: The cuts amount to about 0.5% of GDP. The theory that any and all government spending is “stimulus” has been put to the test over the last five years, and the result has been the weakest recovery in 75 years and trillion-dollar annual deficits.

The sequester will help the economy by leaving more capital for private investment. From 1992-2000 Democrat Bill Clinton and (after 1994) a Republican Congress oversaw budgets that cut federal outlays to 18.2% from 22.1% of GDP. These were years of rapid growth in production and incomes.

What does the Obama administration really fear from the sequestration?  As I explain in my column for The Fiscal Times, it’s the exposure that Obama and his team are bereft of any real plan for fiscal responsibility and economic growth — a reality that the previous fiscal-cliff fights helped hide:

Obama provided plenty of dire warnings about the damage that his own budget-gimmick proposal may do if it becomes active in less than four weeks.  What Obama hasn’t provided is an actual solution for replacing his previous solution.  In fact, Obama hasn’t yet provided a budget proposal for FY2014, despite having a statutory requirement to do so by now – making four budget proposals out of Obama’s five opportunities that arrived late.  Instead of offering specific proposals for spending cuts to replace the sequester, Obama offered a vague demand for “tax reform” that would increase revenue again.

This deadline has been in place for months.  It became clear weeks ago that Republicans would likely allow the sequester to go forward, at least long enough to put pressure on replacement cuts from Democrats, and would be in position to refuse to raise any more revenue.  And yet Obama not only sounded like someone shocked out of a reverie, he offered nothing to resolve the standoff – and neither did Harry Reid and Senate Democrats, not even an offer to take up the bill approved by the House in the last session if passed again.

Boehner has triumphed in at least exposing the White House’s fumbling on spending issues – and he wasted no time in driving the point home. “Yesterday the president warned of grave economic consequences if the sequester were to go into effect, but he didn’t announce any specific plans of how he would address it,” he pointed out after Obama’s demand for a delay.  “He didn’t bother to outline how he would replace the sequester, which he suggested and insisted upon in August of 2011. He didn’t even tell us when we might see his budget, which is again late, and how he would address the sequester in his budget.”

In short, the President has no plan, and no leverage.  With the tax rates and Alternative Minimum Tax fixes now permanent, Obama has no more leverage to force the House into bending to his will.  His one gimmick to force Republicans to cave into his demands for higher taxes and more spending just backfired, and Obama has nothing more to offer.  After almost four years of budget cliffs and gimmicks, Barack Obama will have to accept that reality and get serious about budget reform on the other side of the ledger.

Republicans need to let the sequester do its work, or demand that the White House and Senate act to replace them with better plans for spending reductions.  It’s time to keep the leverage on that side of the federal ledger.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

After almost four years of budget cliffs and gimmicks, Barack Obama will have to accept that reality and get serious about budget reform on the other side of the ledger.

Pure fantasy.

BobMbx on February 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

P O S !

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Way scary to members of a Two Party Evil Money Cult who are on the payroll at the top.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

And when the economy doesn’t move if the automatic cuts kick in, it will be those evil Republicans that killed the recovery!

You heard how the drop in GDP in the 4th Quarter was the Republican’s fault and the media was happy to oblige by pushing that talking point directly from Pelosi and Reid’s offices.

ButterflyDragon on February 7, 2013 at 12:08 PM

In short, the President has no plan, and no leverage

He doesn’t need a plan, WSJ. And he has all the leverage he wants because he’s the King of All Media. He’s made it axiomatic that everything is Not His Fault and woe betide you if you suggest otherwise.

Mr. D on February 7, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Budget? What’s that?

HiJack on February 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

The reason he fears the sequester is that even with all this insane deficit spending, GDP was in the red in the last quarter. Take away even 5% in discretionary spending and we’ll be in a full-blown recession. And despite the inevitable attempt to blame this on the GOP, even Obama knows that with him entering his 5th year in office, he’s gonna take a lot of the heat for the crappy economy at this point in his Presidency(plus it won’t help that he just raised taxes on almost everyone).

Doughboy on February 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Republicans need to let the sequester do its work……

The real fear. The R’s will follow along just long enough for another 0 P.R. win.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Republicans need to let the sequester do its work, or demand that the White House and Senate act to replace them with better plans for spending reductions

“Replacement cuts” are a trap for NO cuts.

How many times has the GOP been swindled by the Dems on cuts that never materialized? They Dems with their media handmaidens have this perfected to an art form.

Take the sequester and go home.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

The sad thing is the Republicans will back down as they always do.

My guess is Obama and Boehner will sign off on something that cuts spending 10 years from now…and nothing now. Which will have no effect.

If the Republicans wanted to cut spending they could have done so at any point since 2010. They control the House, and all they have to do is pass a responsible budget and go home.

Let King Barry choose to shutdown the government or not.

18-1 on February 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

And when the economy doesn’t move if the automatic cuts kick in, it will be those evil Republicans that killed the recovery!

Who cares and so what? They are going to peddle this nonsense anyway.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

The reason he fears the sequester is that even with all this insane deficit spending, GDP was in the red in the last quarter.

Obama is pumping an additional $1.5T year into the economy from deficit spending for negative growth.

This might be a good talking point for the R’s…if they actually wanted to win the debate.

Heck, call Obama’s deficit spending tax increases on our children.

18-1 on February 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Can we repeat this sequester thing until we get down to spending the revenue that we actually collect? Or is that too crazy to only spend the money that comes in?

jdpaz on February 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Take away even 5% in discretionary spending and we’ll be in a full-blown recession

Absolute Keynesian nonsense. First, it’s 0,5% of GDP, not 5%. Second, reducing spending will lift the economy, not contract. Every dollar the government spends is one less dollar for private capital formation. Govt spending is NOT a good stimulus.

The route to prosperity: cut spending, cut taxes, and cut regulation.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Republicans need to let the sequester do its work, or demand that the White House and Senate act to replace them with better plans for spending reductions. It’s time to keep the leverage on that side of the federal ledger.

A recap of what’s coming up this Spring:

March 1st- Sequestration.

March 27th- End of government authorization. Without Congressional action, the government shuts down.

April 15th- Budget for next FY is, by law, supposed to be through the Senate and ready for reconciliation with the House.

June(ish)- we again reach the debt ceiling.

THE GOP SHOULD USE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE DATES TO EXTRACT REAL SPENDING CUTS FROM ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. During the elections, the rat-eared wonder kept talking about everybody paying their fair share. It is time for the parasites, vultures, and otherwise worthless human beings now referred to as low-information voters to start paying their way in society. Cutting entitlements to those who truly are only afflicted with laziness is good first step in making things more equitable.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Embrace the sequester, Republican pols. If you don’t, never ever whine and screech about ‘CUT SPENDING’. It’ll just sound like partisan rhetoric to dupe the rubes. Here is an opportunity to cut a bit of itsy-bitsy spending without lifting a finger, and if you can’t do that, STFU on the crappy rhetoric.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Take away even 5% in discretionary spending and we’ll be in a full-blown recession

Absolute Keynesian nonsense. First, it’s 0,5% of GDP, not 5%. Second, reducing spending will lift the economy, not contract. Every dollar the government spends is one less dollar for private capital formation. Govt spending is NOT a good stimulus.

The route to prosperity: cut spending, cut taxes, and cut regulation.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM

It’s not really Keynesian nonsense — it’s called “hiding the decline”. I don’t think Doughboy was advocating the practice, just pointing out why the One fears the sequester so much. He loses all his political capital once we officially go into recession/depression again. So he’s artificially pumping up the GDP.

jdpaz on February 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

“Replacement cuts” are a trap for NO cuts.
How many times has the GOP been swindled by the Dems on cuts that never materialized? They Dems with their media handmaidens have this perfected to an art form.

Take the sequester and go home.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

No kidding. Sort of like “Border Enforcement” after allowing citizenship.

a capella on February 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM

I second that Motion. All in favor, Say Aye.

NJ Red on February 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

The route to prosperity: cut spending, cut taxes, and cut regulation.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Let’s not roll over “cut the size and scope of government” so quickly and so vaguely. The GOP should be out there calling for slashing whole departments and agencies starting IMO with Education and DHS.

Education is self-explanatory but DHS may not be. DHS has oversight over a slew of agencies but has no say in their budgets, priorities, or leadership. In short, they are simply there to “coordinate” which to my mind makes the whole organization worthless.

But then it is time to start culling the budget for waste. Let states figure out how to pay for teachers without the never-ending string of grants that helps pay for state bureaucracy. Figure out which weapons systems show promise and shut the ones that are dogs down even if it does cost jobs at some under-utilized shipyard in a key Congressional district or state. And, of course, assigning real costs to Obamacare instead of the outright lies being told by OMB and other government agencies. If we can afford “affordable healthcare” then it is time to cut most of that as well.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM

The real problem as I see it is that there is now such an investment in our “Capitol City” by both parties that they are now both working to protect the funding. Yes, all politics are local and the DC metro area is local to itself, except it’s constituents can tax the rest of the country.

Not only do we now need term limits for politicians, but we need a “term limit” on our capital city.

I’ve come to believe that Robert Byrd may have been on to something when he kept exporting parts of DC to his home state.

J_Crater on February 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

People keep talking as though the sequestration is some kind of tangible reality, but I haven’t seen it on paper. Why is that? Did I miss something?

Is it based on the baseline budget for 2013 that was created in 2011 or 2012? If so, why isn’t that put out there so we can see what it generally looks like on at least a top line (Total Budget) or second line (Departmental Budget) basis for 2013?

I’m getting the feeling there isn’t some tangible reality to this sequestration and the legal arrangements in the Sequestration legislation are so complex that whatever “cuts” the politicians are talking about is, in reality, just a ruse.

Dusty on February 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM

LET. IT. BURN. smolder.

And let Pres. Divisive squirm from his own demagogic tricks.

Respect the Krauthammer Morrissey.

locomotivebreath1901 on February 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

1. The Pubs will talk sequester

2. Chris Matthews will sputter and spit

3. Piers Morgan will say mean things and maybe fake some photos

4. The rest of the MSM will gibber something about racism and the plight of the poor

5. Obama will Scowl (TM) in speeches, especially the SOTU

6. The Pubs will cave.

7. Everyone’s wallet gets a little lighter when they ‘hammer out an agreement’

8. Obama will do a happy dance with his nose in the air

9. The MSM will praise Dear Leader for his ‘leadership’

10. The world will be a happy place again until the next ‘fiscal crisis’

Liam on February 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Heck, call Obama’s deficit spending tax increases “skeet shooting our children’s futures.”

18-1 on February 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Bonus points for working “hostage” into the mix. Oblammo deserves no less, considering his rhetoric.

Christien on February 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM

How many times has the GOP been swindled by the Dems on cuts that never materialized? They Dems with their media handmaidens have this perfected to an art form.

Take the sequester and go home.

matthew8787 on February 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I tend to agree but let’s remember that it isn’t going to be an easy ride for the GOP unless they stay out in front of the messaging. Boehner, much to my surprise, did a pretty good job at communicating for a change. Much better than during the fiscal cliff talks he lost all advantage by falling into the trap of saying he wasn’t in favor of raising “taxes on the wealthy” instead of messaging it as “protecting the successful.”

IMO, the GOP should continue with this approach. If the rat-eared wonder doesn’t want sequestration, the GOP response should be clear and unambiguous. “Well, show us where you want to cut instead and we’ll work it into next year’s budget talks.” The rat-eared one vowed to push amnesty for all the illegal aliens living in this nation and will submit a bill to Congress if they don’t act quickly enough. Seems to me that the House GOP should sit on its hands, let sequestration hit, and wait for the enemy to provide an alternative. Otherwise LIB.

