Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Sequester Had to Die : It was Too Successful
National Review ^ | 01/15/2014 | Kevin D. Williamson

Posted on 01/15/2014 7:34:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Sequester, we hardly knew ye.

The omnibus budget deal slithering its way toward President Barack Obama’s desk for signing abandons the automatic spending cuts that resulted from an earlier fiscal compromise. Why was the sequester abandoned? Like the Gramm-Rudman Act a generation earlier, the sequester had to be stopped for one fundamental, undeniable, bipartisan reason.

It worked.

It did not work perfectly, and it did not balance the budget or put us on course for a balanced budget. But it did play a critical role in nudging the deficit away from “catastrophic existential threat” territory and toward “terrifying money-suck.” It did this in part by forcing Republicans to accept cuts in military spending, which they are not normally much inclined to do. (It goes without saying that the Democrats are categorically hostile to spending reductions.) Because we cannot rely for very long upon the better angels of congressional nature, these statutory limits are always destined to be short-lived, which should be of some concern to us: Experience shows that when Congress agrees to a budget-control deal, the first thing it does is begin looking for opportunities to undermine that deal.

For what? Among the items that will be funded in the deal is a 1 percent pay raise for hourly federal workers, an identical raise for salaried workers already having been approved. The average wage for a single hourly federal worker amounts to more than the average household income in the United States. When the total compensation package is considered, both salaried and hourly federal workers are grossly overpaid — if you doubt that, then let them negotiate wages in an open market and see whether they go up or go down. We should be reducing their wages and, more important, reducing the number of them on the federal payroll: Given the structure of federal compensation, it is more important to reduce headcounts than to reduce individual wages.

Of course, the Democrats have never met a government employee they did not like and wish to see be fruitful and multiply, but the Republicans are suspect here, too: The great majority of federal hourly workers are employed by the Department of Defense, where Republicans, gimlet-eyed in so many other areas, see little opportunity for savings in national security. Our friend Bill Kristol has argued that getting defense funds flowing is reason enough to back a budget deal.

Worse, such defense savings as have been proffered are small beer attached to PR nightmares, such as the reduction in cost-of-living benefits for military survivors and some injured veterans. The biggest, most varied, most expensive national-security apparatus in the history of human civilization, and that’s where we find excess? That is going to be difficult to defend, and unnecessary: A presidential commission already has been empaneled to study the question of compensation and pension reform. Republicans are volunteering for a beating on this issue.

Beyond the substance, there are matters of form here that are disappointing as well: Republicans plan to move forward on the bill immediately, in violation of their earlier pledge to allow at least 72 hours for the review of omnibus spending bills. And the fact that we still have these grand-bargain omnibus spending bills is a testament to Congress’s failure to return to regular order when it comes to appropriations.

Given the relatively weak position of the GOP — Democrats run the Senate and the White House, to say nothing of the media, in which this fight will be adjudicated — any deal was going to be a disappointing compromise, but this is a more disappointing compromise than is necessary. While the excesses of unified Democratic government under the Obama-Reid-Pelosi axis showed that Democrats cannot be trusted to prudently manage the nation’s finances, Republicans have not yet persuasively made the case to the American people that they can do any better, and hoping for a victory by default is foolish. Republicans are not in a great negotiating position at the moment, but it is the same position they’re going to be in when they have to visit the issue again, in the runup to this year’s elections.

Half-a-loaf deals are fine when that’s the best you can get, but this deal on balance leaves the country worse off than it would have been under the sequester — not the sort of loaf you want to be offering up when you’re trying to reclaim your reputation as the party of fiscal rectitude.

— Kevin D. Williamson is a roving correspondent for National Review.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: budget; deficit; sequester

1 posted on 01/15/2014 7:34:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Proof of the theorem that the eGOP is merely biding time till THEY can get control of the spending and the machinery of government.

2 posted on 01/15/2014 7:45:00 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Recall that immediately after Paul Ryan called it a historic step for deficit reduction and voted for it he started sounding the alarm bell on how bad the cuts to defense in it were were, and made that part of 2012 failed election run.

He looked too slick playing both sides.

And some of those defense cuts were stupid too.

3 posted on 01/15/2014 7:45:18 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The thing slithering it’s way toward 0bama’s desk is not a budget. It’s just blank check for runaway spending. The Federal government no longer recognizes any limit on its size, scope and power.

4 posted on 01/15/2014 7:48:52 AM PST by henkster (Communists never negotiate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Why have limitations if the Fed can print all the money we can possibly need? Economics is the study of allocation of limited resources. We have solved economics. There is no need to ever say ‘’no” again.

5 posted on 01/15/2014 7:54:03 AM PST by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Speaking of ‘Republicans’...

Joe Scarborough is repped by Ari Emanuel. If Joe speaks east of the Mississippi, he gets $51,000, swanky hotel not included. For a trip to the West Coast, the fee jumps to $56,000, again hotel not included. When he speaks in New York, Joe doesn’t need a hotel, since he already works there, but he still makes $45,500. Not bad for an hour of talking. His co-host Mika Brzezinski frequently joins him on stage.

6 posted on 01/15/2014 7:54:57 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“these statutory limits are always destined to be short-lived, which should be of some concern to us: Experience shows that when Congress agrees to a budget-control deal, the first thing it does is begin looking for opportunities to undermine that deal. “

Which is why you should be stockpiling food and ammo as neither party will ever step up and do what needs to be done to avert a total economic collapse. Even Mark Levin has come to realize it. His conversation with Paul Ryan on the day of the budget vote finally made him come to the party.

7 posted on 01/15/2014 8:59:07 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind


8 posted on 01/15/2014 11:56:06 AM PST by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson