My assessment of the sequester

[Charles Kozierok]

Democrats: The cuts to the defense budget are a prudent and responsible way of dealing with our budget deficit. But the other cuts THREATEN SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!

Republicans: The cuts to non-defense spending are a prudent and responsible way of dealing with our budget deficit. But the defense cuts THREATEN SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!

A bit of an exaggeration, but listening to the media, you'd get that general impression. Both sides only want to deal with the deficit by going after items the other side thinks are important. Neither side really cares all that much, no matter what they say in public.

 

[fskimospy]

Democrats: The cuts to the defense budget are a prudent and responsible way of dealing with our budget deficit. But the other cuts THREATEN SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!

Republicans: The cuts to non-defense spending are a prudent and responsible way of dealing with our budget deficit. But the defense cuts THREATEN SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!

A bit of an exaggeration, but listening to the media, you'd get that general impression. Both sides only want to deal with the deficit by going after items the other side thinks are important. Neither side really cares all that much, no matter what they say in public.

Well the whole point was to make the cuts unpalatable for both sides. They succeeded. The idea was still stupid to begin with though. The cuts shouldn't have happened at all.

 

[ElFenix]

i dunno if i posted it here or another board, but at the time the sequester deal was first announced i thought to myself 'you know, the republicans might just be anti-spending enough that they'll take the defense cuts just to get the others.' even if publicly they shout about the defense cuts.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I am sure both sides are willing to bend a little. Public bending is out though because the fear the other side will either beat them over the head in the media or welch on the agreement; using the public statements ad leverage in the next round.

The leadership of both parties do not want to act as adults and lead by example.

 

[ivwshane]

Didn't Obama, in the state of he union offer up billions of budget cuts for Medicare?

 

[Craig234]

You're flirting with false equivalency here that's wrong.

Just because you can paint the two arguments as mirrors doesn't mean they're equally correct.

Analogy:

The round-worlders say "The world is obviously round and anyone who says it isn't is crazy!'

The flat-earthers say "The world is clearly flat and anyone who says it isn't is crazy!'

Well, very nice, mirror arguments. But that doesn't mean the world is between the two.

This thread does nothing to address the relevant issue, which is who is right. Just pointing fingers to say 'hey look at two sides disagreeing' doesn't help answer that.

Look at the history of the defense spending, which has only gone up by huge amounts overall for decades while our 'threats' decline. Look at how defense spending is filled with waste based on the corrup interests of companies who make billions - and a Pentagon whose interests are closely tied to the industry, where those billions give them more power and the revolving door gives officers nice places to go after helping the industry. The argument that defense spending is way too high has a lot of support.

On the other hand, I'd say there's a good case the other cuts generally are harmful, either to the needs of the people and/or to economic productivity.

This is the need in our politics - for the people to be able to determine that one side of the argument - even if it's very loud and polished with lots of money - is wrong.

Unfortunately, a lot of people can't, and fall for it.

Ask an American how they'd like to have the security situation of another country - with a tiny sliver of the defense budget where the US could defeat them any time they want - and they'd say no way! But they expect everyone else to be ok with that, while they continue to cry that we need still more defense from 'threats'.

It's irrational and wrong.

 

[JTsyo]

Trouble with sequestration is that it was meant as something neither side would want. The CBO estimates it could cost the country 1.5% in GDP and 750K jobs. It's a machete and not a scalpel for budget reduction. If our politicians were responsible adults they wouldn't have needed to go this route. They would have compromised and had a deal done months ago. I think this helps bring about a sense of danger and lets them paint the other is a bad light by bring up the consequences of sequestration and how the other side is willing to play chicken with the US economy. Never mind the fact that it takes two to play.