BTW, here in DC, it is estimated that sequestration will cost about 448K jobs. That is directly with other jobs hit indirectly as people don’t go out to eat as often, buy less, etc. That’s an awful lot of angry people in close proximity to the lawmakers. Life in DC may not be as enjoyable for the political class if they decide to furlough employees and/or shut down the federal government.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Oh really. A 5% cut out of *discretionary* spending?

Yeah, that’s really the end of the world. What we need to do is raise taxes, keep spending like maniacs on bath salts, and praise Barky. It’s got us this far.

CorporatePiggy on February 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Anybody want to flash back to the Presidential debates of 2012?

Barack Obama: “[T]he sequester is not something that I’ve proposed.”

Obama lies, taxes rise.

IndieDogg on February 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM

WSJ: “Scary” sequester a 5% reduction in discretionary spending –after 14% increase since 2008

Oh Please!! This is just a momentary situation. There’s
a Snow Storm ready to strike the NorthEast this weekend.
A bountiful harvest of Monies will be forthcoming to
help these poor souls deal with this national tragedy!

ToddPA on February 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM

….this has been a long time coming – schemed/planned/dreamed of/executed – for the Anti-Colonialist, America-Apologizing, military-hating Liberal Progressives. Obama has surpassed the damage done, the level of weakness achieved, by Carter…and he’s just getting started!

Overseeing just the protection of orur embassies and Ambassadors abroad, this administration failed to secure & protect those embassies / ambassadors abroad on the anniversary of 9/11 last year. Obama’s foreign policy in Libya, for example, was to ‘keep a low profile’ to the point where they denied requests for additional security to Ambassador Stevens even after 2 previous terror attacks and a warnig from Stevens that he would not survive the 3rd. Marines guarding an embassy in Cairo, Egypt – a nation controlled/run by the terrorist organization ‘The Muslim Brotherhood’ – were ordered by the State Department/hillary NOT TO CARRY LIVE AMMO ON 9/11/12! Panetta LIED before Congress today by saying the nearest help for Benghazi that day was 9-12 hours away – SpecOps Teams at Sigonella Naval Air Station, Italy, were only 480 miles away. Even if it took them 2 hours to prep, they would have arrived in 4 hrs after the start of the attack. The attack lasted approx 9 hours, & the 2 ex-Navy SEALs died 7 hrs into the attack — they could have been saved!

That is just ONE EMBASSY this administration completely failed to protect, resulting in Americans dying! Now they are ‘going after’ the entire U.s. military, severely weakening it and jeopardizing our lives & freedom.

And let’s not forget that Obama declared during the 3rd Presidential Debate, ‘Sequestration will NOT happen!’ He even said it a 2nd time to reiterate the fact that it will NOT happen. Just like everything else that comes out of thie President’s mouth & the mouths of his appointed representatives, this was nothing more than another LIE!

easyt65 on February 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM

The GOP should be out there calling for slashing whole departments and agencies starting IMO with Education and DHS.

The downside is that is easily demagogued as being pro-terrorist and anti-teacher.

I think going after Departments like Commerce or Energy is the better move. They are equally wasteful and unconstitutional as DHS and Education but people arent really emotionally attached to them either…

Let Obama defend Commerce programs that give money to corporations to pay for advertising….

I know more needs to be done, but lets take the easy wins when we can.

ChrisL on February 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Just a reminder…

In his interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register prior to the election, Obama said this:

“So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business (the deficit).”

- President Obama, October 2012

He INTENDED for the sequestration cuts to go into effect only a few months ago. They were part of his “balanced, common sense plan” to reduce the deficit.

Do not be intimidated by people like Jan “Republicans will be taking food out of the mouths of babies (if they allow the sequestration cuts to go into effect)” Schakowsky.

