Delay: Republicans Can Let the Sequester Happen - And Undo the Defense Cuts Later!

Have Republicans learned to love the sequester? All signs indicate that while plenty of House GOP members don’t particularly like the way the automatic spending reductions hit the defense budget and other discretionary spending programs, they’re ready to go through with it when the reductions kick in on March 1. At least for now, that is.

In reporting on how Republicans had come to accept the sequester, National Review’s Robert Costa gets former House Majority Leader Tom Delay to suggest that there may be a longer game afoot:

Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, who was meeting with a few of his former colleagues on Wednesday at the Capitol, says Boehner’s playbook is “sharp,” since defense spending “can always be replaced during the appropriations process, after the cuts are put into place.”

“You can always put money back in for defense,” DeLay says. “I think Boehner is going to stick with the sequester since the cuts are already happening, and if he needs to do something later, he can. I don’t think the president realizes how Boehner has the upper hand.”

So they’ll let the sequester take effect now. And then they’ll undo all or some of the defense spending reductions — which account for half of the $1.2 trillion in sequester cuts — sometime later. 

Delay is, of course, very much a former legislator at this point, having been convicted of money laundering, and so is not speaking officially for the House GOP. But this scenario isn’t all that far-fetched. The biggest potential problem with using the sequester to cut spending has never been the design. It’s been that Congress won’t stick to its spending reductions as they roll out over the next decade. That’s what happened with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, a sequester-like budget mechanism intended to reduce the deficit back in the 1980s.

I've written about GRH before, but here are the basics: In 1985, Congress faced mounting debt and wanted to do something about it. In response, members of Congress passed a law that came to be known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH), after Sens. Philip Gramm (R-Texas), Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and Ernest Holling (D-S.C.), the three primary authors. The law used a trigger system, setting target figures for deficit reduction. If Congress failed to meet its deficit targets, then an automatic process known as sequestration—across-the-board spending reductions much like what we’re debating now—was supposed to occur.

GRH was challenged in court, and in 1986 its sequestration mechanism was ruled unconstitutional because it granted budget authority to the Comptroller General, an officer of Congress, who was found to have been illegally granted executive powers. In 1987, Congress revisited the law, passing an updated version designed to avoid legal challenge. This one didn’t face a court challenge. But it didn’t work very well either. In 1986, the law’s deficit target was $172 billion. The actual deficit was slightly over $221 billion. In 1987, the deficit came within a horse shoe’s distance of hitting its $144 billion deficit target, clocking in at $149.8 billion. But by 1988, the gap had widened once again: The initial target was set at $108 billion, but the actual deficit hit $155 billion. 

In the end, the plan was a failure. According to Robert Lee, Philip Joyce, and Ronald Johnson’s primer on public budgeting systems, by the end of the decade,  Gramm-Rudman-Hollings did not “appreciably affected the overall budget deficit situation.” In 1990, Congress ditched the GRH sequester system. 

As far I can tell, GRH wasn’t passed with the intention of undermining it later. But if Delay is correct, and I fear he might be onto something, the sequester will go into effect, only to be undone through some later mechanism. Which is to say that Republicans may be openly embracing the sequester — while quietly planning to stab it in the back. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Drake||

    You know what the House and Senate could do instead of all this BS? Pass a budget.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Drake, you're missing the point. Yes, passing a budget would fulfill the legal obligations of our elected representatives and be the adult thing to do, but it wouldn't get them what is best in life.

  • T o n y||

    It also wouldn't appropriate any funds or affect government policy in any way. Only the senate is technically required to pass one, but there's no penalty for not doing so, and little incentive since it isn't necessary in the slightest and doesn't actually do anything.

    The thing about being in the right-wing bubble is it's so easy to tell from the outside because all your mouths are flapping in unison about the same bullshit.

  • John||

    Jesus Christ Tony, that is even stupid for you. They won't pass a budget because it would require them to admit how much they have increased baseline spending. It is all about lying and giving brain dead supporters like you and Shreek talking points.

