The Budget Mess

Posted February 25th, 2013 at 8:26 pm (UTC+0)
3 comments

 

President Barack Obama meets with state governors February 25 and calls for their help in urging Congress to come up with a federal budget compromise before mandatory spending cuts March 1. Photo: AP

Chaos Ahead or Political Dud?

Welcome to “Sequesterville,” also known as Washington, D.C.  What was once unthinkable, and intentionally so, is about to become a reality.  Unless Congress and the president act soon, $85 billion worth of so-called “sequester” cuts take effect on March 1st affecting both domestic and military spending.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.  The idea of mandatory cuts was included in a budget agreement in 2011 as a way of ensuring that Democrats and Republicans in Congress, along with President Barack Obama, would find a way to compromise on long term spending cuts and tax revenues that would whittle down the national debt over a ten-year span.

Democrats would be compelled to find a way to compromise to avoid the across-the-board cuts in some domestic spending programs like early childhood education and health research.  Republicans, it was thought, would be eager to find a resolution to avoid the mandatory cuts that would hit the Defense Department, especially in the areas of training, maintenance and weapons acquisition.

 

Unintended Consequences

 

House Speaker John Boehner is leading Republican Party efforts in the House of Representatives to resist the president’s call for increased revenues as part of any new budget deal. Photo: AP

The 2011 budget agreement was designed to put the issue off until after last November’s election.  Mr. Obama won a second term and Republicans then found themselves in retreat early this year on the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy.  The president got his way on higher taxes, but many Republicans vowed at that point they had given enough.  With little to show for it in terms of real budget cuts, Republicans decided to fight on the issue of cutting government spending and took the risky stance of allowing the sequester cuts to go into effect unless they get their way.  Many of these Republicans are more concerned with disappointing conservative supporters back home than pleasing political moderates who find the idea of across-the-board budget cuts abhorrent.

Many Republicans are not happy about the defense cuts.  Defense hawks like Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are urging Republicans leaders to find a way to compromise to avoid hurting national security.  But it seems conservatives in the House of Representatives see an opportunity in the “sequester” for real cuts that they might not be able to get any other way.  So for now, most Republicans appear content to let the cuts take hold and see what happens.

 

Public Reaction in Doubt

 

Both sides seem to be counting on the public backing them up on the issue of spending cuts.  The Obama White House and congressional Democrats have been hammering away at the idea that the cuts would cause a lot of distress if they go into effect, from job losses to federal furloughs, to cuts in border patrols and long lines at airport security.  On the other hand, Republicans are counting on the public not noticing much of anything once the cuts go into effect, figuring that without public pressure the cuts will be more or less accepted and they can claim a major political victory.

The polls show Republicans are more vulnerable than the president right now in terms of who would be blamed for the cuts if they lead to significant disruption.  And going back to the government shutdown faceoff back in 1995 and 1996, Republicans bore the brunt of the blame while President Bill Clinton emerged as the big winner.  The risks this time seem even greater for the Republican side.  However, if they are correct and the public reacts to the sequester cuts with a big “so what?”, then they will have called President Obama’s bluff and may be in a position to push for additional cuts in the next fiscal year beginning October 1st.

 

Smoke and Mirrors

 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is guiding the Republican budget process in the Senate. Photo: AP

Expect a lot of congressional debate and posturing this week, but analysts say it is unlikely that the two sides will be able to agree on an alternative strategy that will avoid the sequester cuts.  Democrats want a combination of closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and modest spending cuts, while Republicans might favor an alternative that is less harsh on the Pentagon.  But none of the alternatives now floating around Capitol Hill are likely to win enough bipartisan support to avert the sequester cuts.

Despite all the sound and fury expected this week on the Hill, it looks like both sides will spend most of their time trying to apportion blame in advance of the sequester.  Democrats will talk up the impact on real people, while Republicans will frame it as a key down payment on real spending cuts.  They will spend more time on the “blame game” than a fix, the latest example of how political polarization has led to political dysfunction in Washington.

The spending cuts will go into effect March 1st, but the next key date on the calendar may be March 27th.  That’s when the current temporary funding authority granted by the Congress is scheduled to expire, requiring lawmakers to act to keep the government operating.  Some analysts predict that if the budget sequester cuts remain in effect through March, it’s likely they will remain in place all the way through the end of the fiscal year through September.  Though it would also seem risky since the longer the sequester cuts take hold, the more the public is likely to notice and express outrage.

The eerie thing about this budget showdown is that neither side seems sure the public is with them.  They are willing to take a chance on letting things play out.  That means the public will likely turn the tide one way or the other, either through outrage or indifference.  At the moment, there is no shortage of opinion in Washington on how that will turn out.  The problem is they are just that—opinions—and nobody really knows for sure.    Buckle up!

3 Responses to “The Budget Mess”

  1. PaulM53 says:

    If one were to give congress a simple task like to have all of congress to start wearing the same color socks to the legistlative sessions, they couldn’t come together and agree on what color to wear. That is how disfunctional our elected officials have become. How many years now have they been trying to fix the budget? I think it is time for Americans to quit acting like ostriches and pull our heads out of the sand and start DEMANDING that they start working for the people that elected them. I personally don’t trust any politician as far as I could spit!.Our government was designed to be “Of the People, By the People and For the People” When or where did big business get into the picture? Big business has so many politicians in their back pockets that they have forgotten who they are actually supposed to be working for. We should all start thinking about calling for impeachment for all of Congress and the Presidency and start over from scratch and get people in office that have one thing in mind…To serve the citizens of this nation and get us out of this mess that the current and past leaders have gotten us in to. It is disturbing that the government can mismanage funds (our taxes)and allow the national debt to get so high I could not even count to, then raise our taxes and cut services to try and lower the debt. I (we)certainly didn’t rack up that bill so why should I (we) have to pay for it? There are too many politicians in office from the top down with personal agendas and our best interest is not one of them!!!

  2. nvo says:

    ALL PLANNED BY THE ROCKEFELLERS AND THE BILDERBERGS. TELL THE TRUTH, NOT LIES!

Jim Malone

Jim Malone

After a stint in the Peace Corps in Swaziland, Jim joined VOA in 1983 as a reporter and anchor on English broadcasts to Africa.  He served as East Africa correspondent, then covered Congress in the early 1990′s.   Since 1995, Jim has served as VOA national correspondent responsible for coverage of U.S. politics, elections, the Supreme Court and Justice Department.  Jim has been involved in VOA’s election coverage since the 1984 presidential campaign and has co-anchored live VOA broadcasts of numerous national political conventions, candidate debates and election night coverage.

Calendar

February 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728