There Can Be No “Sacred Pork” – Defence Cuts Must Be On The Table

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Barack Obama: “[T]he sequester is not something that I’ve proposed.”

Obama lies, taxes rise.

IndieDogg on February 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM

The problem was that sequestration was just too cute a political trick. The results were supposed to be so dire that it was unimaginable that something wouldn’t be worked out to prevent it from happening. Well, that chicken is getting pretty close to the roost now. But it will be interesting to see what the rat-eared and his filthy party does as the deadline nears. Boehner has said there will be no more one-on-one dealmaking sessions with the Democrats (I hope he means it) and that any deal would go through the normal legislative process (which means committee work). That takes time and three weeks isn’t all that long before sequestration hits.

Tuesday saw the rat-eared one demanding an extension on his homework assignment and the GOP telling him it wasn’t going to happen. I have to wonder what the next gimmick will be. My guess is that we’ll start seeing stories run in all the propaganda outlets about government workers facing economic ruin because of furloughs, national security in crisis because of sequestration, and all the usual anecdotal tripe meant to distract from the one undeniable fact. Deficit reduction is impossible without spending cuts and spending cuts have to include reductions in the entitlement programs filled with Obama-supporting parasites. They aren’t going to like it when Santa Claus becomes the grim reaper.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

I expect Obama and the dems to come up with some “spending cut” alternative proposals which amount to nothing more than budgetary slight of hand and which don’t cut a thing. He when then squeal like a stuck pig that congress is refusing to compromise with him and that the world as we know it will come to an end unless we accept his bogus alternatives along with additional tax increases. I’ve seen this movie before.

tommyboy on February 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM

republicans in the Ruling Class (WSJ, Boehner/McConnell,Ryan, etc.)

Don’t touch MY teat on the Federal Sow.

PappyD61 on February 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Do not be intimidated by people like Jan “Republicans will be taking food out of the mouths of babies (if they allow the sequestration cuts to go into effect)” Schakowsky.

There Can Be No “Sacred Pork” – Defence Cuts Must Be On The Table

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM

First off, we spell defense with an “s” in this country. I’m suspicious of the motives of any source that spells it with a “c.”

Secondly, let the Dems talk about taking the food out of the mouths of babies. Simply point out that the real problem with their pro-choice stance is that sometimes one or two human beings manage to get out of the womb unmolested. Then go on to point out it is the children and grandchildren of today’s children that will bear the brunt of our irresponsible spending. Generational theft is far uglier and atrocious than having to prioritize our short-term spending.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

force the campaigner in chief to submit a budget plan

burserker on February 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

First off, we spell defense with an “s” in this country. I’m suspicious of the motives of any source that spells it with a “c.”

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The Brits spell it with a “c’.

CorporatePiggy on February 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM

First off, we spell defense with an “s” in this country. I’m suspicious of the motives of any source that spells it with a “c.”

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The “source” is MY blog…and I spell defence with a “c.”

Maybe, you should try reading the post before automatically dismissing it because of a difference in spelling.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

“So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business (the deficit).”

– President Obama, October 2012

Sources:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121025/OPINION01/310250038/Obradovich-Obama-confident-grand-bargain-

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/263803-obama-fully-ready-to-use-sequester-interview-reveals

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/24/Obama-Flip-Flops-on-Debate-Statement-About-Sequester

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Lie after compounded lie…

We got a heap of lies to throw onto the waste dump.

L.i.B.

I really hate 0.

[ Good for you RWM ]

Scrumpy on February 7, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Rinse and repeat mode I see.

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Just do it.

pat on February 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The Brits spell it with a “c’.

CorporatePiggy on February 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM

I’m aware of that. They also spell tire with a “y.” That’s not how we roll in the United States.

The “source” is MY blog…and I spell defence with a “c.”

