Moderated by Rick Badie
Automatic spending cuts set to start in 2013 could slash government spending by $1.2 trillion in the next decade. It also could cost jobs — more than 2 million, according to a study by the Aerospace Industries Association. Will a lame-duck Congress let those automatic cuts occur? Two congressmen from Georgia share their views. Phil Gingrey says the impact of the cuts would devastate our national security and economy. David Scott writes the fiscal cliff could be avoided through compromise.
Cuts will batter U.S. defense
By Phil Gingrey
The national security implications and economic impact of sequestration — automatic spending cuts slated to occur over the next 10 years because Congress failed to cut $1.2 trillion as called for in the Budget Control Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling — on Georgia and the United States as a whole would be devastating.
“Providing for the common defense” is the federal government’s most important responsibility as prescribed by the Constitution. It is the cornerstone of our freedom upon which all other liberties and guarantees rely. Our nation’s ability to protect its people must remain the foremost priority for the president and Congress.
A strong national defense not only allows the U.S. to react to acts of war quickly and effectively, but it also serves as a deterrent toward those attacks from hostile nations or groups. This requires providing the Department of Defense with the necessary resources to do so. That said, to responsibly address our nation’s record debt, DOD’s budget must be scrutinized and cut where possible, just as with all other federal agencies.
However, it would be hard to argue that President Barack Obama’s approach to defense spending has been responsible.
Since taking office, he has taken $350 billion from various weapons programs, and put in motion a plan to take $487 billion out of defense budgets between 2013 and 2021.
On top of these cuts, slashing an additional $600 billion — as would result from the pending sequestration, which disproportionally affects the DOD — will drastically reduce our nation’s defense capabilities at the same time that potential adversaries are ramping up their defense budgets. This would obviously exacerbate the effects of the substantial defense cuts already in the pipeline in a negative and profound way.
To combat this, House Republicans passed the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, HR 5652, earlier this year. This legislation would cut $7.7 billion in federal food-stamp spending in the first year, require federal workers to contribute more to retirement plans, end grants for health insurance exchanges, put limits on Medicaid payments, implement other entitlement reforms and trim federal spending.
While halting the first year of crippling sequestration cuts from taking effect, the bill also would save $243 billion over 10 years.
Unfortunately, the president and Sen. Harry Reid continue to oppose this plan while refusing to produce their own.
Democrats claim sequestration hits defense and other programs equally by splitting the $1.2 trillion in required cuts down the middle, but that’s not the case. In fact, only 14.8 percent of sequestration cuts would come from entitlement programs. This would be a reduction of less than 1 percent of all entitlement spending.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said sequestration will have dire consequences for our nation’s defense because it was developed without consideration for national security strategy, force structure, technology needs or operational reality.
Across-the-board, arbitrary sequestration cuts would shrink our ground forces to the smallest size since World War II, the Navy to the lowest level since World War I. Contrary to the Pentagon’s past guarantees, the Defense Department now concedes that funding for training programs and benefits for our servicemen and women would be jeopardized.
These draconian cuts will not only leave us with a weakened national defense, but also with an even weaker economy. Sequestration stands to further devastate our manufacturing sector. Lockheed Martin announced it must send layoff warnings as soon as October to most of its 123,000 workers.
In fact, a recent study reported that Georgia stands to lose more than 54,000 jobs and $5.5 billion statewide. Because of this, Georgia is counted among the 10 states most negatively impacted by these cuts.
Nationally, this could result in a loss of more than 1 million jobs by 2014. With an unemployment rate about 8 percent for 41 consecutive months, not only can the DOD not withstand sequestration, but Americans simply cannot afford it.
Congressman Phil Gingrey represents Georgia’s 11th District.
Leadership vital to fix mess
By David Scott
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was drafted to match spending cuts with targeted revenue increases to prevent the federal government from defaulting on its debts. A short-term solution of $1 trillion in spending cuts was approved, but our long-term budget problems were not solved.
Unless Congress finds another way, larger automatic cuts will start. At the end of 2012, massive automatic cuts will slash $1.2 trillion from the budget over 10 years.
This budget time bomb, called sequestration, was created as a measure of last resort in the Budget Control Act. It was designed to be painful so that both parties would be forced to negotiate away from partisan orthodoxy on spending and taxes to find agreement on a balanced budget. Unfortunately, that did not happen and we are left with sequestration.
The quick enactment of such large cuts will create shock waves in the U.S. economy. I asked Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about these cuts in a recent Financial Services Committee hearing. He responded by citing a Congressional Budget Office report that expects 1.2 million fewer jobs if sequestration is implemented.
Republicans are concerned about cuts to defense with little care about hits to spending for education, infrastructure or seniors.
I, too, care about ensuring a strong national defense, but I also care about a strong nation. These devastating cuts will cause hardships for families and local communities at a time when our economy has not fully improved.
Georgia will lose more than $7 million in child care development block grants, which help residents with child care expenses while they work or attend school.
Georgia would lose more than $15 million for Head Start and more than $30 million for special education programs. Not only will these education support programs be cut, but the teachers and child care providers also will be fired. A recent study by a George Mason University economist estimated that the state would lose more than 54,000 jobs in defense and nondefense-related jobs.
Republicans say they want balanced budgets, yet sign pledges to Washington lobbyists to protect tax breaks for the very wealthy and corporate special interests.
They vow to protect every dollar of defense spending while billions of U.S. dollars are being wasted on Afghan warlords and Pakistani armies who support the Taliban and other enemies.
We can find ways to carefully pare military spending and still protect America’s borders.
There are also ways to preserve tax cuts for middle-income families, while asking millionaires to pay the same rates they paid during the Clinton years.
Republicans talk a big game on defense but they don’t want to pay for it. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded with massive borrowing in the 2000s.
While we were sending thousands of men and women into harm’s way, we were spending our surpluses and borrowing more.
In addition, taxes were slashed, which created massive deficits. The fiscal situation needs to be repaired before hard-set ideologues bankrupt America.
I can respect people who want smaller government, but imploding our economy in the process hampers our ability to plan for future challenges in educating our children, researching new discoveries, and investing in our roads, bridges and ports.
We must find agreement now on how to solve these problems.
The Constitution was created out of a series of compromises among great leaders.
Not unlike today, our history is full of passionate debates on how to build a great America.
But it was our forbearers’ ability to work together that made our country strong. We are staring at a fiscal cliff.
There is still time to slow down, check our map and turn in the right direction.
Congressman David Scott of Georgia represents the 13th District.
30 comments Add your comment
Out by the Pond
July 24th, 2012
9:25 pm
Why is any amazed that on 1-1-13 taxes will go up and spending will go down. We have known this since the “great compromise”.
Shine
July 24th, 2012
10:49 pm
When will mitt Romney release his tax records? Shouldnt the ones hiding all their profits offshore be taxed?? Itis they who are benefitting the most from the U.S. military playing bodyguard around the globe so they can make huge profits. Shouldnt they be paying more??
SAWB
July 25th, 2012
1:12 am
No, as usual both parties are simply playing politics and trying to use this as an issue in the election. Once the election is over they’ll come up with a compromise.
seabeau
July 25th, 2012
5:50 am
I say let the cuts occur! Our militiary expenses are extremely bloated and needs drastic trimming. Eliminate all foreign aid and entanglements.
DeborahinAthens
July 25th, 2012
6:57 am
It’s simple, Congress merely had to pass ALL the Simpson-Bowles recommendations as laid out. Instead, they balked at raising taxes–choosing instead to lower taxes on the “job creators–who, haven’t created any jobs since 2003 when Bush lowered taxes. Between Bush and Obama’s lowering the SS tax, we are at the lowest tax rates in over 50 years. I predict out gutless, spineless Congress will let the Bush Taxes expire. This Congess is useless, and having them point at the President to
make a budget is BS. It is Congress’ job to make the budget and try to balance it. It is not the
President’s job. We need to vote all incumbents out.
curious
July 25th, 2012
7:15 am
Having been involved with the military since 1968, in and out of uniform, I can honestly say to anyone that our military industrial complex, as GEN/President Eisenhower warned us about, has bought our Congress and sold the rest of us a bill of goods.
There are probably more contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan right now than soldiers. They’re loving it and will stop at nothing to keep it going. Just watch Iran and Syria.
Ralph
July 25th, 2012
7:18 am
The blogosphere says it all. American’s have turned in their hearts and are left with pulsating greed. They can not survive long.
Bob
July 25th, 2012
8:27 am
Shine, what does Romey have to do with it ? Did you ever question why multi millionaires like Nancy Pelosi never show their returns when they run for office ? And since the rich pay the bulk of the taxes then maybe we should raise the rates on those that pay little or nothing. The bottom line here is that people are told of massice cuts yet in ten years our budgets will be higher because we are cutting the rate of growth, not actual real dollar cuts. DeborahinAthens got one right, congress passes the budget and the senate has not passed one in three years. Not only will they not produce their own but the last 2 budgets proposed by Obama did not receive one yeah vote.
