Sequestration 101

Last Friday, President Obama began the gradual enactment of the long-dreaded “sequester,” a series of budget cuts that will cut funding from nearly every American government agency. Nearly everyone seems certain that in failing to avoid this “last resort,” bipartisanship has yet again proved itself more of an ideal than a practice, and yet the bipartisan “failure” to avoid the sequester seems to be surrounded by uncertainty. From Senator Harry Reid to Speaker of the House John Boehner, the only visible bipartisanship in Washington D.C. takes the form of frustrated confusion over what aspects of American politics the sequester will compromise. It seems that the deal, part of the Budget Control Act approved as a last resort by President Obama in 2011, has been so overhyped by politicians that nobody can give any definite answers over what the “drastic” cuts will affect. Or whether or not they will drastically affect anything at all.

The sequester is set to cut government spending by $1.2 trillion over the next eight years, with $85 billion in spending cuts during the remainder of this year. These budget cuts are divided equally between the American domestic and defense budgets, and are spread among nearly every government agency or provision, from national security to scientific research to unemployment benefits. While a few specific areas of government spending are protected from cuts, including Social Security, Medicaid and veterans’ benefits, the sequester basically aims to ensure that necessary budget cuts occur even while our politicians cannot agree on where.

Over the last year, Democratic (and, to a lesser extent, Republican) politicians have spoken of the feared sequester with increasing anxiety in an attempt to pressure Congress and the Senate to reach a bipartisan compromise. But while Obama and his allies have spoken repeatedly of the “widespread devastation” which the “Republicans, in refusing to negotiate, ensure,” is this sequester really as terrifying as Obama would let us believe?

While Republicans are currently being ridiculed and attacked for refusing compromise with the president to avoid the sequester, a compromise with Obama would have led merely to more specific but less drastic budget cuts, more tax hikes and more accommodations for liberal reform. By slashing government funding across the board, Republicans will have again succeeded in reducing government size and spending. And, more importantly for our country, by allowing the sequester to pass as a “last resort,” Republicans will avoid full responsibility for the proposed $550 billion to be cut from defense spending. Nearly every American politician understands that American military spending must be streamlined and reigned in, but campaigning for military budget cuts remains politically suicidal. So the sequester is not some terrifying example of bipartisanism’s failure; it’s a triumph for fiscal conservatism. The broad and all-encompassing cuts outlined in the sequester, while perhaps ill-advised, are necessary when our country is $16.6 billion in debt, and, in the words of Representative Bill Frenzel, “a bad sequester is worlds better than no budget deal at all.”

We should not let Democratic politicians and dramatic media headlines fool us into being distressed over a budget cut of 2.2 percent to our $3.8 trillion budget. Indeed, the budget cuts outlined by the sequester deal allow the defense budget and other government agency spending to increase, just not as quickly. Even with sequestration in effect, the 2013 budget will still exceed the 2012 budget by $15 billion, and if I remember correctly, our nation did not collapse into chaos last year, despite Mayan predictions. While the budget cuts outlined in the sequester deal will certainly have far-reaching effects, they are neither drastic nor devastating, and they will strengthen our society and economy by reeling in our government’s uninhibited spending. As we dig ourselves deeper into nearly $17 trillion of national debt, we need drastic budget cuts, and I would venture to say that in two years, this sequester will be viewed as “not good enough” rather than “too extreme.”