Maybe, you should try reading the post before automatically dismissing it because of a difference in spelling.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Self-promotion without full disclosure. Cute. And, might I say that it takes you an awfully long time to say that you hate defense spending. The fact of the matter is that defense spending should decrease as combat operations are less demanding but the fact of the matter is that the real cuts will have to come from entitlement programs with Obamacare being the only area of discretionary spending big enough to make a difference in the deficit.

As to the effects of sequestration and the DoD, one example.

With sequestration, the Navy will be cancelling more than just air shows and port visits. Maintenance will be deferred for ships and aircraft. Six months from now, under sequestration, it will take the Navy eight months to make a battle group ready for deployment. Now, it is clear that you have an animus if not outright hatred for the DoD but I wonder if you really think it wise from a security standpoint to cut spending so much that it would take eight months to deploy a battle group should something boil in say Egypt or Iran? Perhaps it is time to look at just what kind of pain domestic agencies are feeling in these fiscally constrained times. Perhaps some of the parasites on the public dole should be cut off from the public teat (elections are over Obama doesn’t need them anymore anyway).

In short, your blog is not exactly objective or well-reasoned.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Lol, the GOP defence (yeah, I’m with RWM) ayatollahs should STFU. God, you pubs whine about spending, but when we have a chance to do it without lifting a finger, continue to whine. Nevertheless, my first post in this thread holds true. Give teeth to rhetoric, not whining.

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Remember all the hype from 0 and his crowd that defense contractors didn’t need to send our WARN notices to employees of anticipated layoffs because the sequester would not happen? I wonder if those notices have finally gone out.

toby11 on February 7, 2013 at 1:58 PM

BTW, here in DC, it is estimated that sequestration will cost about 448K jobs. That is directly with other jobs hit indirectly as people don’t go out to eat as often, buy less, etc. That’s an awful lot of angry people in close proximity to the lawmakers. Life in DC may not be as enjoyable for the political class if they decide to furlough employees and/or shut down the federal government.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I call BS on these numbers (I know they are not yours, Happy Nomad). How can a cut of 5% in discretionary spending eliminate that many jobs in DC alone? Are they slashing only payroll, and not anything else? Those numbers are part of the hyperbole to scare everyone to “find a solution” that does not cut a darn thing. Heck, 5% off the current baseline hyper inflated by the stimulus doesn’t even get us back to anything close to the pre-stimulus spending levels.

dbageotech on February 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

@NJ Red See what happens? They never wanna take whats on the table, and go home. Its either ‘more’ or the defence ayatollahs. Every thread has to become a whine thread. Lol

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Do the same math with respect to Fiscal Year 2007 to present.

FACT: The last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President was passed in 2006 for Fiscal Year 2007 and produced a budget deficit of less than $161 Billion:

FY 2007 Receipts $2,567,985 Million (a.k.a. $2,568 Billion, a.k.a $2.568 Trillion)
- FY 2007 Outlays $2,728,686 Million (a.k.a. $2,729 Billion, a.k.a $2.729 Trillion)
============================
= FY 2007 Deficit $160,701 Million (a.k.a. $161 Billion, a.k.a $0.161 Trillion)

FACT: Just two Fiscal Years later, the budget passed by a Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat President in 2009 for Fiscal Year 2009 produced a budget deficit that was well over EIGHT TIMES (and over $1.25 TRILLION) bigger than that last Republican-majority deficit:

FY 2009 Receipts $2,104,989 Million (a.k.a. $2,105 Billion, a.k.a $2.105 Trillion)
- FY 2009 Outlays $3,517,677 Million (a.k.a. $3,518 Billion, a.k.a $3.518 Trillion)
============================
= FY 2009 Deficit $1,412,688 Million (a.k.a. $1,413 Billion, a.k.a $1.413 Trillion)

FACT: The Democrat majorities have not passed another budget since FY 2009, and deficits in FY 2010-2012 have averaged -$1,306,677 Million (a.k.a. $1,307 Billion, a.k.a $1.307 Trillion) each year.

FY 2010-2012 Average Receipts $2,311,596 Million (a.k.a. $2,312 Billion, a.k.a $2.312 Trillion)
- FY 2010-2012 Average Outlays $3,618,274 Million (a.k.a. $3,618 Billion, a.k.a $3.618 Trillion)
============================
= FY 2010-2012 Average Deficit $1,306,677 Million (a.k.a. $1,307 Billion, a.k.a $1.307 Trillion)

Compare the Last Republican majority budget (FY 2007) to the average of the last three Democrat majority no-budget fiscal years (FY 2010-2012):

Revenue FY 2007: $2,567,985 Million
Avg. Revenue FY 2010-2012: $2,311,596 Million
===========================
Change: Revenue down about 10%

Outlays FY 2007: $2,728,686 Million
Avg. Outlays FY 2010-2012: $3,618,274 Million
===========================
Change: Outlays up about 33%

Deficit FY 2007: $160,701 Million
Avg. Deficit FY 2010-2012: $1,306,677 Million
===========================
Change: Deficits up over 713%

Data Source: Budget numbers directly from the White House Office of Management and Budget

The increase in spending is even more dramatic when you compare FY 2009-2012 to the worst deficit year of the Republican Majority budget years.. FY 2004, when Receipts were $1,880,114 Million, Outlays were $2,292,841 Million, and the Deficit was (-) $412,727 Million.

Revenue FY 2004: $1,880,114 Million
Avg. Revenue FY 2009-2012: $2,259,945 Million
===========================
Change: Revenue up over 20%

Outlays FY 2004: $2,292,841 Million
Avg. Outlays FY 2009-2012: $3,593,125 Million
===========================
Change: Outlays up about 57%

Deficit FY 2004: $412,727 Million
Avg. Deficit FY 2009-2012: $1,333,180 Million
===========================
Change: Deficits up over 223%

FACT: Deficits of the last four years of Democrat majorities and the Obama administration have averaged more than 3.23 times the size of (more than 223% INCREASE over) the size of the WORST deficit under Bush and a Republican Congress in FY 2004.

FACT: Those record deficits under Democrat majorities aren’t due to a revenue problem (revenues are up over 20% from where they were in the worst Republican majority defict). Those record deficits under Democrat majorities are due to a spending problem (revenues are up about 57% from where they were in the worst Republican majority defict).

It’s the spending, stupid.

ITguy on February 7, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Average Outlays, as percentages of GDP, during four all-Republican budgets, FY 2004-2007:
19.8

Average Outlays, as percentages of GDP, during two all-Democrat Fiscal Years 2009-2010:
24.7

Data Source: Budget numbers directly from the White House Office of Management and Budget

ITguy on February 7, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Self-promotion without full disclosure. Cute.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Not self-promotion. It is my opinion on the subject of “sacred pork” and defence spending. I could have posted it all here, but it is rather long considering the fact that I take the time to address the skyrocketing expenditures.

And, might I say that it takes you an awfully long time to say that you hate defense spending.

I don’t hate defence spending AT ALL and there is no evidence to back up your claim. I am saying that we have to make smart decisions because we have more than $16 TRILLION in debt. A base on a South Pacific island that is unnecessary should not be kept just because it is the biggest part of the island’s economy. Materiel that is not wanted by the military should not be purchased nevertheless solely because a few Congressmen will get to boast about the “pork” they “brought home to their districts.”

The fact of the matter is that defense spending should decrease as combat operations are less demanding

Combat operations have been decreasing, but defence spending has soared.

but the fact of the matter is that the real cuts will have to come from entitlement programs with Obamacare being the only area of discretionary spending big enough to make a difference in the deficit.

I know and I agree 100%. If you got the impression that I want to keep entitlement programmes sacred, then you are very much mistaken. Anyone on HA, who reads my posts, knows that I would vote to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and every other Federal welfare and subsidy programme TODAY, if I could.

That still doesn’t mean that the military should be immune from cost savings.

