Tag: Sequestration

GOP Groups’ Ads on Sequestration, Defense Jobs Are Misleading

It is no surprise that the defense contractors want to protect their profits by getting taxpayers to pony up more money. Now they have secured the support of Crossroads GPS in a commercial against Senate candidate and former Virginia governor Tim Kaine. The Crossroads ad follows similar ones from Kaine’s challenger, George Allen, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. All three ads claim that spending cuts under sequestration will result in devastating job losses to the defense industry and Virginia; the Crossroads ad claims 520,000 jobs will be lost. But these estimates are wildly inflated and represent the short-term interests of the defense industry, not the American taxpayer.

In actuality, the cuts, if they occur, will be evenly divided between the Pentagon and the rest of the discretionary budget. They are a very modest share of total federal spending over the next decade, and the assertion that the cuts will lead to massive job losses have been thoroughly refuted here, here, and here. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that such cuts will have beneficial effects over the medium- to long-term, if the savings are returned to taxpayers, and not merely plowed into other federal spending.

All of these pro-GOP ads get the lost jobs number from a study commissioned by the Aerospace Industries Association and authored by George Mason economist Stephen Fuller. Last Friday, the Cato Institute hosted a forum—which included Fuller—that considered the effects of military spending cuts on employment and the economy. We discussed the positive impact that cuts in Pentagon spending can have in the wider economy, and even in a state like Virginia that is more dependent than other states on federal spending. The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore argued we should just let sequestration happen (I agree). As the Washington Post reported, Economist Benjamin Zycher summed up the hypocrisy of conservatives claiming the defense budget produces jobs:

“Conservatives . . . are highly dubious about the purported [gross domestic product] and employment benefits of federal domestic spending, as illustrated by the meager effects of the Obama stimulus fiasco,” he said. “There’s no particular reason to believe that defense spending is different.”

I wish that organizations like Crossroads GPS were as committed to saving the taxpayers money as they are to electing Republicans. I’d also like it if they relied on objective facts, not statistics designed to protect the narrow interests of an industry that relies overwhelmingly on taxpayer dollars. We wouldn’t expect Republicans to accept the teachers unions’ claims about job losses from cuts in the Department of Education. Why, then, do they promote these phony numbers by the defense contractors?

On Thursday, Dan Mitchell and I will be discussing this issue—the effects of sequestration—on Capitol Hill. It is not too late to register, but space is limited, so act now.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers on the Budget

Following the House’s passage of a six-month continuing resolution last week (my comments on the CR here), House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) chatted about fiscal policy with a couple of reporters on C-SPAN. The interview did nothing to change my 2010 opinion that the House leadership handing Rogers the chairman’s gavel was “about as inspiring as re-heated meatloaf.”

While Rogers is correct that domestic discretionary spending represents a relatively small share of total spending (approximately 12 percent) and that entitlement spending is the bigger problem, his comment that “we’ve just about reached the bottom of the barrel” on such spending is a stretch. Domestic discretionary spending has dropped, but after a sizeable increase during the 2000s. And arguably more important than the dollar amount this category represents are the activities being funded. For example, the federal government shouldn’t be spending a dime on the Department of Education, which is mostly discretionary spending.

When it comes to the other side of the discretionary spending coin—military spending—Rogers parrots the standard GOP line that sequestration would be “disastrous.” That’s nonsense. Perhaps Rogers is worried that cuts to the bloated military budget will crimp his ability to dole out the goods to defense contractors back in his district (see, for example, Rogers’s $17,000 drip pan).

That leads to Rogers’s most galling comments. When asked about earmarks, the “Prince of Pork” bemoaned his alleged inability to help shovel taxpayer dollars to his district since the practice was halted two years ago. Rogers said that “it hurts me that I can’t advocate for that governmental unit that’s in some desperate need.” What hurts me is that Rogers has to nerve to cite the Constitution to justify legislative earmarking (i.e., Congress’s “power of the purse”). As my colleague Roger Pilon and I have noted, the debate over the power of the executive versus that of the legislative branch to spend is constitutionally relevant and important. As Roger says, however, “it’s the growth of spending, most on matters unauthorized by the Constitution that is far and away the larger problem.” Federal subsidies to state and local governments largely belong in the unauthorized category.

An Update on Different Pentagon Spending Plans

On Monday, I posted a lengthy entry here comparing the different plans for military spending: the current Obama administration/OMB baseline, CBO’s latest estimate for sequestration, Mitt Romney’s plan to spend four percent of GDP on the Pentagon’s base budget, and Paul Ryan’s plan.

I should have taken a bit more time checking my numbers, because I ended up comparing apples to oranges (or 050 to 051, in budget-wonk-speak).

Thankfully, the ever-watchful Carl Conetta at the Project on Defense Alternatives spied the error, and set me straight. The gap between the Ryan plan and the current baseline (President Obama’s plan) is less than I had previously reported. The gap between the Ryan plan and the Romney plan is larger. The new numbers, and a revised chart are enclosed below.

I have had to make some inferences, so Governor Romney has some wiggle room. Romney’s surrogates have clarified other aspects of his plans for military spending, most recently here, but I still don’t know what is included when he says he will have a “goal of setting core defense spending—meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development—at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.” And no one seems to know how soon he intends to achieve that goal.

He could claim that the four percent goal should be applied to the entire “national defense” category (aka 050), which includes nuclear weapons spending within the Department of Energy, for example. This amounts to about a $25 billion difference annually. He could also include mandatory spending within the Pentagon’s budget, another $9 billion a year, on average.

The bottom line remains unchanged, however: Paul Ryan would spend more than President Obama on the military; Mitt Romney would spend much more. To his credit, Ryan has specified other spending cuts in domestic programs to ensure that his plan doesn’t add to the deficit or require higher taxes. Romney has not.

As before, I anxiously await additional clarification on how Romney plans to make up the difference.

Details, in constant 2012 dollars, for the period 2013-2022:

  • Obama/OMB Baseline (051, discretionary):  Total $5.163 trillion
  • Sequestration per CBO (051, discretionary): Total $4.659 trillion; $504 billion in savings
  • Ryan plan (051, discretionary): Total $5.321 trillion; $158 billion in additional spending
  • Romney 4 percent in four years: Total $7.015 trillion; $1.852 trillion in additional spending
  • Romney 4 percent in eight years: Total $6.868 trillion; average $687 billion/year; $1.704 trillion in additional spending

More Truth about Sequestration

Pentagon officials and other proponents of big military spending have three basic complaints about sequestration. That’s the process created by last summer’s Budget Control Act that would cut planned federal spending by about $1.1 trillion over the next nine years through budget caps and a $110 billion in across-the-board cuts in January 2013, with half the cuts coming from defense.

The first complaint is that the cuts would harm national security. The second is that the defense cuts would cause great job loss and economic damage. The third complaint concerns sequestration’s breadth. Because the hit coming in January would apply in equal proportion to every “program, project, and activity” in the defense budget, Pentagon officials claim it prevents prioritizing among programs and planning to limit its pain. That’s what Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, always ready with a violent metaphor, calls the “goofy meat-axe approach.”

The video Cato posted yesterday concerns the first complaint, noting that the cut is not that large in historical terms and that we could safely spend far less if we defended fewer countries (a point Chris Preble, Justin Logan and I have often made elsewhere). In a paper Cato released today, Ben Zycher attacks the economic case against military spending cuts, including sequestration, showing that they generally increase economic productivity and employment in the long term.

In a piece published today by CNN.com’s Global Public Square, I concentrate on the third complaint. I point out several ways that current law gives the Pentagon to control where sequestration applies. The most important is a provision in the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which the BCA amends. It seems to allow the president to transfer funds at will beneath the defense cap, provided Congress passes an expedited joint resolution approving the shift. So the president, with Congress’s permission, can convert the 2013 sequester into a cap and prioritize among programs beneath it.

These options (and several others mentioned in Frank Oliveri’s excellent subscriber-only piece in CQ Weekly) undermine the claim that the Pentagon cannot plan for sequestration. The reason you hardly hear about them is that both the Obama administration and Republicans leaders are gambling that the threat of sequestration will serve their priorities (tax increases and entitlement cuts, respectively), so everyone in power wants it to sound as scary as possible.

To be clear, I do not think sequestration is good policy unless what I just mentioned occurred—the 2013 cut essentially becomes a spending cap. Even if that joint resolution process does not occur, the same end could be accomplished by amending the BCA.

The Truth about Sequestration

Cato has just released a new video, titled “The Truth about Sequestration,” that tells the real story about sequestration, the automatic budget cuts required by the Budget Control Act. Many in Congress claim to abhor their creation, including many of those who voted for it, yet the members and the president haven’t done much to prevent it. Perhaps they shouldn’t do anything and let the cuts happen. In our video, my colleagues Ben Friedman and Dan Mitchell join me in explaining that, whatever its shortcomings as legislation (and there are many, as discussed below) sequestration may be the only viable way to reduce the Pentagon’s budget.