LeeH1
July 25th, 2012
8:29 am
The really funny part about this impending crash is that notices of termination have to be sent out to all DoD contractors 90 days before the cuts begin. This means that all those DoD contractors will get their notices the week before the election.
By the end of that week, you will see a lot of former Tea Party members as it finally comes home to these people that their livlihood depends on government money. And if they cut taxes and cut spending, they will be sol.
And this would not be a bad thing. If we fired all the DoD contractors, we can be more careful in hiring back only the ones we really need. Like one 20th of the people we have now. Who are paid more than government workers to do less work, run less risk, and accomplish less. And they use government money to lobby congressment to give them more money. Such a deal!
Dan
July 25th, 2012
8:58 am
I think if you look closely, you’ll find that the sequestration cuts only take us back to about 2007 spending levels.
I’m pretty sure we weren’t powerless in the face of foreign aggression in 2007
Watching Closely
July 25th, 2012
9:01 am
Congressman Gingrey who has sworn both the Hippocratic Oath and the U.S. Congressional Oath, as well as settled medical malpractice suits ($500,000) wants to end health insurance grants, cut Medicaid, and reduce food stamps. All of this in the face of the lowest tax rates in history and huge payments to the Corporate Dictatorships. Are not the voters in Marietta embarrassed?
Waiting for Godot
July 25th, 2012
9:06 am
David Scott (M.B.A. Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania) is right on the money. Time to clean up this mess. Throw anybody out who has signed contracts with unelected crack-pots or is unwilling to sit down like a civilized, educated adult and work out a solution.
MANGLER
July 25th, 2012
9:42 am
Seems like we’re reaching the point in politics and national attitude where it will be more effective to just drive off of the “cliff” and let the economy be battered, let the military shrink, lose the extra jobs, and let the more vulnerable of society get even more pinched. We all know that Americans come together in times of tragedy and need. Unfortunately, we seem to respond much more aggressively at that time and don’t really care until we reach it. If our economy becomes the 2nd largest, you can bet all levels of Government will suddenly get on the same path. It would just be nice if we could do that with respectful disagreement and cooperation – you know, like a civilized nation.
Chris Sanchez
July 25th, 2012
9:47 am
Everything needs to be on the table and I mean EVERYTHING! That includes reductions in the defense budget. That also includes entitlement programs. If the wealth of the top 1% were confiscated and redistributed (an idea some liberals would actually vote for), it would be gone in months and then there the liberal ideologues would be looking at the next group in line with some cash in the bank (money they earned I might add). Where does it stop. No country can prosper with a Robin Hood approach to government. An environment where businesses can grow and hire people needs to be nourished rather than the current state of affairs. Before we go raising taxes on anyone, how about that line-by-line budget review we were promised? Too much bloat and waste to address before coming back to the people who earn their money and asking (or worse, taking) any more.
ByteMe
July 25th, 2012
10:06 am
To answer the headline: “I surely do hope so”.
The $120 billion in cuts need to happen. Tax rates need to revert back to what they were expected to do 11 years ago when the tax plan was signed into law. Yes, the economy will slow all at once (right after an election). But these kinds of changes will only affect the economy for 5-6 quarters and we’ll be better off after that with a tax structure we can live with and more spending cuts. Given a little time, we’ll be back to “normal” and have to find something else to complain about.
JF McNamara
July 25th, 2012
10:10 am
“Unfortunately, the president and Sen. Harry Reid continue to oppose this plan while refusing to produce their own.”
Pot, Kettle, Black
“However, it would be hard to argue that President Barack Obama’s approach to defense spending has been responsible.”
Funny how I don’t feel any less safe. Plus, Robert Gates approved most of the planning.
blue dog
July 25th, 2012
10:23 am
Obama caved in to the GOP the last time the tax cut was set to expire. This time I hope he stands his ground, even if it means higher taxes for the bottom 98%…which includes me. Let the combined effect of a huge increase in revenue and very large cuts in spending get us closer to a “balanced budget”. This is probably the only way around the US House, whose members have more respect for Grover Norquist than they do their pledge to serve this country.
In the short term, the nation would suffer, but long term…we will all be better off.
Donatavious
July 25th, 2012
10:29 am
The fact that these Congressmen on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum oppose budget cuts (one based on defense, the other on welfare) tells me that it won’t happen. As long as the Federal Reserve can print funny money the politicians will just pile on the debt and continue to ‘kick the can down the road’.
Marlboro Man
July 25th, 2012
12:05 pm
Obligations must be funded. The republicans trying to weasle out of the obligations decide to call them entitlements to fool the weak minded. Fund the obligations, the gov’t collected the money, now fund the programs.
Cut congress’s pay.
MM
July 25th, 2012
12:42 pm
You have to be an idiot to think anyone in Washington really wants to cut spending. Every vote for a “cut spending” pol is a vote for a lie. I’m sure the TEA is way upset because those gullible folks have been lied to so much.
Dems and Repubs want to protect their constituencies and must cooperate to make sure their particular feeding trough is there come voting time. As a nation we need to go beyond mindlessly insisting that spending must be cut to knowledgeably demanding that the money be spent well. There can be informed disagreements about priorities which must necessarily result in compromise. That’s real government.
The guy that told you that government was the problem was a liar and took you for a fool. Bad government is the problme. Time to smarten up.
SheeshLouise
July 25th, 2012
12:42 pm
@Marlboro Man
I think what you stated in the first post on this thread is a clear headed perspective. That is really all it comes down to. We get bombarded with so much distortion on a daily basis sometimes you just have to take a step back and look at things in their most simplsitic sense. You are RIGHT! But I will go a step further and argue it IS in the truest sense an “entitlement”, for the very reason you stated. It’s OUR MONEY, and as such we ARE “entitled” to it. It’s just that like you said, we all know for weak minded people the work “entitlement” invokes a certain emotion and conjures up the necessary contemptible image so thar the monster may be fed. So they use “entitlement” as a dirty word per se. And it is their obligation to ensure what we are entitled to gets delivered as promised, because they most certainly don’t delay taking it.
MrLiberty
July 25th, 2012
2:16 pm
Leave it to Gingrey to be the voice of the bloodthirsty empire. If we ended all these senseless and unconstitutional wars and brought our troops home to defend america (instead of Israel and the interests of the oil/military/industrial complex, we could easily handle these and even additional cuts to our pentagon budget.
Don’t expect Congress to honor a promise they made to cull favor with the electorate. They all too oaths to protect and defend the constitution and aside from about 3-4 members in both houses they all violate that oath with virtually every vote they take.
MrLiberty
July 25th, 2012
2:31 pm
And by the way, neither Gingrey nor Scott would make the list of congresscritters that obey their constitutional oaths on any regular basis.
Johns Creek
July 25th, 2012
4:37 pm
We need to cut federal spending. Neither of these elected representatives will ever cut spending. They each protect their sacred cows.
Bernie
July 25th, 2012
4:56 pm
Rep Gingrey will support everything and anything his Party tells him to do. Period! if that means letting the Tax cuts expire, so be it!
james
July 25th, 2012
5:06 pm
Let them expire! The cuts will automatically come
for 2013. We have to stop spending money we don’t
have… Term limits and vote out these clowns in
congress. Scott/Gregory both stink….
Jack
July 25th, 2012
5:32 pm
I don’t know what else you can expect from politicians. If some spending is cut in their district, it will effect their chances of re-election.
Jack
July 25th, 2012
5:34 pm
affect
Bob Farquhar
July 26th, 2012
9:25 am
Since 2000, the U.S. Defense budget increased 250 percent to over $700 billion, excluding costs to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. China, our closest competitor, spends $89 billion.
Last year, Rep. Ed Markey proposed cutting $20 billion each year from nuclear weapons – a total of $200 billion over the next ten years – which would be consistent with the New START Treaty. It would have no impact on our country’s defense or deterrent capabilities and actually would make us more secure.
The recent Defense appropriations mark-up resulted in $8 billion being added for things that the DOD did not need or ask for. Reps. Michael Turner and Buck McKeon added a requirement for a Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile system on the East Coast to protect against a non-existent and improbable threat from Iran.
It stands out like a sore thumb who is not serious about reducing the deficit.
Sen. Isakson Tells Local Officials He Supports CDBG, T-SPLOST and Internet Tax Fairness « People Place Purpose
July 26th, 2012
11:37 am
[...] taking questions, Sen. Isakson also mentioned that beginning in 2013, the sequestration (automatic spending cuts) of $1.2 trillion from the federal budget over the next ten years would [...]