As to the effects of sequestration and the DoD, one example. With sequestration, the Navy will be cancelling more than just air shows and port visits. Maintenance will be deferred for ships and aircraft. Six months from now, under sequestration, it will take the Navy eight months to make a battle group ready for deployment.

Perhaps, the military should take a look at its expenditures and make the cuts elsewhere. You are falling for the same thing that Democrats do vis-a-vis cuts in spending. “If we cut spending, we’ll have to layoff teachers, firefighters and police officers!!!” Notice that they never say, well, maybe we really don’t need this pet project that the governor or mayor or whomever wants.

Now, it is clear that you have an animus if not outright hatred for the DoD

If that is “clear” to you, then you need glasses.

but I wonder if you really think it wise from a security standpoint to cut spending so much that it would take eight months to deploy a battle group should something boil in say Egypt or Iran?

John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin published a study in 2010 entitled:

“Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money in the World—and At What Cost?”

By 2020, Kitchen and Chinn project them to rise to about 19 percent of the rest of the world’s GDP, which they say is . . . do-able….BUT TOTALLY NEVER GONNA HAPPEN UNREALISTIC.

Whether the rest of the world will want to do it is another matter. A future that presumes the rest of the planet will sink a fifth of its GDP into U.S. Treasuries is no future at all.

Perhaps it is time to look at just what kind of pain domestic agencies are feeling in these fiscally constrained times. Perhaps some of the parasites on the public dole should be cut off from the public teat (elections are over Obama doesn’t need them anymore anyway).

We agree ONE GAZILLION PERCENT!

In short, your blog is not exactly objective or well-reasoned.

Well, if you don’t mind, I am going to decline putting much stock in your opinion of my blog. It is obvious that you don’t read it and, moreover, it is apparent that you fail to comprehend what I write.

Resist We Much on February 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

The GOP in Congress should keep saying that unlike Obamacare, the squester isn’t a bait-and-switch.

If Obama wanted his squester, tell him he gets to keep his squester.

BuckeyeSam on February 7, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Those numbers are part of the hyperbole to scare everyone to “find a solution” that does not cut a darn thing. Heck, 5% off the current baseline hyper inflated by the stimulus doesn’t even get us back to anything close to the pre-stimulus spending levels.

dbageotech on February 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I think the numbers include the DoD furloughs for civilians and associated cancellation of DoD contracts. If it is hyperbole to scare everyone, frankly, it isn’t working. Everybody pretty much seems to accept the idea that sequestration is going to happen.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM

If Obama wanted his squester, tell him he gets to keep his squester.

BuckeyeSam on February 7, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Heh! I like it.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Remember all the hype from 0 and his crowd that defense contractors didn’t need to send our WARN notices to employees of anticipated layoffs because the sequester would not happen? I wonder if those notices have finally gone out.

toby11 on February 7, 2013 at 1:58 PM

They went out the week after the election. Funny how that worked, eh?

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Obama knows that with him entering his 5th year in office, he’s gonna take a lot of the heat for the crappy economy

Stop it, you’re killing me.

Alabama Infidel on February 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM

@IT guy So? Get to the freakin point, will you? Lol. You’re just spouting, not tabling the results. Is that geeky enough for you, dude?

tommy71 on February 7, 2013 at 3:07 PM

from job training to education, to the EPA and energy subsidies, to money for Planned Parenthood

They should be 100% cut!

As for the 5% scary cuts, when I worked for the State we got a 5% cut and no one even noticed it.

PattyJ on February 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM

But at least high priorities such as troop deployments are exempt from the cuts. And there is waste in the Pentagon: Start with the billions spent on “green energy” programs at DOD, bases that are no longer needed, and runaway health-care costs. Mr. Obama could work with Congress to pass those reforms so as not to cut weapons and muscle, but he has refused.

Cut the billions in payments to Obama’s Green Energy buddies. Please, no one will even feel it. It won’t affect the military paychecks, like Panetta is thinking. What dumbies.

Fleuries on February 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM