Economics, Pethokoukis

GOP ready to let sequester happen

012513sequest

Here comes the sequester. I think political analyst Dan Clifton of Strategas Research is on point:

Although spending is cut heavily on the Defense industry and the cuts are across the board, Republicans seem intent on letting the sequester go through if Democrats are not willing to engage in entitlement reform given that the GOP believes spending should be more in line with its historical average.

Here’s your trouble: The GOP would love to replace those deep defense cuts with entitlement reform. Letting them all happen would bring the defense budget to historic lows, around 2.5% of GDP. Some context: Right before 9-11, the “peace divided” brought defense spending down to 3%. Moreover, defense spending accounted for, on average, a 7% share of GDP from 1948 to 2000.

But the White House will surely demand more tax increases to replace any spending reductions. Indeed, even though the sequester cuts would bring overall spending down closer to is historical norms, the long-term debt trajectory doesn’t change.

012513sequest2

 

32 thoughts on “GOP ready to let sequester happen

  1. looks like non-Defense discretionary is pretty significantly cut also. It that all .. actually non-Defense or do we
    have a semantic issue here between what is DOD funding and what is non-DOD defense spending like Homeland Security and such?

    the other number not here is how much we are actually taking in – in revenues – that are available for spending – for entitlements, DOD, and National Defense and that number is around 1.5T.

    the question is – is that 1.5T in revenues enough to fund govt after the cuts?

    that’s the real bottom line… in terms of whether increases in revenue will be sought.

    but this is good…. at least we’re starting to deal with real numbers here.

    Now if we can just stop using percent of GDP and focus instead on real actual revenues.. we’ll be most of the way home.

  2. The US spends as much on defense as virtually every other nation in the world combined. Regardless of percent of GDP or any other metric, there has to be a smaller expenditure level that will safeguard our vital interests and not impoverish us.

      • you need to properly parse the numbers.

        Social Security is a pre-paid entitlement that people pay taxes into – as opposed to an entitlement that is paid for by taxpayers out of the general fund.

        If you subtract out the 800+ billion that FICA taxes make of up the 2.3T in revenues – you get about 1.5T in revenues.

        that’s where you should start comparing taxpayer-funded entitlements to taxpayer-funded DOD.

        Next, How honest is to to talk about the Federal budget and deficit by using State numbers?

        that’s purposely mixing apples and oranges and conflating the entire issue.

        There are indeed State numbers for entitlements but those numbers have nothing to do with the Federal budget and deficit and it’s just dishonest to include them in Federal budget issues.

        • There are indeed State numbers for entitlements but those numbers have nothing to do with the Federal budget and deficit and it’s just dishonest to include them in Federal budget issues“…

          larry g spam boy extraordinaire is sure long winded and says nothing factual in all of it…

          • you have the Federal budget and you have State budgets. they are not the same.

            treating them as the same – in the name of Federal deficits is loony but it’s par for the course with some folks now days.

          • Jundoze, do you only use references that are certified to be non-authoritative, and lack credibility?

            It’s patently dishonest to talk about the Federal budget entitlements and include state entitlements but you boys seem to like it anyhow.

            and just to remind you – Obama cannot spend one penny on entitlements – only Congress can and that means the GOP has to also approve it – and they have.

            The GOP voted in favor of Medicare Part D under Bush and I’ve yet to hear a single one say it ought to be repealed. Why is that? You’d think that if the GOP thinks we have a “spending” problem and entitlements are the problem that they’d be “man” enough to step up and name the cuts instead of playing this silly game of threatening to let the sequester go into effect if Obama won’t name the cuts.

            I mean this is the most-self destructive threat I’ve ever heard… just one gun after another aimed at their own heads from the Republi-clowns.

            must be YOUR style of man-crush, eh? Hard to love a clown guy unless it’s self-love, eh?

          • Jundoze, do you only use references that are certified to be non-authoritative, and lack credibility?“…

            Sorry spam boy, no wikipedia crapola used in that comment…

            The GOP voted in favor of Medicare Part D under Bush and I’ve yet to hear a single one say it ought to be repealed“…

            Liar…

            I’ve given you links in the recent past of conservatives calling for the cut of that add-on…

            I mean this is the most-self destructive threat I’ve ever heard… just one gun after another aimed at their own heads from the Republi-clowns“…

            Then why don’t you take your concerns to the GOP instead of wasting time whining about them here?

            must be YOUR style of man-crush, eh? Hard to love a clown guy unless it’s self-love, eh?“…

            Is there an English translation for whatever that was spam boy?

          • re: GOP who opposed Medicare Part D. got links?“…

            I’ve already sent them your way spam boy…

            How much of your homework do think I’m going to do for you?

          • spam boy says: “more comment and analysis from the 5 year old peanut gallery“…

            So you have 5 year old peanuts at your domicile, larry g?

            I had to ask…

          • “Spam Boy” is a good name for Larry and his ignorant, dishonest talking points“…

            You know paul, it might be a problem with larry g‘s eye sight…

            I get the impression that the the goal posts keep moving on him…

            Just saying is all…

          • You have to cut Juandos some slack. In the Republic of Juandos, all taxing entities are invading armies.“…

            Well apparently in the republic of todd they’re not smart enough to teach the citizens how to embed a url…

            Apparently in the republic of todd they believe in pandering to parasitism

            Let me guess, todd hasn’t yet cut a seperate check for the Treasury Department because he has such a deep and abiding belief in all these federal programs, right?

          • re: Juandoze links

            you’re gonna find that Juandoze is a run-of-the-mill right-wing-echo-chamber sound-bite type of guy.

            there ain’t nothing deeper than the inch deep and God forbid you give him a credible link/real facts that violates his world-view – that’s when the embeds, “libtards” and “liar” flurry.

          • you’re gonna find that Juandoze is a run-of-the-mill right-wing-echo-chamber sound-bite type of guy“…

            Does spam boy know he’s an idiot and does spam boy take pride in that fact?

          • “spam boy” knows a sound-bite right winger when he sees one though“…

            Did spam boy take an extra heaping dose of stupid pills again?

          • Anyone with a mouse or touchpad can determine what’s beyond your “libtard land” link, Juandos: “Image hosted by Tripod” only no image.

          • todd whines: “Anyone with a mouse or touchpad can determine what’s beyond your “libtard land” link, Juandos: “Image hosted by Tripod” only no image“…

            OK so that’s something else you don’t know…

            I’m not suprised…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>