tool name

close
tool goes here

Defense spending in middle of ‘sequestration'

For a $5 word, “sequestration” is putting in a lot of overtime to earn its pay these days. In the energy field it refers to schemes to pump carbon emissions from burning coal into the ground instead of the atmosphere.

Published: July 22, 2012 at 6:45 a.m. PDTUpdated: July 22, 2012 at 6:45 a.m. PDT
0 comments

For a $5 word, “sequestration” is putting in a lot of overtime to earn its pay these days. In the energy field it refers to schemes to pump carbon emissions from burning coal into the ground instead of the atmosphere.

In the world of federal getting and spending, however, it means an automatic reduction of spending when Congress won’t do its job.

Which, of course, would seem to be a perpetual condition, but in this case sequestration was the too-clever-by-half, this’ll-really-show-us way of “resolving” last year’s fight over raising the federal debt ceiling.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 contains a provision for automatic spending cuts to numerous federal programs (although sometimes described as “across the board,” certain spending such as civilian and military pay and Social Security are exempt) starting in January.

When sequestration was enacted, 2013 must have seemed like a long way off, and perhaps some thought that a rebounding economy would bail Congress out of the consequences of making a decision or someone would come up with an even more brilliant plan to either resolve the issue or send the can scuttling even farther down the road.

But 2013 is now less than six months away, the economy didn’t recover, no one came up with a great alternative (and isn’t likely to in an election year) and the can isn’t moving.

That sets up the potential for some huge and bitter fights, starting with one of considerable interest in Washington – defense spending.

It is already creating some interesting political divides and alliances, uniting advocates of defense spending with those who aren’t interested in defense but who love buying the electorate’s votes with the voters’ money, pitted against those who hate defense spending to start with and those who hate federal spending of most types as well as deficits and huge debt.

Sequestration will generate some lovely fights over the impacts. The Center for Security Policy, a pro-defense spending group, culled numbers on appropriations to defense prime contractors by state, applied an 18 percent spending cut (which includes the impact of sequestration) and came up with revenue loss of more than $1.3 billion a year in Washington, on a 2011 base of $7.2 billion.

Maybe it’ll be that much. Maybe it’ll be much worse, or not nearly as severe, depending on which specific programs performed by which specific contractors in which specific locales are targeted, and whether they’re trimmed or axed entirely.

Those hold true for military installations as well. Washington has a lot of them, and historically has fared well when it comes to maintaining its portfolio. Across-the board cuts could hit us hard, or spare us. It’s all in the application.

That much should have been obvious to those who approved sequestration a year ago but who can now be counted on to decry such a draconian, unfocused approach, using a shovel instead of a scalpel on the federal budget. In this case, though, it was Congress itself that chose the shovel – and is hitting itself in the face with it, along with anything else – like defense contractors, military installations, workers, taxpayers, communities, states – unfortunate enough to be within the unpredictable arc of its swing.

 • In attempting to make a pop-culture reference about wines, your columnist managed to misspell Mateus in last week’s column about recommended business books. Those of a certain age will remember Mateus as a hugely popular choice if the extent of your wine knowledge was that you didn’t want to be seen drinking Boone’s Farm or Annie Green Springs. Mike Veseth, the University of Puget Sound wine economist and author of “Wine Wars,” calls Mateus “the upscale popular wine of its day. I always mention it in my talks and I get lots of knowing looks when I do.”

Bill Virgin is editor and publisher of Washington Manufacturing Alert and Pacific Northwest Rail News. He can be reached at bill.virgin@yahoo.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.

CONTESTS

Similar stories

  • Yes, cut defense spending – in the right way

    Republicans, and many Democrats, are upset by the prospect of so-called sequestration cuts to the nation’s defense budget. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is so alarmed that the day before the Senate took up what became the “fiscal cliff” agreement, he called a key Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, to express deep concern that the cuts might go into effect. As it turned out, Congress put them off for two months.

  • Military presence makes Washington vulnerable to cuts

    Defense spending soared in Washington state last year, even as the specter of long-anticipated budget cuts drew closer.

  • If sequestration hits, 'meat ax' could cut the lean with the fat in Idaho

    For Idahoans, March 1 budget cuts could mean longer lines at airport security, later opening of national parks like Yellowstone, closed campgrounds, unplowed snowmobile and ski trails and reduced spending by the 9,000 federal employees who live in Southwest Idaho.

  • Military presence makes the state vulnerable to cuts

    Defense spending soared in Washington state last year, even as the specter of long-anticipated budget cuts drew closer.

  • Hagel gives Obama cover for military cutbacks

    Americans don’t particularly like government, but they do want government to subsidize their health care. They believe that health care spending improves their lives more than any other public good. In a Quinnipiac poll, typical of many others, Americans opposed any cuts to Medicare by a margin of 70 percent to 25 percent.