Green Room

Sequester hysteria in one chart

posted at 2:54 pm on February 7, 2013 by

Just 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 be?  Just savage, I tell you:

sequester-savage

How will the Republic survive?

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Even this chart is still misleading.

Notice how there is not one single year where the level of spending is less than the year before?

That means there are no cuts. No savings. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It is all reductions in the rate of growth. That is not a cut, nor a savings.

I’m so sick of this bullsh!t about “cuts” from both sides of the aisle.

Shump on February 7, 2013 at 3:30 PM

This chart is raaaaaccccciiiiiisssssttttt!!!!!!!

Nutstuyu on February 7, 2013 at 3:53 PM

The only real problem with the sequester is that defense gets hit disproportionately hard.

But still, it’s worth it. Any across the board cut at this point helps, even if it’s a drop in the bucket. In fact, I sense that only across the board cuts have any chance of passing since singling out programs or departments turns into a cat fight.

Nessuno on February 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

If they are so minor, what is the point in making them then?

astonerii on February 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM

If they are so minor, what is the point in making them then?

astonerii on February 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Because it’s still the right direction, and the argument needs to be made. If you can persuade the American people that “cuts” aren’t going to kill anyone, and that the growth of federal budget could destroy our nation, then you’re making progress. The problem is, once these “cuts” are made, too many republicans will think they’ve fought for fiscal sanity when really they haven’t. In other words, it’s worth doing because it’s at least a starting point, but too many in the GOP think it’s a good place to end the conversation.

Weight of Glory on February 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

My answer to the liberal in my office who voiced “concern” over the “savage sequester cuts”….

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!

Turtle317 on February 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

The only real problem with the sequester is that defense gets hit disproportionately hard.

But still, it’s worth it.
Nessuno on February 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Good to know. What time is breakfast at the Nessuno ranch? When I get laid off and lose my home, I’ll be stopping by.

BobMbx on February 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

No more draconian cuts!

We should just start spending exactly as much as we did in the previous year, and not a penny less.

iurockhead on February 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Good to know. What time is breakfast at the Nessuno ranch? When I get laid off and lose my home, I’ll be stopping by.

BobMbx on February 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Seriously? Your position is that the federal budget shouldn’t be cut if it results in someone–anyone–losing his job?

Have you really thought that through?

I see from your link that you live in Virginia. Based on your occupation’s dependence on federal dollars, I’m going to guess that’s Northern Virginia, a place I also lived for several years.

If you were actually a conservative you’d be as disgusted as I was at the growth of that region at the expense of the rest of America. You’d recognize that most of those jobs are a symptom of the problem, not something to be protected.

Go ahead, call me a cold-hearted SOB. I don’t care. I just know the country can’t sustain this level of spending.

Nessuno on February 7, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Notice how there is not one single year where the level of spending is less than the year before?

That means there are no cuts. No savings. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It is all reductions in the rate of growth. That is not a cut, nor a savings.

I’m so sick of this bullsh!t about “cuts” from both sides of the aisle.

Shump on February 7, 2013 at 3:30 PM

But Nancy said that any reduction would mean the end of life on earth as we know it.

And the media is backing the bipartisan big spenders all the way.

talkingpoints on February 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Good to know. What time is breakfast at the Nessuno ranch? When I get laid off and lose my home, I’ll be stopping by.

BobMbx on February 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

This attitude is the exact reason why our spending addiction will never be dealt with seriously.

Just roughly speaking, I’d like to see 50% of those currently on the payroll of the federal government to lose their jobs tomorrow. That would be what we call “a good start.” How does that figure grab you?

Shump on February 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics,” Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.

“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.

“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”

“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

Obama Nov 21, 2011: “I will veto ANY attempt to prevent the sequester.”

Obama Oct 22, 2012: “First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.”

J_Crater on February 7, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Just roughly speaking, I’d like to see 50% of those currently on the payroll of the federal government to lose their jobs tomorrow. That would be what we call “a good start.” How does that figure grab you?

Shump on February 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM

If you think that the Federal payroll is the biggest problem, dream on.

Why choose the first cut to be 50% of the employed people who actually earn most of their pay? {Even though, having worked in both, I agree that Federal employment is inherently less efficient than the private-sector.}

But why don’t we start someplace that will actually make a difference? Start with entitlements, including the EIC tax payouts to low income families. If you want to disperse the pain throughout the entire economy, cut every SS check, every disability check, every food stamp benefit, every unemployment check and every medicaid check by 50%, and then start cancelling government contracts and laying off government employees.

Targeting military communities first might seem appropriate to you, but I don’t get it. Maybe you don’t know any folks currently serving or providing operational support, ’cause if you did they would tell you that if you don’t commit to having good intel, you don’t have intel. Just pack up and go home. Or go back to eavesdropping, cause you’re not going to have any reliable sources on the ground anymore. Oh well; what’s another lost theatre anymore? The Obama Admin is surrendering them all anyway, and at no financial benefit.

rwenger43 on February 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM

If they are so minor, what is the point in making them then?

astonerii on February 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM

As a chef/restaurateur once told me “Watch the pennies ; the dollars will take care of themselves.”

It is a step in the right direction, however small. Liberals got us here one small step at a time. We have to reverse that course.

Better evolutionary rather than revolutionary, if at all possible.

ProfShadow on February 8, 2013 at 7:53 AM