However, there’s little likelihood that sequestration will significantly reduce the defense budget long term. That’s because sequestration cuts the defense budget only in the first year. Every year after that, defense spending will increase. Spending levels will indeed be lower than the Pentagon last year expected them to be. But only in Washington is that considered a cut. So, under sequestration, instead of spending $5.7 trillion on defense over the next decade, as the FY2013 budget suggests, the government will spend about $5.2 trillion.

That $500 billion difference may not actually materialize. Congress has a few options to mitigate the effects of the initial $55 billion slice off the budget. They could reprogram funds after the sequester, change the definition of “programs, projects and activities” (the budget level at which the cuts are implemented), or take advantage of the flexibility within operations and maintenance (O&M) funds. In fact, because the Office of Management and Budget has declared that war spending is eligible to be sequestered, the total cuts to O&M can be spread out across a bigger pot of money. Beyond all that, sequestration does not affect outlays or funds already obligated, which means it will not affect existing contracts. So, the real story is that should sequestration actually happen, Congress and the Pentagon will have much more flexibility than they’re willing to admit.

Our video also highlights the fact that we spend far more on the military than is necessary. Since the end of the Cold War, policymakers and pundits have coalesced around the idea that the United States is the “indispensable nation” responsible for protecting everyone from everything. Under the misapprehension that threats anywhere in the world are necessarily threatening to the United States, we have taken on the responsibility of policing the entire planet. This increases the chances that the United States will become involved in conflicts that do not engage vital U.S. interests, or that we do not fully understand, or can easily remedy. This strategic hypochondria (H/T Ted Galen Carpenter) also burden American taxpayers with additional costs that could and should be borne by others. The video includes a nifty graphic showing the expansion of NATO. We have added a host of weak or fragile countries in the Middle East and Southwest Asia (including, still, Iraq and Afghanistan), and now we are doubling down with assurances to Asian nations that we will constrain China (and implying that they need not do so).

In short, a bloated defense budget has enabled these misguided policies, encourages free-riding by our “allies” and make us less safe abroad and less free at home. Though I would have much preferred a serious strategic debate before the current fiscal crisis, and indeed called for such a thing, sequestration should help us to refocus our national security priorities. In fact, the real story is that sequestration doesn’t restrict our choices, it enables us to make better ones.

Americans shouldn’t worry that sequestration will make our defense budget too small. We account for approximately 48 percent of the world’s military spending. We will retain a margin of superiority over any conceivable combination of rivals, including China, even if our share of military spending fell to 44 or 45 percent of the world’s total.

Sequestration was no one’s first choice, but keeping our reckless spending and strategic myopia on auto pilot is worse.

Note to Education Reporter: GDP Is HUGE, Just like Education Spending

Last week I testified before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that deals with education. The topic was sequestration, and my case was, frankly, overwhelming, showing that education spending has ballooned for decades while achievement for 17-year-olds – our schools’ “final products” – hasn’t budged.

At least I thought it was overwhelming. But apparently a Huffington Post reporter was underwhelmed by it and wrote the following:

Some lobbyists in the education reform camp note that U.S. education spending has skyrocketed, while test scores have stagnated. Neal McCluskey – an expert witness who serves as associate director for the Cato Institute’s education center – took this line, but a recent report from the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy shows that education spending has actually not grown at all as a share of the gross domestic product.

Aside from the odious implication that I am either a lobbyist or take my cues from them, the big problem with this rebuttal is that it is flat-out wrong. Open the link to the CEP report, go to page 35, and there you will see that the share of GDP taken by elementary and secondary education in fact grew between 1999 and 2009, from 4.4 percent to 4.6 percent.

Perhaps the writer thinks a 0.2 percentage point uptick isn’t big enough to constitute growth. If so, she should really take a look at the Digest of Education Statistics table that furnished the GDP data. It reveals just how big a spending increase that seemingly dinky rise was, a function of GDP starting very large and growing  substantially. Indeed, there was an increase of over $237 billion, or a 57 percent ballooning, with spending rising from $413 billion in 1999 to $650 billion in 2009!

Those are current dollars so we should really adjust for inflation. Doing that moves the 1999 figure to $531 billion, but that still means there was a real increase of $119 billion, or a 22 percent move. That’s no growth by no means.

To her credit, the Huff Po reporter included one piece of context that’s crucial when discussing cuts to federal education spending, context that belies the irresponsible rhetoric of people like Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who said sequestration would “jeopardize our nation’s ability to develop and support an educated, skilled workforce that can compete in the global economy.”

Surely to justify such doomsaying cuts would have to be very large – perhaps 10 or 20 percent – right?

Nope. As Sen. Shelby (R-AL) rightly noted at the hearing – and the Huff Po reported – the 7.8 percent cut to federal education programs likely under sequestration would only translate into about a 0.84 percent cut in total education spending. Why? Because the Feds – though spending far too much on education – still only supply about 10.8 percent of the total. Most funding comes from state and local governments.

When you look honestly at the numbers there really is no question: Sequestration should fully include education.

Let Sequestration Happen

Some members of Congress are anxious to undo sequestration, ignoring the inconvenient fact that they created the process in the first place. Instead of accepting responsibility, they are proposing legislation that would force the White House to outline the effects of the cuts. And people wonder why Congress’s approval rating is at an all-time low.

But there is more than enough blame to go around. The Republican-controlled House, the Democratic-led Senate, and the Obama White House had a chance to implement a range of proposals aimed at deficit reduction last summer. They chose to kick the can down the road, empowering an independent, bipartisan panel to make the tough choices for them. That effort failed.

If the Super Committee was unable to hammer out a compromise when the conditions were ripe last summer, it is unlikely that one will materialize this summer. Sequestration may be the only way to achieve real spending cuts. Let’s let it happen.

To be clear, sequestration is not the best way to cut the military budget, or federal spending overall. It wasn’t supposed to happen at all; the threat of spending cuts was supposed to compel the various parties to reach a compromise. But it may be the only feasible way to cut spending. And it isn’t going to get any easier in the future.

The Democrats are beginning to show their hand: this was never about cutting spending; it was always about raising taxes. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) explained yesterday that her party would allow the cuts in defense and nondefense spending to go forward, and the Bush tax cuts to expire, if Republicans didn’t agree to tax hikes on the wealthy. That isn’t likely to happen, and not just because the GOP is being stubborn. A sizable majority of Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike—are in favor of cutting military spending. More than half want to extend the Bush tax cuts for all.

Still, there are some Republican politicians who have always been willing to raise taxes in order to protect the Pentagon, despite what the public says it wants. I don’t fault Democrats for holding Pentagon spending hostage as much as I fault Republicans for allowing themselves to be maneuvered into a corner.

The GOP has a straightforward way out of the box: allow the defense and nondefense cuts to go forward, refuse a tax increase, and renegotiate a debt reduction deal that doesn’t leave entitlements—the real drivers of our long-term fiscal calamity—off the table.

Sequestration likely won’t be as bad as special interests and those in favor of ever-increasing military spending claim. The reductions would only apply to FY 2013 budget authority, not outlays. The Pentagon and Congress will then have greater flexibility starting in FY 2014 to adjust the reductions under the BCA spending caps. In the meantime, many programs could continue on funding already authorized.

We must also keep the cuts in proper perspective. The DoD base budget under sequestration would total $469 billion, about what we spent in 2006, which was not exactly a lean year for the Pentagon. And as for the claim that the military cuts will result in perhaps one million lost jobs, that seems implausible considering that the cuts would amount to less than three tenths of one percent of GDP.

More to the point, the defense budget should never be seen as a jobs program. In a dynamic, market economy, capital and resources adjust to changing demand. Some regions and municipalities that are relatively more dependent upon military spending might suffer some short-term effects, but there is evidence that economies reliant on the military can recover. Some regions could emerge stronger and more diversified. Other reporting indicates that some businesses are already positioning themselves to weather reduced government spending.

Americans spend more today on our military—in real, inflation-adjusted terms—than during the high point of the Reagan buildup. Some might justify these expenditures by claiming that the world is much more dangerous today. But the evidence for that is pretty thin. The Soviet Union on its worst day could do more damage in a few minutes than al Qaeda has managed to inflict in over a decade. We are safer than most politicians are willing to admit.

If they embraced our good fortune, policymakers could cut military spending without undermining U.S. security. Shifting resources from a relatively unproductive and inefficient sector to a more productive one would be good for the economy. And lower military spending could even improve our foreign policy.

It simply isn’t fair to saddle fewer troops with more missions. If we cut spending and reduced the size of the U.S. military, policymakers would have to be more discriminating in the use of force. But greater restraint by the United States would encourage other countries to take responsibility for their own security, and share in the costs and risks of policing the global commons.

Strategic spending cuts informed by a realistic assessment of today’s threats would be ideal. Sequestration may not reach this ideal, but it may be the only way to achieve actual cuts in military spending.

Cross-posted from the Skeptics at the National Interest.