The Sequester Can Still Be Terrible

Even more spending cuts arrive in January. Can Democrats stop them if Americans don’t feel them?

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Catherine Hollander
Oct. 17, 2013, 5 p.m.

The im­me­di­ate im­pact of the 2013 se­quester was over­sold. Pres­id­ent Obama, in a typ­ic­al state­ment, warned in Feb­ru­ary that if the $85 bil­lion in se­cur­ity and non­se­cur­ity cuts were en­acted as sched­uled on March 1, “all our eco­nom­ic pro­gress could be put at risk.”

That’s not how it happened. Gross do­mest­ic product growth rose to 2.5 per­cent in the second quarter, up from 1.8 per­cent in the first. The in­crease in the GDP would likely have been high­er without the fisc­al drag, but the se­quester didn’t force the U.S. to re­live the eco­nom­ic trav­ails of 2008, as one tun­ing in­to the dooms­day rhet­or­ic might have ex­pec­ted.

“Throughout Janu­ary and Feb­ru­ary, the ad­min­is­tra­tion had one ‘the-sky-is-fall­ing’ story after an­oth­er,” says Barry An­der­son, a former deputy dir­ect­or of the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice and seni­or of­fi­cial at the Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget. “Here we are in the middle of Oc­to­ber “¦ the world hasn’t stopped spin­ning.”

Janu­ary will bring new spend­ing lim­its, part of the 2011 Budget Con­trol Act that cre­ated last spring’s se­quester, and an­oth­er round of dire mes­saging from Demo­crats who want to re­verse them. But even in 2014, the ef­fects aren’t ex­pec­ted to cause a mac­roe­co­nom­ic cata­strophe, and sup­port­ers of the blunt cuts and lower spend­ing caps are likely to point to the plod­ding GDP growth as evid­ence of their suc­cess as a de­fi­cit-re­duc­tion tool. The prob­lem is, that’s not ne­ces­sar­ily the best place to look.

The tax in­creases Con­gress passed as part of the New Year’s Day fisc­al-cliff deal had a big­ger im­pact on the eco­nomy in 2013 than the se­quester, says Paul Ash­worth, chief U.S. eco­nom­ist at Cap­it­al Eco­nom­ics, a mac­roe­co­nom­ics re­search com­pany. GDP growth de­pends not on the ab­so­lute level of de­cline in spend­ing — which will be lar­ger in 2014 — but on wheth­er that de­cline is big­ger or smal­ler than it was the pre­vi­ous year. Al­though next year’s cuts will be roughly $20 bil­lion more than this year’s, that’s just 0.125 per­cent of the $16 tril­lion eco­nomy. “That isn’t an aw­ful lot on the level of GDP,” Ash­worth says.

Feeling the Squeeze National Journal

The miss­ing growth won’t be ap­par­ent in the head­line num­bers. In Ju­ly, CBO es­tim­ated that re­peal­ing the se­quester would add 900,000 jobs by this time next year, a siz­able num­ber in a coun­try where 11.3 mil­lion people are un­em­ployed. CBO also pro­jec­ted that GDP would be 0.7 per­cent high­er if the cuts were elim­in­ated.

“This pain that we’re met­ing out “¦ may not show up in high­er un­em­ploy­ment or lower GDP growth. These are quite gran­u­lar im­pacts,” says Jared Bern­stein, a former eco­nom­ic ad­viser to Pres­id­ent Obama and Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden. For the past six months, Bern­stein has been track­ing the pro­grams and people feel­ing the se­quester’s pinch. They in­clude Head Start, pub­lic de­fend­ers, rur­al res­id­ents who re­ceived rent­al as­sist­ance from the Ag­ri­cul­ture De­part­ment, and weath­er fore­cast­ing.

Op­pon­ents of the se­quester say the prob­lem is less about the re­duc­tion in spend­ing than the way the cuts are tak­ing place. “It isn’t primar­ily the size of either the fed­er­al budget or the de­fense budget that poses prob­lems; it is the dra­mat­ic change in the com­pos­i­tion of those budgets over the dec­ade — en­ti­tle­ments are push­ing out in­vest­ments. And [the] se­quester wor­sens that trend,” staff at the Bi­par­tis­an Policy Cen­ter wrote in a re­cent, bluntly titled re­port, “From Merely Stu­pid to Dan­ger­ous: The Se­quester’s Ef­fects on Na­tion­al and Eco­nom­ic Se­cur­ity.” “More pain is com­ing,” they wrote, “and it will be more in­tense.”

The ar­chi­tec­ture of next year’s cuts — $109.3 bil­lion sched­uled for fisc­al 2014 — will be dif­fer­ent. The Budget Con­trol Act (a re­sponse to the 2011 el­ev­enth-hour debt-ceil­ing fight) re­quires the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to lop $1.2 tril­lion off pro­jec­ted de­fi­cits over 10 years. Where last year’s cuts were done with a “meat cleav­er,” across-the-board ap­proach, this time ap­pro­pri­at­ors can choose what to cut, so long as they stay be­low the de­fense and nondefense dis­cre­tion­ary spend­ing caps im­posed by the law.

That may sound prefer­able, but it prob­ably won’t mat­ter much from an eco­nom­ic per­spect­ive. Asked at a hear­ing last Feb­ru­ary wheth­er re­arran­ging the same level of cuts could help mit­ig­ate the eco­nom­ic pain, Fed­er­al Re­serve Board Chair­man Ben Bernanke told law­makers, “The near-term ef­fect on growth would prob­ably not be sub­stan­tially dif­fer­ent if you did it that way.”

An­der­son, the former OMB of­fi­cial, says 2014 is “a more ser­i­ous situ­ation” than 2013, but not be­cause the cuts are big­ger. It’s a ques­tion of “at­ti­tude and con­fid­ence.” Neither the fisc­al fights tak­ing place in Con­gress nor the broad strokes of the se­quester in­spire much con­fid­ence among those seek­ing a more per­man­ent solu­tion to the coun­try’s fright­en­ing long-term fisc­al-sus­tain­ab­il­ity prob­lems. At the same Feb­ru­ary hear­ing, Bernanke warned law­makers that the se­quester might even lead to less de­fi­cit re­duc­tion in the short run if it slowed the re­cov­ery. “To ad­dress both the near- and longer-term is­sues, the Con­gress and the ad­min­is­tra­tion should con­sider re­pla­cing the sharp, front-loaded spend­ing cuts re­quired by the se­quest­ra­tion with policies that re­duce the fed­er­al de­fi­cit more gradu­ally in the near term but more sub­stan­tially in the longer run,” he re­com­men­ded.

Re­pub­lic­ans didn’t sig­nal any will­ing­ness to lift the spend­ing caps dur­ing the latest fisc­al ne­go­ti­ations. Rich Lowry, the con­ser­vat­ive Na­tion­al Re­view‘s ed­it­or, said Tues­day night on Fox News as the House GOP debt-ceil­ing plan crumbled, “As long as Re­pub­lic­ans don’t lose the se­quester in this pro­cess, it is not a com­plete de­bacle.”

The deal Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev., and Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, R-Ky., reached set up a House-Sen­ate budget-ne­go­ti­ation pro­cess that’s been ab­sent so far this year. New ur­gency to al­ter the se­quester is un­likely, though; the eco­nom­ic data that come in between now and Janu­ary are un­likely to be very dif­fer­ent from what we’ve seen so far. So any pres­sure to re­vis­it se­quest­ra­tion will prob­ably come from else­where — namely, its im­pact on in­di­vidu­al gov­ern­ment pro­grams, not on the over­all eco­nomy.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.