  • Proprietist||

    It's funny. I remember the days when the Democrats used to complain about Bush and Delay keeping the Iraq war out of the budget and passing unfunded mandates.

    Now that they control the spending, they have no problem with keeping the war and everything else out of the official budget by not making one, and just about every piece of legislation is an unfunded mandate.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Putting the wars onto the budget was done by Feb 2009.

  • Proprietist||

    You're wrong. They were still external defense appropriations off-budget.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.....ral_budget

  • Marshall Gill||

    You're wrong

    This is as steady as the sun rising in the morning. It isn't that he is wrong so much as he is simply a mendacious liar.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bullshit to both of you.

    Most important, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is now included in annual budgets. We'll keep a close eye on this one going forward, but for now, this is a Promise Kept.

    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....s-for-war/

    The wars are on budget despite the fact an occasional supplemental is needs.

  • KPres||

    Who cares? The point is you're a piece of shit hypocrite with no principles.

  • Proprietist||

    You said Feb 2009, while the article is talking about 2010's budget, passed on July 27, 2010. So you were still wrong.

  • wareagle||

    so you openly advocate NOT passing a budget because inaction is politically expedient. Good thing you're trapped in a left-wing bubble listening to partisan babble.

  • T o n y||

    I just want to know why you people are so obsessed with the issue. Passing a budget doesn't appropriate funds. It doesn't do anything. So what possible reason could there be for you to be so repetitively focused on it, if not to play a game of political gotcha?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    They reflexively repeat AM radio/Fox News talking points. The bubble.

  • Proprietist||

    So neither of you complained when Bush didn't put the wars and sufficient allocations for mandates into the official budget, right?

  • KPres||

    "So neither of you complained when Bush didn't put the wars and sufficient allocations for mandates into the official budget, right?"

    Of course they did, and the thing is, most of us were right there with them, which is why our complaints have credibility, and nobody gives a shit what they think.

  • wareagle||

    because a budget is necessary for outlining spending priorities AND for acknowledging that money is not a finite resource. Money out cannot be money in indefinitely.

    Congress was elected to make decisions, including ones that are hard and unpopular. If they refuse to do it, put the damn thing on autopilot, shut down Capitol Hill, and let's save a few bucks.

  • T o n y||

    See the post below about the Budget Control Act. Congress has been making decisions, almost none of them popular.

  • wareagle||

    the BCA is a political device that circumvents the heavy lifting of putting together a budget. We have far more govt than we need or can afford.

  • T o n y||

    So you're not talking about passing a budget, you're talking about appropriating less money and cutting vast portions of the government out of the GDP?

    Why can't Republicans and their talk radio sheep just come out and say so?

  • KPres||

    Why can't Republicans and their talk radio sheep just come out and say so?

    Because that would be racist.

  • ||

    I just want to know why you people are so obsessed with the issue. Passing a budget doesn't appropriate funds. It doesn't do anything.

    Actually, passing a budget does do something.


    So what possible reason could there be for you to be so repetitively focused on it, if not to play a game of political gotcha?

    But I thought the election feedback mechanism is what makes our great social democracy work. Is it only playing gotcha when certain political parties are more responsible than others?

  • Proprietist||

    Tony believes that a democratic state is a representation of the true will of the people, and simultaneously that we need no evidence that the democratic state is actually representing what we voted for. We should accept the good intentions, integrity and financial wisdom of our politicians because top men QED.

  • KPres||

    "Tony believes..."

    Tony doesn't believe shit. He doesn't have an ideology. He doesn't analyze the world he lives in and draw conclusions. He has people that he likes and people that he doesn't like and rationalizes everything from there.

  • Proprietist||

    You're right. I should have added "unless Republicans or Libertarian are in charge" to the end of that.

  • ||

    The reason they havn't passed a budget isn't because "it doesn't do anything".
    Every congress right up until 4 years ago, under both Democratic and Republican control, was able to do it. Technically they are required to by law, and they havn't changed the law.
    The reason they aren't doing it is because of political incompetence, not some sort of rational considered decision not to.

  • some guy||

    Passing a budget would inform the taxpayers about government's spending priorities for the next year. It would facilitate debate on those priorities and it would set targets for legislators writing future appropriations bills. Basically it is just as useful to the federal government as it is to a household. In other words, passing a budget is a responsible thing to do.

  • ||

    Tony said:

    The thing about being in the right-wing bubble is it's so easy to tell from the outside because all your mouths are flapping in unison about the same bullshit.

    Meanwhile, you constantly surprise us with novel ideas, over and over again.

    Let's go through the self-contradictory "libertarians are hypocrites because they always prefer-less government like anarchists but they're not anarchists" argument again.

  • T o n y||

    That's not the argument. Libertarianism falls apart because its central tenet is that less government is inherently virtuous. But you need some government so things don't fall into anarchy. Thus, at least to an extent more government is more virtuous than less.

    At this point you have to acknowledge that you are not articulating a different philosophy of government from liberals or conservatives, you just have different policy priorities. It's the self-righteous slapping of a moral gold star sticker on those priorities, as if they're ordained by the universe, that bugs me.

  • wareagle||

    and no one has advocated anarchy, so pretending someone is is you being dishonest. Govt's main job is to protect our rights, and plenty here have acknowledged govt's role in defense, courts, treaties, even infrastructure.

    The big difference is neither Dems nor Repubs see govt through that lens; they see it is a means to their particular end of a huge state.

  • T o n y||

    You acknowledge government's necessity in a handful of obvious and difficult-to-argue-against arenas. Yet you still claim that less government tends to be good inherently.

    Seems more than evident that you simply possess a reflexive antigovernment mental tick and a lack of an appreciation for the complexity of the real world. It is a near certainty that you wouldn't actually want to live in a world with as minimal a government as you claim is best.

  • wareagle||

    You acknowledge government's necessity in a handful of obvious and difficult-to-argue-against arenas. Yet you still claim that less government tends to be good inherently.

    these are not mutually exclusive statements. Less govt IS good inherently because less of it means more individual liberty and more individual responsibility in decision-making. I get why statists hate either of those things.

    Any anti-govt 'tick' is born of watching govt screw up most things that it touches. The real world is far less complex than you think. Most people just want to be left alone and live their lives without do-gooders trying to dictate their every waking moment.

  • T o n y||

    Cite for the claim that government tends to screw up things it touches? It doesn't get credit for the daily smooth operation of civilization facilitated by law and order and roads and a thousand other government-originated means? You've just demonstrated the bias I was talking about.

    Do you feel your every waking moment is being dictated? What do you think you should be allowed to do that you aren't? I can name a couple things, like smoke weed or buy a hooker, but those are pretty minor compared to the grand antigovernment crusade you're on. What do you think you should be allowed to do that you aren't currently?

  • Shùn Yú||

    You acknowledge government's necessity in a handful of obvious and difficult-to-argue-against arenas. Yet you still claim that less government tends to be good inherently.

    Governments and the states they govern can get too big. IF you cannot fund your government without borrowing massive amounts of money, you have an issue. So the question is how do you match receipts to spending. That is what a budget does. It lays out the priorities for the coming year.

  • ||

    It's not less government is inherently virtuous, it's more liberty is inherently virtuous.

    There are some functions of government that protect liberty, like enforcing contracts and property rights.

    Forcible transfers of wealth and property aren't one of those things.

  • T o n y||

    There are some functions of government that protect liberty, like enforcing contracts and property rights.

    Forcible transfers of wealth and property aren't one of those things.

    This is the contradiction, since you can't enforce anything without doing the latter. Unless you think enforcing contracts and property rights doesn't cost any money.

  • ||

    I'm totally ok with taxing to enforce property rights, but that's not a transfer of wealth or property. It's an enforcement of the existing rules against forcinble transfers of wealth or property. What you want to do is let the referree change the score in the middle of the game. Just because you empower the referree to enforce the rules, doesn't mean your empowering him to do whatever he wants.

