What if the sequester is exactly what America needs?
While there is widespread support for trimming federal spending, when it comes to the specifics of what should be cut, clarity disappears. In not one of the 19 (!) specific areas did a majority of the sample express support for a diminishing of federal spending. (The closest was the 48 percent who favored cutting “aid to the world’s needy.” So, that happened.) Somewhat amazingly, of the 19 areas Pew asked people about cutting, Americans favored increasing spending over decreasing spending in 16 of them.
What those numbers make clear is that most people live in a fantasy world where overall federal spending decreases even as spending on virtually every federal program increases. Given that “reality”, it’s uniquely possible that only through crisis — manufactured or not — will people come to grips with the fundamental paradox at the center of their thinking of what the federal government should or shouldn’t do…
But, it’s also possible that the size of the cuts — a trillion dollars is a ton of money even spread out over the next decade — and the heat of the rhetoric coming from the two parties causes the sort of crisis that forces a decent number of people to pay attention and begin to re-examine (or, more likely examine) the way they think about spending. And, if enough people start paying attention, their politicians — forever a reactive species — could well be emboldened or intimidated into doing something big(ger).
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
In FY2001, the government spent $1.8629 trillion. In FY2012, the Federal government spent $3.7956 trillion. That’s a 103.74684631% increase in Federal spending since FY2001!
.
.
Pension Spending By The Feds:
There’s been a 72.5320985% increase in pension expenses since 2001!
.
.
Healthcare Spending By the Feds:
There’s been a 117.1714579% increase in healthcare expenditures since 2001!
.
.
Education Spending By The Feds:
There’s been a 140.72327044% increase in spending on education by since 2001.
.
.
Defence Spending By The Feds (keep in mind that the Iraq War is over):
There’s been a 146.31348989% increase in defence spending since 2001.
.
.
Welfare Spending By The Feds:
In the past 12 years, the Feds have spent $3.8454 trillion on welfare or $320.5 billion on average each year. The Feds have increased overall welfare spending by 139.35381355% since 2001.
.
.
Fed’s Spending on “Protection”:
The Feds have increased overall “protection” spending by 105.29801324% since 2001.
.
.
Transportation Spending By The Feds:
There’s been a 88.60294117% increase in transportation spending since 2001.
.
.
General Government Spending:
There’s been a 108.69565217% increase General Government Spending in since 2001.
.
.
“Other” Spending:
$1.3909 trillion was spent on “other spending” in 12 years or $115.91 billion per year.
“Other spending” expenditures have increased by 174.93112947% in the last dozen years.
.
.
Interest Spending:
We’ve spent $2.4288 TRILLION on debt service in the last 12 years or an average of $202.4 billion a year…and, that’s been during a period of historically-low interest rates!
.
.
Deficit:
Our deficit has increased by 7,309.26856504% in a dozen years!!!
.
.
Total Spending:
That’s a 103.74684631% increase in Federal spending in 12 years!
.
.
Gross Public Debt:
There’s been a 183.3827276% increase in the Federal Government’s Gross Public Debt in 12 years!
Resist We Much on February 25, 2013 at 7:21 PM
‘
If cutting government spending 2% or whatever it is will hurt the economy, then the government is too damn big.
‘
cntrlfrk on February 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM
The tea party wanted Cut, Cap and Balance back in ’11, it was Obama and Boehner who killed it and came up with the sequestration in secret backroom negotiations. It’s one thing for tea partiers to welcome cuts in spending, any cuts, but tea partiers should be careful not to claim credit for the sequestration itself, IMO. If the stock market goes down and/or if the economy falters, or if the sequestration really is targeted for maximum pain to, the ruling class seems primed to blame it on the sequestration and the tea party even though it was their own backroom deal that the tea party opposed.
One way for the tea party to immunize itself from blame if there is pain, real or manufactured by the MSM, is to offer to replace the supposedly targeted spending cuts in the sequester with an across-the-board cuts of the equal or greater value.
FloatingRock on February 25, 2013 at 7:44 PM
If the governmental agencies can’t figure out how to deal with a cut in their increase of spending, then the heads of those agencies need to step down.
Keep these. Fire the others.
http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/2013/02/some-federal-agencies-wont-need-furloughs-under-sequestration/61506/?oref=river
ProfShadow on February 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM
Exactly? No.
Better than nothing, though.
Count to 10 on February 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM
Well, since I never get polled about this issue, I have doubts about the results.
ladyingray on February 25, 2013 at 8:20 PM
It’s about 1/10th of what America needs.
James on February 25, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Exempted from Sequester:
1. “Compensation for the President” – (Section 25, p 19)
2. Social Security benefits (old-age, survivors, and disability) and Tier 1 Railroad
Retirement benefits.
3. Medicaid
4. Refundable tax credits to individuals (p18)
5. Children’s Health Insurance Programmes
6. Academic Competitiveness/Smart Grant Program;
7. Mandatory funding under the Child Care and Development Fund;
8. Child Nutrition Programs (including School Lunch, School Breakfast, Child and Adult Care Food, and others, but excluding Special Milk);
9. Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP);
10. Commodity Supplemental Food Program;
11. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the TANF Contingency Fund;
12. Family Support Programmes;
13. Federal Pell Grants;
14. All VA-administered programmes
15. Special benefits for certain WWII veterans (p17)
16. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme
17. Net interest (budget function 900).
18. Unobligated balances carried over from previous years for non-defence programmes.
19. At the President’s sole discretion subject to Congressional notification, military personnel can be entirely exempted from sequester or receive a higher percentage of the rate set in place by sequester (p19)
20. A list of “other” budget accounts and activities; readers should consult the statute for a complete list. A few selected examples include a) activities resulting from private donations, bequests or
voluntary contributions, or financed by voluntary payments for good or services; b) advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund; payments to various retirement, health care, and disability trust funds; certain Tribal and Indian trust accounts; and Medical Facilities Guaranty and Loan Fund.(20)
21. Specified federal retirement and disability accounts and activities
22. Prior legal obligations of the federal government in specified budget accounts
23. Foster Care and Permanency Programmes
24. Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
25. Medicare Part D low-income premium and cost-sharing subsidies; Medicare Part D catastrophic subsidy payments; and Qualified Individual (QI) premiums.
26. Specified economic recovery programmes, including GSE Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, the Office of Financial Stability, and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
27. The following “split-treatment” programmes, to the extent that the programmes’ budgetary resources are subject to obligations limitations in appropriations bills:
*Federal Aid-Highways;
*Highway Traffic Safety Grants;
* Operations and Research NHTSA and National Driver Register;
* Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs;
* Motor Carrier Safety Grants;
* Formula and Bus Grants; and
* Grants-in-Aid for Airports.
The Following “Discretionary” Programmes Are ALSO Exempt From The Sequester
* student loans under Title IV-B and IV-D of the Higher Education Act;
* Medicare;
* community and migrant health centers, Indian health services and facilities, and veterans’ medical care;
* Child Support Enforcement;
* federal pay;
* federal administrative expenses;
* Unemployment Compensation; and
* Commodity Credit Corporation.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42050.pdf#page=1
Looking for more…
Resist We Much on February 25, 2013 at 9:00 PM
What America Needs: Reset.
petefrt on February 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM
It’s been said before but I think it’s especially applicable to this “crisis”: The only polls that matter are elections.
I’m still trying to come to terms with how that strategy affects conservatives. The Democrats passed O’care in the face of massive public opposition. I thought at the time that Democrats had some obligation to drop the whole thing considering how much the public didn’t want it. Is it wrong for me to now hope the GOP does exactly the same thing?
It leads to this question: Is a Republican going to be punished by his/her constituents for bucking public opinion for the sake of fiscal prudence?
They don’t have to worry about national polls after all; they just have to please their constituents.
Let’s go with the sequester and “find out what’s in it”.
hisfrogness on February 25, 2013 at 9:18 PM