An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Some Straight Talk on the Debt Deal

There has been a lot—perhaps too much—written about the debt reduction bill, its potential impact and its implications—long on rhetoric, but short on facts and details.

If you are as confused as I am, you may want to read the following concise and straightforward summary I just received from the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA). It is preceded by:

The agreement, signed by the President on Tuesday, sets a course for future reductions in federal spending. But the compromise is remarkably short on details and relies largely on the budget cutting recommendations of a soon to be formed Congressional “Super Committee.” In many ways the deal reflects the inability of Congress to come to terms with spending cuts.

Here’s what the MOAA knows about the deal:

• Enacts $900 billion in federal spending cuts over 10 years
• Cuts include $350 billion in savings from the base defense budget already agreed upon earlier this year
• Authorizes the President to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013
• Establishes a Congressional bipartisan Joint Committee, often referred to as the “Super Committee,” tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in debt reduction, including discretionary (e.g., pay raises, procurement, etc.) and direct (e.g., Social Security, TFL) spending; the Committee will also consider tax revenue measures
• Requires $1.2 trillion in cuts if the “Super Committee” fails to reach an agreement, or Congress fails to pass the committee’s recommendations by December 23.Cuts would be divided between defense and non-defense defense spending
• Ensures a vote on a balanced budget constitutional amendment by December 2011

The MOAA Adds:

Now that the deal is done all eyes will turn to the Congressional “Super Committee” made up of 12 members of Congress, six from each chamber, and six from each party. Their debt reduction recommendations are due November 23, 2011. Congress is required to vote on their recommendations without amendment by December 23, 2011.

The Super Committee is authorized to look at both discretionary and direct (mandatory) spending meaning that military retirement, TFL, Social Security, etc., are on the table for cutting.

However, if the Committee cannot reach an agreement on how to cut an additional $1.5 trillion from the debt or if their recommended cuts fail to be adopted by Congress, an enforcement mechanism (sequestration) will trigger automatic, draconian spending reductions starting in 2013. The cuts would be split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending (defense spending cuts would be about $50 billion per year). The severity of this process is intended to force Congress to act and prioritize what reductions should be made.

If sequestration is employed Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries (but not providers), federal civil service retirement, military retirement and low-income programs will be exempt from mandatory cuts.

The MOAA message concludes with concerns about “the prospect of sequestration if Congress fails to reach a $1.5 trillion deal by December 23”:

These automatic cuts would rely heavily on defense spending reductions. Although military retired pay, Social Security, and Medicare beneficiaries are protected from these cuts it could leave TRICARE and Medicare providers extremely vulnerable. The magnitude of these cuts may prevent a “doc fix” this year which would deeply hurt access to care.

And this is only the beginning of several years of successive budget reductions. Both the right and the left are looking to reduce defense spending and the quickest way there is cutting manpower and compensation…



5 Responses to “Some Straight Talk on the Debt Deal”

  1. DLS says:

    Yep — this is once again putting off decisions and creating political cover by handing them to a committee. Those in charge like Obama then are free to critique the results and act as they choose, anyway.

    We saw that with Bowles-Simpson, which Obama had created and pushed to the public as overdue look at reforms, but which was just political cover for tax increases (which he’ll hope for from the new commission, too). Instead, the commission advocated serious, if very tame or mild, reforms, and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid rejected them publicly and ignored them insofar as policy is concerned.

    It’s this as well as other, general suspicion that makes this deal, that has a “trigger” (Congress can exempt itself as it has before), the commission (can just be ignored, again), etc., and which only saves at most 2.4 trillion dollars rather than the 4 trillion expected by the ratings agencies, that makes us suspicious.

    There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/politics/03spend.html

    Congress says it has a plan for addressing the government’s deficit problems. But it does not. Instead, it merely has a plan for a plan for a plan, effectively commanding Congress to continue fighting over budget priorities through the 2012 elections.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05deficit.html

    When even the Democratic Party (and liberals’) media flagship reports problems with the budget agreement, it’s bad.

    As for the military, I’ll say again that arbitrary large reductions (with no time to prepare) on the military, which is an essential federal government function unlike so much else that it does, is fraught with trouble. About the only thing it would be good for is political cover to end some “big-ticket” weapons system programs or those which have had problems (e.g., the Osprey).

    How does Defense feel about the “trigger”?

    Automatic spending cuts built into the debt-ceiling agreement are a “doomsday mechanism” that would damage national security if they kick in, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903885604576488634255358142.html

  2. Absalon says:

    New taxes or no entitlement reform. Ever.

  3. DLS says:

    You have it bass-ackwards, Axel. Reform first, obviously. And what’s needed with taxes is tax reform, not simply higher taxes.

  4. Allen says:

    DLS-

    Yes, higher taxes. MUCH HIGHER!. Reform is not needed at all save for destroying loopholes for the rich. You have to be able to beat the crap out of greedy corporations with more than just token resistance. I say limit all profit nation wide to 6% above overhead. Anything above that is split between share holders and employees. If it’s a private company, employees and the IRS.

  5. Allen says:

    IMO, no freshman congressmen should be on this committee. Only experienced congressmen should on the committee. Personally I would like to see Dennis Kucinich on the committee. He has an excellent fiscal track record in Ohio.

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity