by Alex Engler
It should come as no surprise that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, more conveniently known as the super committee, is not making an overwhelming (or even just a whelming) amount of progress. The root causes of the habitual stalemate over increased taxes versus budget cuts, entitlement spending, and defense appropriations have not changed, and there is nothing that a 12-member committee can do about that which the 535-member congress hasn’t already tried. The disparate positions on taxation between Speaker of the House Boehner and President Obama are enough to stifle any prospects of another $4 trillion-or-so grand bargain. In addition, hopes that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) would be a reasoned arbiter for the intended $1.5 trillion agreement have not yet come to fruition.
While a deal may still emerge, the limited amount of information seeping into the public domain indicates that current talks revolve around an aggregation of smaller budget modifications. These potential changes, like reduced farm subsidies, higher contributions by federal workers to their retirement funds, sales of government-controlled wireless broadband, and slight reductions in Medicare and defense spending would most likely fall short of the minimum requirement to avoid the trigger mechanism: a $1.2 trillion reduction in the deficit over ten years. This leaves the possibility of activating the trigger mechanism, and its $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, ever more likely.
Pulling the Trigger?
Of course almost no one wants the trigger to deliver its full effect: The accompanying cuts –officially known as sequestration– are an intensely unpopular notion on the Hill and have evoked one of Washington’s favorite words, draconian, from more than the usual alarmists. Half of the $1.2 trillion would come from a panoptic cut to security spending, which is notably different than ‘defense spending’ in that it includes the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and parts of the State Department in addition to the Department of Defense. Even with the cannon fodder, e.g. foreign aid, these cuts are unpalatable to the right. The Army’s chief of staff, General Raymond Odierno, went so far to say that he is “deathly afraid” of what would happen if these cuts were to take effect.
The other $600 billion would gut both mandatory and discretionary domestic spending that the left holds dear. Although the list of exemptions is surprisingly short, including only Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiaries (but not providers), civil and military pay, and aid to veterans, the amount of dollars off-limits is substantial. Nonetheless, this will place the financial burden on programs such as the Departments of Energy, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, unemployment insurance, state aid, and NASA; and Democrats hold a legitimate fear that whatever is cut today may never come back.
This, however, is exactly why sequestration will not happen. These cuts are far too detrimental to either party’s goals, not to mention the nation’s well-being, to allow unabated. The trigger might have been an effective motivator if it had any more power than the sunset provision on the Bush tax cuts, but it doesn’t. If the super committee is unable to pass a resolution to submit to congress by its November 23rd deadline, or if the committee’s plan is not passed in congress by December 23rd, the sequestration would be budgeted from 2013 through 2021. Yet, that first year, 2013, is precisely where the 112th Congress’s ability to write the budget ends, and the ensuing 113th Congress is entitled to alter that budget in the very first week of January.
Stan Collender’s report for Qorvis Communications sums up the legislature’s historical record quite well: “Federal budget agreements have seldom, if ever, gone the distance. Instead, they have always been changed, waived, ignored, or abandoned long before they were scheduled to expire.” If history is any guide, it is very unlikely that this budget plan will be adhered to. Throw into the mix the 2012 elections and the fact that the Bush tax cuts are set to expire on January 1, 2013, and it becomes even harder to imagine that the federal budget won’t be revisited before these cuts have any real effect.
If we assume that a genuine compromise is off the table, then the members of the super committee will be forced to choose between inaction, which activates the trigger, or substantial concessions in the negotiations. Given the choice between a paper tiger and getting rolled by the opposing party, a stalemate shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. Many of the twelve committee members are veteran lawmakers, and you can guarantee that on both sides of the aisle the point has been made: don’t be afraid of the big bad trigger mechanism.
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.
jobrelatedlegalpaper reblogged this on jobrelatedlegalpaper.
Why do we always make cuts from the most important areas that serve the most needy? I am sick of it. Cut the crap and the pork, seriously. Get over yourselves, Democrats and Republicans. Make the hard choices and take care of the people.