ON MARCH 1, absent a legislative fix that still seems unlikely, the fiscal ax will fall on every facet of the US government. The so-called “sequester” will automatically chop $85 billion from all discretionary spending, with no room for negotiation or a reasoned policy analysis that would protect successful programs over the more expendable ones. The sequester is a bad idea. There is no reason that government should function this way. But, as some commentators have begun to note, it is finally forcing an important reckoning at the Pentagon regarding spending and cost savings. If nothing else, the threat of sequester has the Defense Department, which Congress has often treated as a sacred cow, engaging in the kind of cost-benefit analysis that other departments do routinely.
Pentagon leaders are raising concerns that the sequester will jeopardize America’s security while simultaneously claiming that they can handle many of the cuts. The latter is likely the truer position. The threats the military faces are constantly changing, and range from cyber attacks from China to terrorism threats from Al Qaeda, and yet programs designed for Cold War-like deterrence remain largely uncut. According to the Congressional Budget Office, even if the sequester were to go into effect, the Pentagon’s roughly $700 billion budget would still grow by 2.4 percent in 2014.
Comments
Now, the Globe shows it's true colors. It HATES the US military (as shown by it's unqualified support for Chuck Hagel)..If the Sequester were ONLY about cutting the Defense department budget, the Globe would be right on board...Also, Globe doesn't say that the Sequester will NOT cause layoffs of police, teachers and firefighters because they are NOT Federal employees...And for all of the so called budget cutting (which will be more than made up by "Baseline Budgeting") Obama could selectively cut REAL wasteful spending by all departments, without cutting any essential services...And the president could rescind his automatic pay increase for all federal employees
"Obama could selectively cut REAL wasteful spending by all departments, without cutting any essential services ..." SNAP! Why didn't somebody think of that before? It seems so simple ....
Also Globe says "The sequester is a bad idea". But Barack Obama in 2011 said "I will VETO any bill that does not include automatic spending cuts"...Globe enthusiastically supported the president's position at the time.
Some folks are just weird and so completely opposed to the Globe or the President or the govt. or they just like to argue. I'm not sure what it is. However, if you want to cut the budget Defense is one of the first places one must look. The problem with the sequester which any pol on either side of the aisle will tell you is not the size of the cuts but the fact that the cuts are not identifiable. In other words you can't just shift money around from a portion of the discretionary budget of the dept. to a necessary program of the dept. Because you can't make the necessary accounting actions you take a meat axe to the employees which is the simplist means of meeting the targets.
Under the sequester Obama has no authority to "selectively cut" anything. We get this kind of nonsense from folks who have no clue as to how federal budgeting works and the nonsense continues because the MSM, which includes the Globe< fails to educate the public as to what certain policies entail and who has authority to do what.
Both sides want spending cuts, one side wants to close tax loopholes as a part of their approach. If it were not a political question R's would put the loopholes on the table because they know these credits are unnecessary. People accuse the pols of acting in a false manner but is it so surprising given the level of ignorance in the public regarding the federal budget.
Even Republicans know we overspend on Defense, that's why they don't care if the sequester takes effect. They're obsession with small government is far greater than their desire to spend on national defense.
Sounds like a really good thing to be obsessed with!
To the best of my knowledge the defense budget, entitlements and debt payments make up a substantial portion of ther budget. It's here that menaingful savings can be had. Given its size, the defense budget has to be put under the microscope. The world has changed much but it seems like the Pentagon is still working with a cold war mentality.
The defense budget is a smaller portion of total spending than it was during tne Cold War. Entitlement spending as a percentage has been growing for decades. Draw your own conclusion about where spending cuts must occur.
Lecturing by the Far-Left about the Defense Department will not solve the problem. No one's thinking cold war anymore...whoever thinks that is uneducated. But,the Radical terrorist problem must be dealt with, and that's even more dangerous than the USSR (think Pakistan and Iran with Nukes). So,the Defense Budget must be strong, but with the pork curried out. When I think of REAL Pork, I think about $2.0 Billion Annually for Cell Phones for the Homeless or the Foodstamp debacle. These are easy, but there are so many more. Sometime this week, the Congress will give Obama authority to decide how to allocate these Sequestor dollars. This will be his first REAL cost-cutting decision since he was elected. Let's see how he does. God knows, we need to sharply cut-back in order to save this wonderful Republic.