 

[Brainonska511]

Trouble with sequestration is that it was meant as something neither side would want. The CBO estimates it could cost the country 1.5% in GDP and 750K jobs. It's a machete and not a scalpel for budget reduction. If our politicians were responsible adults they wouldn't have needed to go this route. They would have compromised and had a deal done months ago. I think this helps bring about a sense of danger and lets them paint the other is a bad light by bring up the consequences of sequestration and how the other side is willing to play chicken with the US economy. Never mind the fact that it takes two to play.

Too bad the adults are not sitting at the table. Just seeing that Congress was talking about buying 280-300 more M1 Abrams tanks that the military doesn't need (because they already have a surplus of 2000 sitting in Nevada, among other reasons) just goes to serve the preposterousness of this whole fiasco. We don't have money for other, more important things, but we have the money to buy 300 more tanks the military neither wants nor needs?

I imagine there are plenty of places in the budget where we could save money, but we don't need an ax to do it. And personally, I don't want to be the one looking through all the government books with a fine-tooth comb trying to figure out what needs to be cut. I 'hire' a representative to do the governing for me (and so I only suggest things that should or shouldn't be cut).

 

[Codewiz]

Trouble with sequestration is that it was meant as something neither side would want. The CBO estimates it could cost the country 1.5% in GDP and 750K jobs. It's a machete and not a scalpel for budget reduction. If our politicians were responsible adults they wouldn't have needed to go this route. They would have compromised and had a deal done months ago. I think this helps bring about a sense of danger and lets them paint the other is a bad light by bring up the consequences of sequestration and how the other side is willing to play chicken with the US economy. Never mind the fact that it takes two to play.

Additionally, DoD civilians will be absorbing a 10-20% paycut for the rest of the fiscal year.

If we were doing that to any other group of people there would be outrage. But people just don't give a crap because they see all gov't employees as lazy regardless of the truth.

There are huge groups of electrical/software/computer engineers within that group of people. The gov't already has a tough time keeping talent and I wonder if people will just say screw it and go to private industry (DoD contractors) where there aren't cuts being made.

 

[Craig234]

What you're missing is that the representatives represent 'interests' more than 'you' much of the time.

It's very simple, when you get down to it. How much do they get in donations from you, and how much do they get in donations from the defense industry?

Another of my 'favorite quotes' is:

Politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors.

So you're shocked, shocked, that they represent the people who pay for their campaigns, while they just 'look good' to you giving you smiles and nice speeches.

OF COURSE they are going to 'do good' for the donors at your expense.

This is why we need the 'average Americans' to fix the system to change those incentives - which Citizens United made so much worse.

Right now, 98% or 99% of Americans give nothing to political campaigns - and those donations are the biggest factor for getting re-elected.

 

[Craig234]

Additionally, DoD civilians will be absorbing a 10-20% paycut for the rest of the fiscal year.

If we were doing that to any other group of people there would be outrage. But people just don't give a crap because they see all gov't employees as lazy regardless of the truth.

There are huge groups of electrical/software/computer engineers within that group of people. The gov't already has a tough time keeping talent and I wonder if people will just say screw it and go to private industry (DoD contractors) where there aren't cuts being made.

I don't see them as "lazy". I see many of them as working hard on systems that are at best waste, and at worst deadly to innocent people helping cause unnecessary wars.

 

[Codewiz]

I don't see them as "lazy". I see many of them as working hard on systems that are at best waste, and at worst deadly to innocent people helping cause unnecessary wars.

Have you looked at how many DoD civilians are employed nation wide? While I agree that the DoD can be scaled back, cutting civilians does nothing. The VAST majority of the money is contracted out to companies like NG, SAIC, BAH.

We have absolutely critical things that the DoD does need to focus on. Cyber warfare for one. China is investing HEAVILY. We aren't. We shouldn't be building tons more aircraft carriers or attack fighters.

But the gov't needs to retain talent civilians if we are going to have a strong DoD. And don't misunderstand strong DoD as meaning spending as much as we do on defense right now.

My point is the civilian workforce is a drop in the bucket but are the group that are taking the hit for sequestration.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Just because you can paint the two arguments as mirrors doesn't mean they're equally correct.

That's true. But your position basically boils down to saying that the other side's cuts are okay and your side's aren't. And both sides say that.

So, make your case. I'll change my view if I'm convinced.

This thread does nothing to address the relevant issue, which is who is right.

Okay, so demonstrate "who's right". I'm listening.

BTW I am no big fan of our huge military spending. I think our "Defense Department" spends far too much on offense rather than defense.

But there are certainly other areas that can be cut as well.

 

[cwjerome]

i dunno if i posted it here or another board, but at the time the sequester deal was first announced i thought to myself 'you know, the republicans might just be anti-spending enough that they'll take the defense cuts just to get the others.' even if publicly they shout about the defense cuts.

Maybe the Reps would, maybe they wouldn't. It's called action by inaction. Either way it's a mess for both parties, entrenched in their partisan and ideological dogma and unwilling to do do the hard tasks of working things out. That takes leadership, skill, compromise, reason, and sincerity... something neither side is capable of due to the polarization and permanent campaign they are rooted in. To me it seems both sides are incapable of nuance, conciliation, moderation, and honesty, and the result is slash and burn all-or-nothing last measures like sequestration because of their inability to deal with each other properly and failure to do the difficult work that needs to be done. Gone are the days when real statesman and politicians worked hard to come up with fixes everyone could live with and actually got stuff done.

 

[FerrelGeek]

My take on the sequester? Let it happen. Obama promised in Nov/2011 that he'd veto attempts to block the sequester; he wanted it. Then he stated flat out in the debates that the sequester wouldn't happen. Now he's breathing out threats of imminent disaster if it happens. All the sequester means is a reduction in the increase that's planned in automatic baseline budget increases. And the reduction in the increase isn't even all that traumatic. I've heard numbers between $44-$85B in increase reductions in an ~$3.5T budget. Let the masses learn that the world won't come to an end if the .gov slows its growth.

 

[Craig234]

That's true. But your position basically boils down to saying that the other side's cuts are okay and your side's aren't. And both sides say that.

So, make your case. I'll change my view if I'm convinced.



Okay, so demonstrate "who's right". I'm listening.

BTW I am no big fan of our huge military spending. I think our "Defense Department" spends far too much on offense rather than defense.

But there are certainly other areas that can be cut as well.

It's beyond the scope of this thread or my patience for another post to really try to convince you which 'side' of the sequester is 'right' if you don't already have an opinion.

There are many full books on the issue of the excessive military budget and others on the benefits of various other government spending.

Using my analogy, this is the round earth person saying "if you don't already have an opinion on the shape of the earth, I'm not going to post all the physics here".

I was just making that more general point that you are flirting with false equivalency that by commenting on the 'mirror' aspects of the two sides, you almost imply similar merit.

And as my round/flat earth mirror positions show, that's not necessarily the case.

Your position is normal for anyone who is lacking information to tell which side is right - they 'sound alike'. People like climate change deniers rely on this. They aren't out to convince you it doesn't exist - only to get you to throw up your hands and say 'who knows who's right?' as they repeat phrases like 'the science isn't settled'.

It's similar to what the tobacco companies did for a long time on the health risks of cigarettes.

To discuss the issue would require a lot, getting into all kinds of programs and why they're a good idea. I've looked into it enough to reach an opionion but it takes time.

 

[Craig234]

Maybe the Reps would, maybe they wouldn't. It's called action by inaction. Either way it's a mess for both parties, entrenched in their partisan and ideological dogma and unwilling to do do the hard tasks of working things out. That takes leadership, skill, compromise, reason, and sincerity... something neither side is capable of due to the polarization and permanent campaign they are rooted in. To me it seems both sides are incapable of nuance, conciliation, moderation, and honesty, and the result is slash and burn all-or-nothing last measures like sequestration because of their inability to deal with each other properly and failure to do the difficult work that needs to be done. Gone are the days when real statesman and politicians worked hard to come up with fixes everyone could live with and actually got stuff done.

