The sequester is no win for budget hawks

Defense.gov

Article Highlights

  • Any agreement to alter sequestration puts both camps right back where they were in the spring of 2011

    Tweet This

  • Automatic budget cuts under sequestration divert attention from the need to slow the automatic growth of major entitlements.

    Tweet This

  • The sequester fails to address the true driver of the national debt while needlessly sacrificing America's national security.

    Tweet This

While the latest Washington crisis has subsided for the moment, the fights ahead echo those of the recent past. In just a few short months, policymakers will again debate the size, scope and reach of government in order to craft spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year.

A key question in forthcoming budget negotiations between the parties and chambers is: Should sequestration remain in place as is, and if not, how might it be altered? 

It is clear that the amounts cut under sequestration will stick under any future deal. But the scope and pace of the cuts, particularly for the Defense Department, could be altered. 

But because sequestration mostly focuses on an increasingly narrow shrinking pot of domestic discretionary spending and not the elephant in the room known as mandatory entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), the bill payers remain the same. Therefore, any agreement to alter sequestration puts both camps right back where they were in the spring of 2011. And again during deliberations of the so-called "super committee." And again during the fiscal cliff negotiations. 

As a new report from the Bipartisan Policy Center aptly highlights, sequestration exacerbates existing budgetary problems by failing to address the true driver of the national debt: entitlement spending. Automatic budget cuts under sequestration divert attention from the need for real and urgent action to slow the automatic growth of major entitlements.  

Spending on major entitlement programs already accounts for nearly half of the federal budget, and will consume about 60 percent of the budget by 2022. Despite this fact, reductions to mandatory spending only account for about 15 percent of sequestration's tab. If policymakers care about runaway government spending, sequestration fails to rein in the true culprit.

Politicians should take note, because the effects of sequestration have been sporadic, slow to trickle down and relatively muted thus far. But the negative consequences increase each day. As the same report notes, sequestration's impact will double in 2014 and triple in 2015 as compared to this past year. 

While many in Washington have been conditioned to accept sequestration's consequences as a necessary evil to see spending reduced, members may be surprised at the impact yet to come. This forthcoming pain will be magnified by the absence of several factors that helped cushion sequestration's blow in 2013. BPC estimates that many defense contractors ended 2012 with a backlog that covered as much as 43 to 55 percent of their expected sales in 2013. This backlog will simply not exist in future years. Nor will Pentagon leaders be able to rely as heavily on "un-obligated" funding that helped blunt the impact of sequestration's knife on the aerospace and defense industry in 2013.

Most importantly, the latest BPC report makes clear the national security consequences of sequestration. Like the sequester's gradual economic impacts, consequences for America's military will only grow over time. As America's senior military leaders recently testified before the House Armed Services Committee, under continued sequestration, not one of the military services would be able to meet its requirements under the president's 2012 strategic guidance.

This tension within the defense budget alongside reduced purchasing power comes in large part due to rapidly rising internal cost growth that, as Clark Murdock of CSIS warns, is hollowing out America's military from within. 

The BPC report paints an exhaustive picture of how growing internal costs are eroding U.S. combat power. As BPC warns, the "combination of sequester cuts and unaddressed cost increases will erode force readiness, stall modernization, and reduce the fighting forces by at least 50 percent by 2021."

As Congress steps back from the brink yet again and prepares to enter the next round of budget talks, policymakers should be clear-eyed that sequestration is no victory for budget hawks. Indeed, the sequester fails to address the true driver of the national debt while needlessly sacrificing America's national security. Sequestration is bad for the economy, for the men and women of our military, and for the nation's long-term fiscal health.

Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Mackenzie
Eaglen
  • Mackenzie Eaglen has worked on defense issues in the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate, and at the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on the Joint Staff. She specializes in defense strategy, budget, military readiness and the defense industrial base. In 2010, Ms. Eaglen served as a staff member of the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission established to assess the Pentagon's major defense strategy. A prolific writer on defense related issues, she has also testified before Congress.


     


    Follow Mackenzie Eaglen on Twitter.

  • Phone: (202) 862-7183
    Email: mackenzie.eaglen@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Charles Morrison
    Phone: (202) 862-5945
    Email: charles.morrison@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The money in banking: Comparing salaries of bank and bank regulatory employees
image What Obama should say about China in Japan
image A key to college success: Involved dads
image China takes the fight to space
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Event Registration is Closed
Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.