The Senate did pass the farm bill yesterday, but included in the package was an amendment from Patty Murray that will force the executive branch to give more information on how they plan to handle the automatic cuts scheduled for the end of the year. And importantly, that directive does not just go to the Pentagon, but to the whole of government.
The Senate has agreed to require the Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon to detail how federal agencies will implement a deep automatic budget cut set to slice domestic and defense programs in January, as Congress begins to brace for the dramatic reductions known as the “sequester.”
The chamber agreed to request the reports in an amendment to the nearly $1 trillion farm bill and the voice vote came after a compromise between Republicans — who had wanted to hear more about defense cuts — and Democrats, who asked for details about domestic reductions as well [...]
The goal is to require federal agencies to detail how damaging the automatic cut will be to the military and key domestic programs — a report that might spur Congressional action on a deal to avert the across-the-board budget whack.
For a while there, I wasn’t sure if anyone was paying any attention to the trigger cuts on the discretionary side of the ledger. As Scott Lilly reported, the trigger cuts on the discretionary side would have wide-ranging economic effects, dragging down growth in significant ways. Where defense cuts are generally localized to that industry and the people in it, cuts to the discretionary budget hit everything else the government does, which interacts with aviation, transportation, the agriculture industry, health care, education, and practically every other sector. The New York Times finally picked up on this today:
From cancer research to farm inspectors to grants to cities and states and law enforcement agencies, nearly every sector of government would be affected by the planned $1.2 trillion in cuts, especially in the first year of the nine-year reductions.
While many mandatory programs, like Medicare, Social Security and others, are exempt or virtually untouched under the scheduled cuts, known as sequestration, roughly $321 billion would be cut from the “nondefense discretionary” category, which represents scores of government spending areas outside of the military [...]
“There is political pain and substantive pain” in the cuts to nonmilitary spending, said Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group, who noted that roughly a quarter of those cuts would affect Americans at or below the poverty line.
“When people start saying, ‘This means you’re going to cut the National Cancer Institute or air traffic control or the F.B.I. or Border Patrol by 8.4 percent, those little phrases can ring bells with the American public.”
The trigger cuts, in the telling of those who voted for the deal, were never supposed to happen. They were supposed to provide an impetus for a so-called “grand bargain” on spending and taxes. But $1.2 trillion in cuts is $1.2 trillion in cuts, at some level. To suggest that there’s some combination of less harmful $1.2 trillion in cuts is only true up to a point. At a macro level, government would still contribute much less to demand, and that cannot help but impact overall GDP. Maybe this is the one and only chance to reduce our defense budget and you want to do that. Maybe the discretionary cuts, which are supposed to not touch anti-poverty programs, seem more acceptable than the alternative. But if the farm bill passes with the Murray-requested report intact, I think you’ll see just how devastating they can be.




19 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Hmm? any bets Congress wants to make sure the biggest richest farms and the big food industry are effected by the cuts the least at the expense of the small farmer?
” I think you’ll see just how devastating they can be.”
I say let the cuts go forward and the sooner the better.
This entire gambit is an end around to go after SS and Medicare and probably Medicaid as well. It was always intended to be a fear inducing incentive to cut social programs.
It should be clear by now that “austerity” is not going to fix anything. All it does is create a fire sale buying opportunity for those 1 %er’s sitting on hordes of cash.
Unfortunately with the MSM incessantly pushing only one side of this conversation, the sheeple are following meekly along as intended. Time to let everyone start feeling the pain and then maybe we sill see some organized pushback.
Note that I also favor letting all the Obama tax cuts expire rather than extending them for all.
Can we have some clarity about this. It is not really $1.2 Trillion in cuts. It is $1.2 Trillion in cuts over 10 years. And one Congress cannot bind another future Congress. Therefore what we are talking about is FY2013 or FY2014 cuts, which come in at some fraction of the total $1.2 trillion.
It is fine to ask the administration what it will cut in FY2013. The administration has already proposed in its budget in February what it wanted to cut then. And it is fine to ask what the administration will cut in FY2014; that is the budget that agencies are currently working to build.
But beyond that, it is just bullshit. Because it depends on the outcome of November’s election.
Murray’s amendment is nice Congressional politics, but it does mean anything substantively.
Any bets that Congress would rather make the cuts all in the amount of troops we have rather than cut a single defense contract or military base in America?
If they need to they will cut foreign military bases first bases near countries we want to invade will be protected but since we seem to want to attack everyone if foreign military bases are cut it will be interesting to see what countries we are not too interested in invading.
Agreed but I fear the cuts will be rigged in such a way that any big business that has dealings with SS and Medicare won’t lose a penny big Pharma I am sure will be protected and the expense of the people.
Medicare gets old people drugs at discount prices I think. Suppose the cuts come from dropping coverage of the most expensive most used drugs big pharma makes?
No matter what Obama says the GOP will attack him on this and he should have expected this I expect the GOP will at their convention blame Obama no matter what choices he makes unless Obama sides totally with big business at the expense of the people.
Kudos, David, for ‘catching’ this.
Should this Murray Amendment survive the Conference Committee, the political onus will shift onto the conservative Democrats and and Republicans, and which brings forth the Romney/Ryan Plan. This of course, is the “short term” and nothing more.
As to the “long term” I still see the Metaphorical Dagger aimed at the Conservative “heart” (Republican and Democratic alike) is the Native American’s and Chicano’s Academic-Military Draft. To wit, even the office staff at Congressman Grijalva’s office are avoiding my discussion, and which informs me that a “heart-to-heart” grudge match between Progressives and Conservatives, must be avoided at all cost. And to quote, our Good Friend and Firebagger, Anthony Noel, says this quite sublimely when he said, “…Compromising apologists who couldn’t find a worthy cause in the dark with both hands and a flashlight” was obviously correct.
Jaango
“… I fear the cuts will be rigged …”
Of course they will. Congress is for sale to the high bidder and no one seems to even question that any more.
Are you suggesting that a “Grand Bargain” won’t be rigged to favor the 1%?
That is the whole point.
“… a … grudge match between Progressives and Conservatives, must be avoided at all cost. “
If so, progressives lose again.
Don’t look at me.
Let’s call ADM, Archer,Daniels,Midland, and see how they’re doing.
COntinued OUTSTANDING work David.
THANKS!!!!
I’m not comfortable cutting some programs more than others, too much opportunity for politics to screw it up. I’d rather have across the board cuts, even it that seems unfair. If it is unfair to everyone, that’s Democracy.
Coach Bill @9,
Until the Progressive jettisons the Knuckledragger label, the Grudge Match cannot commence and move forward and in the direction of success. Thus, playing at the margins doesn’t bode well for our future.
Jaango
There are genuine, for real, progressives in congress? Wow. Who could have known.
Synoia @14,
Yeah, there are a few, but lo’ and behold, they see themselves as “moving targets” for the scorn and rage being delivered in their direction. Especially by fellow Progressives. As such, their “fee fees” are overly sensitive for straying from the “principles.”
Jaango
Do you mean to say that the agribusiness corporations will be favored over farmers by the representatives they bought? Surely that’s not possible in an actual democratic republic.
Hey! You neglected to mention ConAgra(their name says it all) and Monsanto.
Would you be willing to name both of them, or are they undercover?
holeybuybull @18
Sure.
For starters, Ed Pastor of Arizona, led the charge to reverse the House “charge” and among Republicans to further extractive mining at the Grand Canyon, among other important issues to me.
As to Raul Grijalva from Arizona, back in 2009, he intoduced legislation and titled, HB 676 or “The United States Health Insurance Act” and which would’ve created single-payer, publicly-funded and privately-delivered health care for all citizens and residing non-citizens.
Therefore, should the SCOTUS reject the Affordable Care Act as being unconsitutional, Grijalva’s legislation would’ve of been the “work around” on the Insterstate Commerce Clause that the Republicans are betting their political existence on and for this election cycle.
Jaango