  • T o n y||

    Any tax is a transfer of wealth. Money is taken from citizens in some fashion, deposited in the Treasury, then appropriated by government for some purpose other than putting it back where it came from. Transfer of wealth. That cannot be what you hang your moral hat on.

  • ||

    It's not a transfer of wealth if it's spent on a legitimate government function purchased at a fair market price.

    It's a transfer of wealth if government gives the money away or overpays for something, or spends it on something unnecessary just so it can reward a favored client.

  • T o n y||

    So taxation is only immoral if it pays for things you don't like?

  • ||

    it's not a question of my liking or not liking them. It's a question of whether (A) the price paid is the market price, (B) the recipient of the payment is sellected according to an impartial process, not political influence, voting power, or anything else,
    and (C) the service being purchased supports (as previously stated) the legimite functiosn of preventing force or fraud, enforcing contracts, and administering justice.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So taxation is only immoral if it pays for things you don't like?

    No, it's immoral when it inures to the benefit of others and not to the payer.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Any tax is a transfer of wealth.

    If I pay money for, say, an iPad have I transferred wealth or transformed the form of my wealth from cash to a good I value as much as the cash?

  • T o n y||

    Both? If you are taxed and that money pays for a road, is the wealth transferred from you to the pavers, or have you exchanged something for something you value as much or more?

  • ||

    Theorem: Tony's anti-libertarian argument is inconsistent and, thus, irrational.

    Proof: Tony says that

    Libertarianism falls apart because its central tenet is that less government is inherently virtuous.

    This implies libertarians think that anarchy is most virtuous, since it has the least government of all forms.

    However, he also says that

    you are not articulating a different philosophy of government from liberals or conservatives, you just have different policy priorities.

    This implies that libertarians are not anarchists, and that they do not always think that less government is inherently virtuous.

    Thus, his argument presents a contradiction to itself. It is, therefore, inconsistent and irrational. This completes the proof.

  • T o n y||

    So you're saying that liberty and government are not in a zero-sum relationship? That "size of government" is a practically nonsensical concept--since you don't favor anarchy, government will be "everywhere," and that you simply have some policy disagreements like lower income taxes and a smaller safety net?

  • ||

    Actually, I was just pointing out that your argument is irrational. I haven't asserted anything myself.

    Nice try changing the subject, though.

  • ||

    Liberty is supported by certain government institutions such as courts.
    The courts are referrees that enforce rights and contracts, and the prohibitions on force or fraud. To the extent that the government confines its mission to enforcing a set of uniform fair laws then it's not a bad thing. it becomes a bad thing when it becomes possible to use the government to bias the laws in your favor and turn it form a referee to an active participant.

  • T o n y||

    I think universal healthcare supports liberty, on an even more widespread basis than courts, since while not everyone will be involved in a crime, everyone will get sick, and illness obviously affects one's ability to act freely.

  • ||

    And I think that's a gross misunderstanding of what "liberty" is. Liberty is a function of constraints imposed by other people. Human relationships, not physical realities, like illness.

    You may as well say that the snowstorm infringes on my liberty, because I am not free to drive through a mountain pass.

    The fact that I can't make it rain doesn't infringe on your liberty to farm, does it?

    If you're born if no legs, is that an infringement on your liberty?

  • T o n y||

    It is an impediment to your liberty, absolutely no question.

    Libertarians have this odd fixation on human agency. It's only an infringement on liberty if a person's doing it. Why is that so? All else being equal if I'm restricted from doing something, what does it matter if it's a person restricting me or the weather?

  • ||

    Libertarians have this odd fixation on human agency. It's only an infringement on liberty if a person's doing it. Why is that so? All else being equal if I'm restricted from doing something, what does it matter if it's a person restricting me or the weather?

    Because you propose to restrict other people's liberty to force them to change the weather.

    Case A: Bad weather causes the residents of town A to be isolated during the long winter months.

    Case B: The government conscripts the residents of town B and forces them to plow the road so town A can have acccess to B's markets.

