Jamie Dupree's Washington Insider: The sequester would really cut the budget

I know it's hard for many people to believe, but instead of just trimming the rate of increase in the federal budget, the $85 billion in automatic budget cuts set to hit on March 1 would actually result in less spending by Uncle Sam.

Really.

Here's the basic figures:

The stop gap budget that the federal government is operating under right now (through March 27) allows for a discretionary budget of $1.047 trillion in Fiscal Year 2013. (Discretionary means everything outside of Medicare and Social Security.)

If the automatic cuts actually go into effect in March, budget number crunchers here in Washington say the baseline for the federal budget would go from $1.047 trillion to $974 billion, a drop of $73 billion.

That is what you call a budget cut, not just a reduction in the rate of increase in the federal budget. The cuts would not be spread out over ten years, they would have to take place by September 30, when the fiscal year ends.

For example, this is the current budget plan with built-in increases for the feds each fiscal year, as agreed to by the Congress and the President:

2012 - $1.043 trillion
2013 - $1.047 trillion
2014 - $1.066 trillion
2015 - $1.086 trillion
2016 - $1.107 trillion
2017 - $1.131 trillion
2018 - $1.156 trillion
2019 - $1.182 trillion
2020 - $1.208 trillion
2021 - $1.234 trillion

You can see how the current plan for the federal budget is that it keeps going up each year, until it reaches $1.234 trillion in 2021. These spending cap numbers were agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011, the debt limit deal that included the sequester.

But all of those numbers would have to be lowered if the full $85 billion sequester goes into effect, as the baseline drops to $974 billion.?

Many Republicans say that's a choice which will ensure actual budget cuts, not just "budget savings" or "budget reductions," two phrases that often don't translate into real cuts.

President Obama on Tuesday called the cuts "brutal," saying a "meat cleaver" across the board cut is unacceptable.

One should note that the sequester was evidently his idea, and he signed the bill into law which provided for these automatic cuts.

Speaker Boehner has described the cuts in a similar fashion, labeling it a "meat ax" approach, as Republicans argue in favor of more targeted cuts.

It should also be noted that Congressional leaders named Boehner, Pelosi, Reid and McConnell all voted for the sequester bill - and then it was signed into law by the President.

Now with just over a week until the March 1 deadline (which was already postponed once from January 1), no one seems to be close to a deal on how to restructure the cuts to the liking of both parties.

So, if the automatic across the board cuts do go into effect - and stay in effect - there will be real cuts, not cuts in the rate of increase for the federal budget.

Really.

Unless there's some kind of deal to change the makeup of the $85 billion sequester.

Really.

Source: http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2013/feb/19/sequester-would-really-cut-budget/

platypus platypus overboard east of eden weather radio indiana autoimmune disease