I might need to create a false equivalency reward - for those who remember my 'irony of the week' awards.

It's remarkable how easy it is for some people to fall into the fallacy of 'blame both sides equally' regardless of the correct blame.

It only takes one side to cause all the things you list, and while Democrats have flaws, the Republicans are far, far more guilty of the obstructionism going on.

 

[Craig234]

Have you looked at how many DoD civilians are employed nation wide? While I agree that the DoD can be scaled back, cutting civilians does nothing. The VAST majority of the money is contracted out to companies like NG, SAIC, BAH.

We have absolutely critical things that the DoD does need to focus on. Cyber warfare for one. China is investing HEAVILY. We aren't. We shouldn't be building tons more aircraft carriers or attack fighters.

But the gov't needs to retain talent civilians if we are going to have a strong DoD. And don't misunderstand strong DoD as meaning spending as much as we do on defense right now.

My point is the civilian workforce is a drop in the bucket but are the group that are taking the hit for sequestration.

I agree with you that's where the money goes, but not that 'cutting civilians does nothing'.

The big defense companies are the heart of the corrupt interests, and cutting the spending on them is exactly what's needed.

It both frees up the people for more productive things and cuts wasteful spending, while reducing the single most powerful 'special interest' wasting our tax money.

Unfortunately, it's always the case that there's a risk that cuts to big bloated 'special interests' cut first from the 'good' programs instead of the bad. If they have to pick between the tax dollar going to a good program or into their pocket, into their pocket sounds just fine. But I'd still rather see the cuts - I think that usually improves. Not doing it leaves the terrible waste in place.

You mention there are legitimate DoD needs; I agree, I'm suggesting big cuts not eliminating the department.

Vague phrases like 'we need to retain talented civilians for a strong DoD' are a problem - they're used to justify waste. Does that mean 1 million such civilians? or 750k? or 3 million?

Doesn't matter - the argument applies equally without limit. Any cut means 'not having a strong DoD', which is not necessarily correct.

This is how we get into the problem with the DoD, when some people think that ANY CUT to the military budget means 'oh my gosh weak defense we're gonna get conquered!'

Corruption is usually attached to some legitimate 'good cause' or legitimate need, exactly for that reason, that it gets questioned less. The mafia could run a garbage company and charge high prices because who knew how much is too much and garbage collection isn't a service you can eliminate. It's a lot easier to hide waste in bloat for an important area of spending than in something suspicious. The only amazing thing is that the Pentagon objects to any programs, given all the inventives they have to support the excesses.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The sequester is an axe where a scalpel is needed; However, the use of a scalpel requires accountability; of which there is none desired within this administration.

To that end; the use of the scalpel acknowledges that the other side has legitimate concerns.

Politically, that is worse than the end result :thumbsdown:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Using my analogy, this is the round earth person saying "if you don't already have an opinion on the shape of the earth, I'm not going to post all the physics here".

I was just making that more general point that you are flirting with false equivalency that by commenting on the 'mirror' aspects of the two sides, you almost imply similar merit.

And as my round/flat earth mirror positions show, that's not necessarily the case.

The problem with your analogy is that the appropriate allocation of funds by a government is, to a large extent, a matter of principle and opinion.

The shape of the earth is not. It is something factual that can be tested scientifically.

Saying that I think both sides are only interested in cutting what the other side cares about is not being a "flat earther", unless you can show that balanced cuts between defense and non-defense are objectively wrong.

And I don't see how you can do that.

To discuss the issue would require a lot, getting into all kinds of programs and why they're a good idea. I've looked into it enough to reach an opionion but it takes time.

Well, it's your choice if you want to take the time or not.

I'll even concede that it's quite possible that defense should be cut more than non-defense.

But this isn't a cut-and-dried issue where one side is by any definition "more wrong" than the other.

 

[Craig234]

...a scalpel requires accountability; of which there is none desired within this administration.

That's just the sort of 'hacky', partisan comment without any basis or proof I think this forum benefits by avoiding. But feel free to 'prove' there is 'no desire for accountability'.

 

[cwjerome]

I might need to create a false equivalency reward - for those who remember my 'irony of the week' awards.

It's remarkable how easy it is for some people to fall into the fallacy of 'blame both sides equally' regardless of the correct blame.

It only takes one side to cause all the things you list, and while Democrats have flaws, the Republicans are far, far more guilty of the obstructionism going on.

I place a little more blame on the Democrats/Obama for actually "wanting" sequestration more, and a little more blame on Republicans for being more obstructionist.

That matters little in the big picture. I know you pretend Democrats are angels compared to Republicans, but the reality is we have a system that's broken at its core and it does affect both parties. Both parties are trapped in this and the worst part is it's a symbiotic relationship that only escalates the polarization and damage. Absolutely nothing will change if you re-imagine Republicans in a better way because neither party can make the necessary changes within our current paradigm. You have to fundamentally shift the nature of the system to make the root, systemic changes that will free each party from their current ensnared state.

 

[Craig234]

The problem with your analogy is that the appropriate allocation of funds by a government is, to a large extent, a matter of principle and opinion.

The shape of the earth is not. It is something factual that can be tested scientifically.

Saying that I think both sides are only interested in cutting what the other side cares about is not being a "flat earther", unless you can show that balanced cuts between defense and non-defense are objectively wrong.

And I don't see how you can do that.

Any analogy can be attacked if you ignore the relenvant parts and make an issue of the irrelevant parts.

You're missing the point of the analogy. I can pick another one with more 'objective' facts, but then you can just attack some irrelevant difference about that one.

My point was, to repeat, simply pointing out that the arguments can look like mirror arguments does not make them equally correct. That's another issue you didn't discuss.

Well, it's your choice if you want to take the time or not.

I'll even concede that it's quite possible that defense should be cut more than non-defense.

But this isn't a cut-and-dried issue where one side is by any definition "more wrong" than the other.

Any issue either is or isn't 'cut and dried' depending whether the person has formed an opinion on it.

Gay marriage equality is 'cut and dried' for me. It hasn't always been and isn't for some.

Same here. How can I help you on this topic without doing the research and posting thousands of lines of information for you on the programs?

Would you like me to point you to some books on the evidence that our defense spending is hugely excessive? If you'd read them, I'll suggest a few.

 

[cwjerome]

The sequester is an axe where a scalpel is needed; However, the use of a scalpel requires accountability; of which there is none desired within this administration.

To that end; the use of the scalpel acknowledges that the other side has legitimate concerns.

Politically, that is worse than the end result :thumbsdown:

I would agree, but it's not just the administration. It's much easier to just throw up your hands and let something like sequestration kick in than be put to the task and test of making the hard decisions. Why do that when you can just let sequestration happen and continue blaming each other. Both sides see this as making political sense, but what's actually good for the country apparently isn't always the same thing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You're missing the point of the analogy. I can pick another one with more 'objective' facts, but then you can just attack some irrelevant difference about that one.

My point was, to repeat, simply pointing out that the arguments can look like mirror arguments does not make them equally correct. That's another issue you didn't discuss.

I understand that. I already agreed with you when you said: "Just because you can paint the two arguments as mirrors doesn't mean they're equally correct."

But the larger point is that if two things are not "equally correct", you need to show why they aren't. This situation is not analogous to anything involving objective reality, because it is based on personal views and opinions.

Would you like me to point you to some books on the evidence that our defense spending is hugely excessive? If you'd read them, I'll suggest a few.

What would be the point, when I've already agreed with you on that?

Where you'd have to do some convincing is on whether or not non-defense spending can or should be cut.