    In which situation is there greater infringement on liberty?

  • T o n y||

    Case A, clearly. After the road is plowed, there's a net gain in freedom.

  • ||

    Tony said:

    I think universal healthcare supports liberty, on an even more widespread basis than courts, since while not everyone will be involved in a crime, everyone will get sick, and illness obviously affects one's ability to act freely.

    I think everyone getting a million dollars would support liberty, since not everyone will be involved in a crime, everyone needs money, and lack of money obviously affects one's ability to act freely.

    Does that mean taxing it from some people and distributing it to others is automatically an awesome policy?

    You always whine that libertarians come up with simple rules in this complex world. However, your rules are just as simplistic: "All other things being equal, having healthcare is better than not. Therefore, it must be true that guaranteed healthcare provided by the state is awesome."

    That's pretty simplistic. If you want to be a good utilitarian, you need to show us a cost function, show that you're optimizing it with this policy, in the sense that you've achieved a global optimum with respect to all your other positions and policies, and not a local optimum or worse.

    Optimization theory is highly complex, so just saying "having medicine is better than not, so universal health care must be the best policy" is hardly good enough.

    In short: show your work. Of course, you don't have work, because you just feign utilitarianism. It's just an excuse follow whatever dogma your political masters recommend.

  • ||

    In short: show your work. Of course, you don't have work, because you just feign utilitarianism. It's just an excuse follow whatever dogma your political masters recommend.

    More like. He doesn't show his work, because he hasn't done any. All he thinks it "it's better to have healthcare than not". He hasn't acutally considered the impact on other people at all. The possibility that there could be a decrease in liberty for someone else just doesn't occur in the first place.

    And, yes, that is how stupid progressive are. That is the truth of their stupidity. they don't think about anything beyond the immediate "it's good to have free shit" gratification.

  • Shùn Yú||

    He hasn't acutally considered the impact on other people at all. The possibility that there could be a decrease in liberty for someone else just doesn't occur in the first place.

    Can the government provide healthcare for all without adversely affecting someone? Unless you are conscripting healthcare workers, what is the objection?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Libertarianism falls apart because its central tenet is that less government is inherently virtuous.

    Maybe if you didn't distort the central premise, you wouldn't reach such mistaken conclusions.

    What if the central tenet is actually "Government beyond that which protects our rights against force and fraud are inherently not virtuous."

  • T o n y||

    Then you have to define "rights" and "force and fraud."

    I think healthcare is a right, deceptive mortgage practices are fraud, and pollution is force. Do I get to be a libertarian?

  • Proprietist||

    healthcare is a right

    So you support the right to make someone else a slave if necessary so they don't violate your rights? It's one or the other, and you can't have it both ways.

    deceptive mortgage practices are fraud

    Sure, fraud is fraud.

    Pollution is force

    Yes, violating property rights is a form of force.

  • T o n y||

    Calling healthcare a right is no different from calling due process a right. Both cost money to realize.

    This is all I'm getting at. You have a list of policy preferences, things you want government to spend taxpayer money on, and those are magically exempted from your "taxation is theft" absolute morality, while everyone else's policy preferences--paid for in exactly the same manner--are for some reason evil, theft, slavery, etc.

  • ||

    Calling healthcare a right is no different from calling due process a right. Both cost money to realize.

    There's a finite amount of money. Would you rather give up the health care or the due process?

  • T o n y||

    Whether there's a finite amount of money is debatable, but that's an entirely new argument (the 4th or 5th you've offered, good job!).

    The facts on the ground are these, though: in countries with universal government-administered healthcare systems, people pay about half for their healthcare costs than they do in the US, the most free market system in the industrialized world.

    The point is healthcare costs are there with or without government, and all evidence suggests that with government we can save money (since it's a more efficient system). (That's not to suggest that any country has solved the underlying problem of growth in healthcare costs--but we are hardly doing the best at containing them.)

    So if you really think money is finite then you ought to endorse universal healthcare.

