The Sequester Effect
by Jon Harrison | Posted February 26, 2013
At this writing, the Republicans have refused to cave in on sequestration. Because half the cuts will come from defense, I thought the GOP would do almost anything to prevent the sequester from happening. But I was wrong. Whether they are operating on principle (i.e., sticking to their belief that spending must be brought under control) or simply doing what they think is politically advantageous, I couldn’t say. In either case, it may provide a lesson in political economy for all Americans.
Back in 1990, Bill Weld was elected governor of Massachusetts. Upon taking office, he instituted relatively minor cuts in social services. I can still remember the street protests and wailings from advocacy groups that the cuts would cause homelessness, starvation, and other enormities. Of course, after the cuts went through, nothing of the sort happened. People suddenly discovered that they could work at a job, or call upon relatives for assistance, or rely on private charity. It was an object lesson in how bloated and dishonest the welfare state had become since LBJ put in place the “Great Society.” Recipients and advocates of government largesse in Massachusetts had for a time persuaded a majority of their fellow citizens that welfarism was just, honorable, and necessary. But when Massachusetts ran into a fiscal wall, with deficits looming and taxes just too much of a burden, a Republican (Weld) squeaked into office and — poof! — the illusion that the state alone stood between the less well-off and a Dickensian fate burst like a soap bubble.
The sequester may prove this point again, and on a national scale. The Obama administration has been ratcheting up the hyperbole as the dread date of March 1 approaches. Beware the Kalends of March! Children will be thrown off Head Start. Small business loans may be delayed, or even (gasp!) unobtainable. National defense, on which we spend about as much money as the rest of the world combined, will be compromised when civilian employees of the Pentagon are required to take a day off per week without pay. And God alone knows what else may happen.
In fact, sequestration calls for the elimination of a little over $1.1 trillion in federal spending over a period of ten years. That’s about three cents out of every dollar in a budget that has doubled under Bush II and Obama. If the American economy can’t survive that, then the country may as well pack it in and become a province of China.
Probably the Republicans will cave later in March, as defense contractors join food stamp recipients and the long-term unemployed in bleating that the trough is no longer full. But maybe not. Maybe they’ll stand firm long enough for the public and the establishment media to realize that sequestration ain’t so bad after all.
Sequestration is a lousy way to trim the federal budget. But it’s better than business as usual. And it just might teach the citizenry that it can live with a little (or even a lot) less government.
Jon Harrison, a former Liberty contributing editor (2008–2014), is a freelance writer and editor.
Share This
Main menu
Search Liberty
Timebound
to be considered for
immediate publication
Most Read
Monthly archive
- November 2010 (24)
- December 2010 (24)
- January 2011 (31)
- February 2011 (17)
- March 2011 (29)
- April 2011 (21)
- May 2011 (22)
- June 2011 (18)
- July 2011 (20)
- August 2011 (20)
- September 2011 (19)
- October 2011 (18)
- November 2011 (17)
- December 2011 (15)
- January 2012 (21)
- February 2012 (15)
- March 2012 (18)
- April 2012 (16)
- May 2012 (20)
- June 2012 (14)
- July 2012 (24)
- August 2012 (20)
- September 2012 (19)
- October 2012 (19)
- November 2012 (21)
- December 2012 (17)
- January 2013 (21)
- February 2013 (16)
- March 2013 (13)
- April 2013 (16)
- May 2013 (12)
- June 2013 (15)
- July 2013 (13)
- August 2013 (13)
- September 2013 (12)
- October 2013 (15)
- November 2013 (13)
- December 2013 (13)
- January 2014 (15)
- February 2014 (13)
- March 2014 (14)
- April 2014 (13)
- May 2014 (13)
- June 2014 (10)
- July 2014 (12)
- August 2014 (14)
- September 2014 (10)
- October 2014 (14)
- November 2014 (12)
- December 2014 (12)
- January 2015 (12)
- February 2015 (11)
- March 2015 (11)
- April 2015 (11)
- May 2015 (10)
- June 2015 (12)
- July 2015 (13)
- August 2015 (10)
- September 2015 (10)
- October 2015 (10)
- November 2015 (9)
- December 2015 (12)
- January 2016 (10)
- February 2016 (10)
- March 2016 (10)
- April 2016 (10)
- May 2016 (13)
- June 2016 (11)
- July 2016 (10)
- August 2016 (10)
- September 2016 (10)
- October 2016 (10)
- November 2016 (11)
- December 2016 (11)
- January 2017 (11)
- February 2017 (11)
- March 2017 (10)
- April 2017 (10)
- May 2017 (10)
- June 2017 (9)
- July 2017 (10)
- August 2017 (10)
- September 2017 (10)
- October 2017 (10)
- November 2017 (10)
- December 2017 (10)
- January 2018 (12)
- February 2018 (10)
- March 2018 (10)
- April 2018 (10)
- May 2018 (10)
- June 2018 (10)
- July 2018 (10)
- August 2018 (10)
- September 2018 (10)
- October 2018 (10)
- November 2018 (10)
- December 2018 (10)
- January 2019 (10)
- February 2019 (5)
Comments
Jim Henshaw
re this: "In fact, sequestration calls for the elimination of a little over $1.1 trillion in federal spending over a period of ten years."
It calls for a slight reduction in the rate of GROWTH of the federal government over ten years.
Sat, 2013-03-02 22:31
Jon Harrison
Yep, that's right.
Sun, 2013-03-03 09:35
Fred Mora
You're not joking about the hyperbole, Jon.
Ed Schultz: "Now you've got a budget of three and a half trillion dollars in this fiscal year. This will take $85 billion out of it. That's damn near a third." (!!!) Ed, your dear public schools failed you. That's not even 3%.
CBS: "Kids without vaccines; schools without teachers; and massive airport delays". You forgot the locust and the Potomac water turning into blood.
A quote from the WSJ to put things in perspective:
Even after the sequester, the federal government will spend $15 billion more than it did last year, and 30% more than it spent in 2007. Government spending on nondefense discretionary programs will be 19.2% higher and spending on defense will be 13.8% higher than it was in 2007.
You remember 2007? The year planes fell off the sky, starving teachers died in the streets, and sick children piled up in hospitals? Yeah, me neither.
Wed, 2013-02-27 00:35
Jon Harrison
At least Ed seems like a guy you could argue with over a beer. So unlike the egregious Lawrence O'Donnell or the insufferable Rachel Maddow. The daytime crew at MSNBC is perhaps even worse -- except of course for S.E. Cupp. I could see spending a weekend in a nice hotel with S.E. Maybe she could bring Alex Wagner along for the ride.
Wed, 2013-02-27 10:39
Russell Hasan
Good analysis, but, of course, while praising the sequester and discussing the good it will do, you completely ignore that it is almost entirely the result of the Tea Party Congressmen in the House, who courageously defied both the GOP establishment and the Washington insiders in order to force the sequester as a condition to raising the debt ceiling. To be fair, one must give credit where credit is due--assuming that one wants to be fair.
Tue, 2013-02-26 19:55
Jon Harrison
I wasn't aware that as part of my writing I have to check certain boxes designated by my readers.
This was not a piece about who is or is not responsible for the sequester. Indeed, the sequester was put in place by Congress (not the Tea Party members alone) as a doomsday device, or poison pill, with the purpose of forcing a budget deal.
That we are talking about cutting at all is partly due to the rise of the Tea Party. But that doesn't change my overall view of the movement one iota.
Personally, I favor reductions in spending on defense and some domestic programs (and the elimination of some others), and a lowering of the top tax rate to 25 or 28 per cent. At the same time I would like to see thoroughgoing tax reform that, if possible, increases the revenue stream in order to help bring the federal budget into balance. This would mean the elimination of most deductions for high earners (over $200,000? $300,000?) and means-testing for programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Although I think Obamacare is a mediocre piece of legislation, I favor some form of national health insurance. There are of course various models. As I've stated here before, every advanced nation in Europe, North America, Australasia, and East Asia except the USA has some form of national health care. It should be noted that in none of these countries is there any sentiment for repeal and a move to the US model.
I'm not smart enough to know whether the numbers add up for the program outlined above. But I think something approaching it could be done in the real economic world. Whether Tea Partiers or libertarians or anybody else agrees with me has no effect on my views.
Wed, 2013-02-27 10:29
Bob Straub
According to Bob Woodward in his new book, "The Price of Politics", the idea for the sequester came from the White House staff. Bob Woodward isn't exactly a Fox News talk show host. And the Washington Post (not your everyday right-wing screed) gave the Prez four Pinocchios for saying, during a campaign debate with Romney, that Congress did it.
Wed, 2013-02-27 10:12
Jon Harrison
As the Woodward-White House story has devloped, it's become clear that once again Woodward is playing with the facts for his own purposes. His career is filled with such moments. He is, in this writer's opinion, an untrustworthy messenger on this and any other subject.
Your apparent respect for Woodward and the Washington Post is misplaced. Harry Truman was right when he said that a man who believes what he reads in the papers is a fool. Not that everything the Post or the Times (or Fox News) reports is false, but reader beware no matter who is doing the reporting.
The White House wanted the sequester because it thought it could turn it into a reply of Gingrinch shuts down the government, thereby reaping political advantage for itself. That it wanted sequester to happen becuase it cared desperately (or at all) about runaway spending, is just wrong.
Sun, 2013-03-03 13:45
Bob Straub
Jon, thank you for the reply.
But please don't form an impression that I have any special respect for Woodward or the WaPo.
I consider myself to be a Libertarian, and I have been a member of the national organization for decades. I am not as well-read as many, but I try to think hard about politics and philosophy. I want maximal individual freedom, economically and socially, and minimal government.
I will, though, consider myself chastened somewhat by your comments on believability in Woodward, the press, etc.
I posted what I did only to point out that Obama wasn't quite speaking the truth when he blamed the sequester on the Republicans, and that even very non-Republican sources are calling him on it.
If I ever had a little trust in Obama (and it would have been little), I certainly don't now. What we're seeing is 100% political theater. Obama suggested sequester figuring that the Reps would never buy it. Since they did, he's now doing everything he reasonably can to exacerbate its effects, scare the general public, and make the Republicans take the blame.
But I am not trying to defend the Republicans much, either. To me, with few exceptions, they're just wannabe Democrats these days, and they aren't very good at even that.
Bob.
Mon, 2013-03-04 14:52
Jon Harrison
Thanks for taking the time to clarify. Interesting. Please keep commenting.
Tue, 2013-03-05 09:49