Sequestration is a “Frankenstein’s monster,” a “doomsday
machine!” So warned one Christopher Matthews last week as he
contemplated the impending fall of the budgetary meat cleaver. The
Christian faithful are warned that no one knows the day—or hour—of
the end, but in this case we know the precise minute: tonight,
March 1, 2013, at 11:59 pm.
While we can perhaps all agree that Mr. Matthews’ bloviations
contain a bit of uncharacteristic hysteria, there are plenty of
more temperate questions surrounding the sequester. What exactly
will happen tonight? Will the cuts impact our economy? Our military
readiness? Should they fall disproportionately on the Pentagon? We
rounded up a few bright lights of the Spectator and
Washington commentariat, and teased out these answers (which will
be cross-posted on our blog throughout the day):
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax
Reform:
Obama was certain that this sequester — falling equally on
Pentagon spending and non-defense spending — would scare
Republicans to vote for a tax hike to replace their spending
cuts. He had watched a handful of “Republican spokesmen” on
CNN fainting at the thought of defense spending increasing too
slowly, and unconcerned with the projected annual taxation jumping
from $2.4 trillion to $5.0 trillion over the decade.
Almost to a man and woman the GOP knows that the Pentagon, along
with all government programs, can afford to grow more slowly than
Obama had planned.
So now Obama is reduced to the equivalent of denouncing his own
baby as too ugly to present in public.
Quin Hillyer, American Spectator Senior
Editor:
Let’s look at the numbers. A good starting point is 2008, the
last full year before Barack Obama pushed “stimulus” funds through
a Democratic Congress — but after domestic
discretionary spending had already risen a stupefying 74 percent in
just the eight years from 2000 to 2008. (All numbers come from
OMB
historical tables, Table 5.6.) That spending category in 2008
was $494 billion. In 2014, current estimates place domestic
discretionary spending at $550 billion — a 12% increase, which
outstrips inflation. Surely, there’s plenty of fat in there
somewhere.
On the other hand, defense spending in 2008 was $686 billion.
Current estimates for 2014 push that down to $558 billion — an 18
percent cut even before taking inflation into account. When
something is being cut that much, that fast, the “meat cleaver”
approach is especially worrisome because it really does threaten to
slice into sinew and bone. This is particularly problematic for
national defense, which is the first and most important obligation
of the national government.
Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator Contributing
Editor:
This is an exercise in demonstrating how America cannot live
without Big Government. Take a good listen to all these
supposed horror stories. Teachers pink-slipped, prison doors
opened, no more help getting a job. One of my favorites, per
the Washington
Post is the horror that will be the cut in funding for the
“STOP Violence Against Women Program.”
This gem flows, I believe, from the Clinton era, President
Clinton signing VAWA, as it was known, into law in 1994. In typical
liberal style, with X number of cowed Republicans going along for
the ride, the act set up an office in the bureaucracy (the Justice
Department in this case), hired more bureaucrats, and got bucks —
some $1.6 billion in the day.
Since that day, as is the pattern with these things, this has
become the typical liberal sacred cow. To even whisper against this
is to commit heresy.
Ross Kaminsky, Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute and
American Spectator contributor:
The question of “who will be blamed politically” assumes that
the public will see sequestration as a negative. I suspect that, at
least after the first few days, that assumption will be invalid. It
will not turn into a question of the parties trying to blame each
other, but rather of Republicans taking credit for not allowing it
to be replaced with tax hikes. They should be careful not to crow
over it as great policy because it’s not and because it was Obama’s
idea. Instead, they need to make clear that Republicans made the
best of yet another terrible situation created by this president’s
remarkable unwillingness and inability to lead.
Republicans also should talk about the sequester in very
measured tones, calmly putting it in the perspective it
deserves:
- Actual cuts to spending this year will be a bit more than 1% of
the federal budget
- Defense spending will still increase by over $100 billion over
the coming decade
- Federal spending and the national debt still grow enormously in
the next decade
- Claims that sequestration is a massive cut to government
spending rely on a definition of the word “cut” that no rational
person would accept
- To avoid this sort of thing in the future, it is time to get
serious about entitlement reform
Jim Antle, Editor of the Daily Caller News
Foundation:
The end of the world is upon us. Soon the federal government
will start to increase its spending more slowly than originally
planned. The numbers are terrifying. Spending will rise about $44
billion less this year due to sequestration, with future “cuts”
bringing the total to $85 billion.
It is very difficult to see how our $15 trillion economy will
survive this retrenchment, forcing government programs to make due
on a more than $3.5 trillion federal budget. If this dangerous
trend continues, federal spending will increase by $2 trillion over
the next decade instead of $2 trillion.
By now it should be obvious that I am being sarcastic. But the
media outrage about the sequester is wildly disproportionate to the
numbers that are actually involved. We cannot seriously address
Washington’s unfunded liabilities if non-cuts of this magnitude
cannot even be contemplated.
G. Tracy Mehan, consultant and adjunct professor at GMU
School of Law:
So the question becomes “Is the GOP up to the challenge?”
Speaker Boehner does yeoman work, but he is not a natural front
guy. His recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal was too
conflicted as to whether the coming cuts were good or bad (right
answer: good!). Some have suggested he needs a permanent, public
spokesman like Jay Carney at the White House to make news, send and
stay on message. Moreover, we need to see more of Paul Ryan and a
bullpen of attractive, articulate men and women from the respective
caucuses working different aspects of the fiscal argument. Is there
a War Room set up for messaging and quick response? You get the
idea.
This is a moment of truth for the party of Lincoln. It has to
make sequestration work even if it goes the way of the Whigs who,
by the way, had a greater impact on the ultimate shape of American
government and society than the Jacksonians.
John Tabin, American Spectator
contributor:
Looking for a surefire weight-loss plan? I’ve got a plan that is
guaranteed to reduce your weight by one pound. Now, you may think
this isn’t much of weight-loss plan, but maybe it’s worth doing
anyway; after all, it can’t be a particularly grueling regimen if
you’re only losing a pound, right? Here’s the weight-loss plan: We
cut off your hand.
Okay, that’s a pretty bad idea. Not only does it leave you
crippled, you’re just as fat as you were before. This might be the
dumbest weight-loss plan imaginable. And it has a lot in common
with sequestration, which might be the dumbest deficit-reduction
plan imaginable. Its cuts fall disproportionately on the Department
of Defense, and the across-the-board nature of the cuts mean
hacking away at the defense budget not by closing unnecessary bases
or canceling misguided procurements, but by delaying refueling and
maintenance on carrier strike groups that should be deployed.
Photo: UPI.