  • Proprietist||

    It's pretty hard to call arguably the most regulated sector of American economy remotely "free market" just because it passes profits through businesses. But I agree, single payer would be preferable in many ways, including efficiency, to the bastardized hybrid system we have that is so government controlled, it might as well be single payer yet filters everything through a highly regulated market full of mandates (making it impossible to control costs) with tax incentives based stupidly on employment.

    Funny thing though, they deny the "right" to receive healthcare all the time in single payer systems.

  • KPres||

    "The point is healthcare costs are there with or without government, and all evidence suggests that with government we can save money"

    Uhhhh....healthcare was cheapest before the government got involved. You're only argument is that fully socialized is cheaper than 65% socialized. But of course, it's only "cheaper" in the sense that the countries where it's fully socialized tend to impose price controls, whereas your one example of the mixed-economy version doesn't (unlimited medicare). Predictably, price controls result in shortages. That's not efficiency.

  • KPres||

    "but that's an entirely new argument (the 4th or 5th you've offered, good job!)."

    In Tony's fucked-up head, if an idea has many arguments for it, that makes it less credible.

  • Proprietist||

    Calling healthcare a right is no different from calling due process a right. Both cost money to realize.

    And I don't deny that forceable taxation to pay for a police force and legal system is a violation of your rights. That's why I support voluntary taxation with access to government services, roads and protections dependent upon whether you filed or not. Note this doesn't mean poor people won't be able to afford any public protection, since that is completely dependent on how the tax code is set up.

  • KPres||

    Calling healthcare a right is no different from calling due process a right. Both cost money to realize.

    Due process serves the purpose of preserving liberty, which makes it more of a legitimate function.

    Healthcare, OTOH serves the purpose of preserving health.

    The thing is, minarchists can disagree about what constitutes legitimate function of the state. Nothing has to be black-and-white. But the motive is always that the only legitimate function of the state is preserving liberty, not providing comfort or anything like that.

  • ||

    Healthcare can't be a right because it is inconsistent with the other rights. Also, it's requires provision of a finite resource. Can ten people have a right to an apple if there are only three apples?

  • T o n y||

    How is healthcare any more finite than courts? You're just throwing stuff out to see what sticks because you don't like the idea of universal healthcare.

    You're allowed not to like that policy. But I think you should have to explain why it's a better policy not to have one, rather than just say "because it's evil so there."

  • ||

    How is healthcare any more finite than courts?

    Courts deal entirely with functions of human relationships. They aren't in the business of fixing physical reality.

  • T||

    We've explained why universal healthcare sucks ad nauseam and your response is "I think it should be a right, so there." Fuck you and the postive rights you rode in on, slaver.

  • Zeb||

    A right to healthcare (well, medical care). requires forcing other people to pay for your stuff. Due process is an essential function if you take preserving people's rights and freedom the proper function of government. In other words, due process is necessary to have a just government. Medical care for everyone whether they can pay or not is not. And forcing people to buy insurance definitely is not.

  • Proprietist||

    Yeah, I don't think any libertarians think there is virtue in anarchy, even anarchists. All libertarians find immorality in statism however, as it involves killing, stealing, blackmailing and violating our rights. Miniarchists and anarchists disagree over which system minimizes overall violations of rights.

  • Zeb||

    Government is at best a necessary evil. Less is good.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    “The Budget Control Act achieved all of the essential elements of a traditional budget — setting discretionary caps, providing enforcement mechanisms, and creating a process for addressing entitlement spending and revenues,” Conrad’s staff stated in the the fact sheet.

    “Republican rhetoric aside, Congress did pass a budget.”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-th.....z2KK80BYio

    Of course, Paul Ryan, who is deep in the GOP bubble claims it was not a budget because "fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems."

    (same link).

    There you have it. A budget is a budget only when it solves the country's fiscal problems.

  • wareagle||

    A budget is a budget only when it solves the country's fiscal problems.

    a budget is supposed to recognize that problems exist and work towards fixing them. The lack of one requires a suspension of disbelief that not even Hollywood would try.

  • ||

    You're either stupid, disingenuous, or you're too young to remember what an actual budget looks like.

    Generally congress has a number of separate spending bills that are annually appropriated. The budget is when they put all these together into one giant package and pass it, essentially tieing all the individual spending bills into one overall tally of what the government intends to spend for the next fiscal year.

    This step is being skipped not out of any kind of rational decision by Democrats that it's not worth while, but because budget battles have become to contentious to get the votes to actually pass the overall bill.
    So they pass piecemeal bills instead and use continuing resolutions.
    That also allows them to escape responsibility for how much they are spending overall. Each spending bill is separately considered instead of viewing it in the context of the overall budget.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bullshit. The BCA of 2011 contained the full budget resolution and joint resolution (with the House) as well as the 60 Senate votes needed to enact it.

    The real reason budgets will be rare from now on is that something like full credit default (as in 2011) is needed to get the two sides to agree on anything.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    August 2011

    The Senate, which has not passed a budget resolution in two years, will be “deemed” to have passed a budget resolution for this year and next year. In other words, for the purpose of budget points of order on the Senate floor, it will be as if the Senate had done a budget resolution. This will apply to both FY12 (this year) and FY13 (next year), meaning there will be no pressure for the Senate to consider a budget resolution on the floor before 2013.

    http://keithhennessey.com/2011/08/01/bca-summary/

  • ||

    Hilarious a statement literally says "we havn't passed a budget resolution" and you interpret that as "See! they passed a budget!"

    Just because the Senate passes a resolution says says "we're going to pretend we passed a budget" doesn't mean I'm obligated to believe them.

    Or do you think the BCA was binding upon the minds of American citizens? We're all required to "deem" them to have passed a budget now?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You don't know what "literally" means. The "deem" language was needed to satisfy Senate rules and prevent chicanery by the GOP.

  • ||

    SAYING "we totally passed a budget!" is not ACTUALLY passing a budget.

    I can say that I'm a unicorn from Mars, and I can write documents noting this! But that does not actually make me a unicorn from Mars.

  • ||

    All signs indicate that the while plenty of House GOP members don’t particularly like the way the automatic spending reductions hit the defense budget and other discretionary spending programs, they’re ready to go through with it when the reductions kick in on March 1.

    I think there is an extra "the" in this sentence.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Peter-

    Is that a semi-regular gig on Kudlow?

    I used to like that guy, until he completely disappeared up GWB's ass.

    He should stick to economics and go back to beating the drum for Schumpeter.

  • Steve G||

    Oh, just put it back in later. ? He obviously doesn't get what is going on right now in the DoD as they prepare to not have this money. De-obligating/renegotiating contracts, standing down units; stuff not easily reversed in the short term and will cost us much more in the long term. We ain't just going in cryo-stasis only to be reanimated at some point in the future.

  • Proprietist||

    We should cut the spending and not put it back in later or ever. We do not need a military budget that spends four times as much as the next biggest military. The military is a gravy train no different from green energy and corporate welfare.

  • Virginian||

    How dare you! Every single one of the 700,000 civilians that work for the DoD is a vital piece of our national security. We cannot fire even one of them without risking the lives of our children. Why do you hate children?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Republicans may be openly embracing the sequester — while quietly planning to stab it in the back.

    No

    fucking

    way.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Budgets don't matter when you print your own money, right boys?

    Matching income and expenses is a mug's game.

  • KPres||

    Yep. Republicans will get the military spending back in and Democrats will get the social spending back in. What's new?

  • Capt Ace Rimmer||

    I heard Panetta say something like the DOD was going to absorb the spending cuts in such a way so as to reverse them asap. I think this means cutting money to personnel as opposed to hardware and shit like that. I hate these people.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I think this means cutting money to personnel as opposed to hardware and shit like that.

    That F35 program is going to turn the corner any day. You'll be thankful we stuck with it when the aliens invade.

  • ChrisO||

    People thinking Republicans want to cut spending. Isn't that cute?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement