The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: sequestration
Cotton, Republicans Struggle To Balance Threat With Defense Cuts

Cotton, Republicans Struggle To Balance Threat With Defense Cuts

By Heidi Przybyla, Bloomberg News (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas says the U.S. should go on the offense against terrorists around the world. He also voted to retain deep cuts in defense spending set for later this year.

For many Republicans like Cotton, reconciling those conflicting goals will be among their biggest challenges as House and Senate Republicans release budget proposals next week.

A group of Senate Republican defense hawks led by John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina want to ease across-the-board spending cuts enacted in a 2011 budget agreement. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi of Wyoming made clear this week that he intends to keep those cuts, which were achieved after a hard-fought standoff.

“They’ve got themselves wrapped around the axle,” Steve Bell, a senior director at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington and a former Republican Senate budget staff director. “It’s going to illustrate dramatically at some point the split in the party.”

Enzi and House Budget Chairman Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, plan to release separate budget proposals early next week and begin committee consideration. The goal is to reach a unified plan, with both chambers now under Republican control for the first time in eight years.

The cap on defense spending is to be cut by about $35 billion in the 2016 fiscal year starting Oct. 1, allowing for little growth. The limit was enacted as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, intended to cut $1.2 trillion in domestic and defense spending through 2021.

Congress voted to ease those reductions for the past two fiscal years, though, and the question is whether lawmakers will do the same for 2016. While some Republicans want more defense spending, Democrats are insisting any defense increases must be matched by higher spending on domestic programs such as education, scientific research and aid to the poor.

“When you pull on the string it all comes undone,” Bell said. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s website says it seeks to encourage lawmakers to overcome political divisions.

Cotton, who served as an Army officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, led 46 other senators in sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders this week suggesting that any deal they make with Obama on limiting nuclear weapons could be revoked after the president leaves office.

Hostilities in Ukraine, the beheadings of Americans in Syria and a bigger U.S. military footprint in Iraq may sway lawmakers to support more defense spending. McCain has repeatedly said he won’t vote for a budget that maintains the scheduled defense cuts.

“Every Republican is highly concerned about military readiness, the fact that we are hollowing out our military,” Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson said at a Bloomberg breakfast Friday with reporters in Washington. “We’re just not ready to meet the challenges we’re going to face.”

Yet some Republicans not only oppose increased funds for domestic programs needed to win Democratic votes, they demand even deeper cuts to offset any relief for the Defense Department.

“It’s very, very important that we preserve the overall spending caps which have been the only success we’ve had in fiscal discipline in a long time around here,” said Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey. In order to pass the House, such an approach will “be required,” Johnson said.

The debate may lead to a new political bind for House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, who last week had to abandon much of his Republican conference and rely on Democratic votes to pass a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans aligned with the small-government Tea Party wanted to use the Homeland Security bill to block President Barack Obama’s immigration policy. On the budget, they support keeping the 2011 spending limits in place.

White House Budget Director Shaun Donovan said Thursday that Obama won’t accept a budget that locks in the 2011 spending caps in defense and non-defense spending. Obama’s budget proposal in February offered a $38 billion increase for national security programs over current budget caps, as well as $37 billion more for domestic programs.

Some Republicans including Graham are proposing a compromise — a reserve fund in the budget that would allow negotiations over defense spending to be held later. Enzi’s proposal may include such an escape valve, said lawmakers briefed on the plan, including Tennessee Senator Bob Corker.

Corker sought to play down the tensions, noting that a budget is a non-binding policy statement anyway.

“The only way to affect military spending is through changing a law,” Corker said. “That’s a detail a lot of people are missing.”

Democrats are making a case for ending the automatic spending reductions.

“I will do my best, as I think every member in our caucus will do, to end” the spending cuts, said Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who is on the Budget Committee.

Neither party likes the 2011 budget-control law, which lawmakers enacted to force themselves to reduce spending after Obama and Republican leaders couldn’t reach a bargain to rein in the national debt.

The spending cuts were intended to be so unacceptable that, to replace them, Democrats would finally agree to trim entitlement programs such as Social Security and Republicans would accept tax increases they ordinarily oppose.

No such deal came about. Instead, the bipartisan budget agreement in December 2013 used offsetting spending cuts and revenue measures, leaving few remaining areas for action outside of the entitlement-program cuts and tax increases that Democrats and Republicans can’t agree to address.

Cotton, 37, a freshman senator, told CNN that month that the U.S. needs to “get back on offense all around the world” against terrorists, including by sending military troops if necessary. During his previous term in the House, he voted against the 2013 budget deal, saying at the time that it “busts the spending caps that took effect just months ago.”

His spokeswoman, Caroline Rabbitt, said he opposed a spending measure in early 2014 in part because it cut military pensions. She said in an e-mail Thursday that Cotton supports easing the defense cuts before October.

The 2011 Budget Control Act was modeled after an earlier attempt by Congress to force itself to reduce spending, the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act.

In the five years the law was in effect, it was frequently skirted as government officials changed economic assumptions to avoid imposing cuts that would be required if the deficit- reduction targets weren’t met.
___
With assistance from Erik Wasson and Roxana Tiron in Washington.

Photo: U.S. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Gage Skidmore via Flickr)

Defense Concerns Revive Obama’s Call To End Sequestration Budget Caps

Defense Concerns Revive Obama’s Call To End Sequestration Budget Caps

By W.J. Hennigan and Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama revived his call Thursday to end federal spending limits linked to a last-resort deficit deal reached nearly four years ago, an appeal that fell squarely in the divide between Republicans in Congress who want to rein in costs and those who want to boost the Pentagon’s budget.

Obama has repeatedly asked Congress to “fully reverse” the so-called sequestration cuts that were part of a 2011 deal and intended to be so unpalatable they would never be enacted. But they took effect in 2013 after lawmakers failed to reach a compromise to avert them. The president’s pleas to lift the restraints have produced only temporary, and partial, changes.

But changing circumstances could give new life to Obama’s requests, at least on defense spending. A shrinking deficit, a new Republican-led Congress and the Pentagon’s need to fund the six-month-old fight against Islamic State militants who continue to seize land and terrorize cities across Iraq and Syria could work in the president’s favor.

“This administration has been very clear, as have our military leaders, about the fact that sequestration is a bad policy,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday. “It’s certainly been bad for our economy, and it’s bad for our national security as well, and that’s why the president proposes to end it.”

Though Republicans are eager to see the Pentagon fully funded, the prospect of lifting the spending caps runs up against another core GOP tenet — limiting government spending. An internal struggle centers on that split between defense and deficit hawks.

“There’s debate going on,” said Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID). “It’s been a standoff, as you know. I have not seen either side running up the white flag.”

The president is asking lawmakers for $561 billion in defense spending, an increase of $38 billion over the congressionally mandated budget caps, which includes the Pentagon’s largest base-line budget request ever. On top of that, the military is set to receive $51 billion in war funding.

Obama’s plan also includes $530 billion in domestic expenditures, an increase of $37 billion over this fiscal year.

Congress’ new Republican majority could be interested in repealing the spending limits, especially on national security. But few Republicans are willing to stomach Obama’s proposed tax increases to pay for his expanded budget.

“Until he gets serious about our long-term spending problem, it’s hard to take him seriously,” said Cory Fritz, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-OH).

Republicans prefer shifting the money around — aiding the Pentagon by cutting into the vast system of domestic programs they say is bloated. In the past, Republicans have suggested cuts to food stamps, Obamacare and programs to help homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, among others.

“The House of Representatives has passed several replacements for the president’s sequester, only to have them ignored,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, the Republican head of the House Armed Services Committee.

Obama’s new plan is unlikely to gain traction, budget analysts say.

“The president is facing an exceedingly difficult situation in Congress,” said Ryan Crotty, the deputy director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It can’t try to increase spending and be everything to everyone. Because, in the end, no one’s going to be happy.”

Still, Obama faces a deadline to ward off the worst of the cuts.

When Obama and Congress initially agreed to slash spending, neither really thought it would happen. The cuts were considered so terrible — $1 trillion worth of deep reductions over the decade, across almost every aspect of government — that they would force the parties to broker a compromise.

But they went into effect after Congress failed to reach deal.

Their full brunt never really took hold, however. A subsequent pact brokered in 2013 between Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) temporarily undid some of the reductions.

That reprieve ends Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year begins. Without agreement by then, Washington could see another major confrontation between the White House and Capitol Hill.

“If Congress rejects my plan and refuses to undo these arbitrary cuts, it will threaten our economy and our military,” Obama wrote in an op-ed in the Huffington Post.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said how the budget plays out would depend on the debate within the Republican caucus over whether to relent on spending in order to support the military.

“Two years ago, there was a recognition among most Republicans that the defense caps should be readjusted, and the result of that was the Ryan-Murray agreement,” he said. “So I would hope that we can move forward on some kind of similar agreement.”

To warn against the negative effects of cuts, top uniformed officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps testified Wednesday on Capitol Hill about how their services would be devastated.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they’re known, said that the spending freeze affected the military’s ability to be ready for battle and slowed the modernization of weapons, which made it impossible to plan.

The last year saw a number of unforeseen national security threats, they said, including the battle against the Islamic State group, a resurgent Russia in Ukraine and other events that demanded military action such as the spread of Ebola in Africa.

“Sequestration will erode the trust that our young men and women in uniform, civil servants and families have in their leadership,” said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., commandant of the Marines. “And the cost of losing that trust is incalculable.”

In a study released in April, the Pentagon outlined the impact of spending cuts, including a reduction in the number of active-duty soldiers in the Army from 470,000 to 420,000. Other effects include the retirement of a Navy aircraft carrier and scrapping the tankers that refuel fighter and bomber jets in midair.

Obama’s open-ended strategy to confront Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria has cost $1.3 billion since it began in August, according to the Pentagon. Although that’s a pittance compared with the total Pentagon budget, or the separate $1.3 trillion spent for the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the costs of intervention are certain to increase under the plan to step up airstrikes, intensify surveillance and conduct counterterrorism operations.

Despite the budget uncertainty, the Pentagon has moved forward with big-ticket purchases that stretch for decades, including a $348 billion nuclear weapons modernization effort that involves new bombers and submarines, as well as the $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet program.

“The Department of Defense has not prepared the services or the contractors for any budget cuts,” said Todd Harrison, defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “They seem to be in denial about the whole thing.”
___

Staff writers Kathleen Hennessey in Washington and Michael A. Memoli in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at a event to promote a new health care program by approving $215 million for a Precision Medicine Initiative designed to help doctors tailor treatments to the individual characteristics of their patients in the East Room of the White House Jan. 30, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS)

How Are Federal Dollars Divided Among States?

How Are Federal Dollars Divided Among States?

By Jake Grovum, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Benefits for Americans, chiefly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, dominate the federal spending that gets transferred to states through grants, contracts and other programs.

But among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, there are stark differences in how the billions spent on these and other initiatives are distributed, according to new data compiled by the Pew Charitable Trusts (which also funds Stateline).

A Stateline analysis of the data shows that some states that receive a relatively small share of federal spending in a given category rely on it heavily.

Vermont, for example, is just 45th among the states and the District of Columbia in grant spending received, at $1.88 billion. But that sum represents a fourth of the federal spending it receives overall. Kansas, meanwhile, gets roughly the same dollar amount in grants as Vermont. But that sum is just 8 percent of the state’s federal spending, because of the state’s heavy reliance on retirement benefits, which comprise more than 40 percent of its share of federal spending.

The variations are even more pronounced in states that receive extremely high levels of federal spending overall, because of their sheer size. California, for instance, receives more than $100 billion in retirement spending; the next-closest state is Florida, with nearly $77 billion. But even California’s huge sum represents just a third of its overall federal spending, where for Florida, it’s 40 percent. California is either the top or second-highest recipient of federal dollars in each of the five categories below.

Overall, the federal government spent more than $3 trillion in the states last year. The spending is spread across five broad categories:

• Retirement benefits such as Social Security, veterans benefits and disability

• Nonretirement benefits such as Medicare, food stamps and unemployment insurance

• Grants that cover Medicaid, transportation, education, housing and other programs

• Contracts for purchases of goods and services, half of which involve the military

• Salaries and wages, including civilian and military personnel

Each state’s mix of federal spending matters in how it advocates for its interests in Congress, a reality more critical during times of budget cuts or other disruptions in Washington — like concern over sequestration and the federal government shutdown last fall.

Some states get more federal dollars in certain categories thanks to simple demographics. Florida, for example, gets the second-highest dollar amount of retirement benefits, behind only California. Others owe their advantage to economic realities: The top five states in contracts, for example, are government- and defense-heavy Virginia, California, Texas, Maryland and the District.

As an example of the variation, the report points to Alaska and Louisiana, where federal spending was equivalent to 18 percent of each state’s gross domestic product last year. But in Louisiana, federal salaries and wages were equal to 1.4 percent of the state’s GDP; in Alaska, it was 4.4 percent. As a result, the report said, “Alaska’s economy would likely be more affected than Louisiana’s by federal salary and wage cuts.”

Different states emerge as most reliant on certain types of federal spending. For retirement benefits, Oregon, Arkansas and New Hampshire all receive more than 41 percent of their federal spending from that category. On the other end are Virginia, Alaska and the District, receiving a fourth or less of their federal spending in that category.

In nonretirement benefits, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey receive more than a third of their federal funding in that category. Again at the other end are Alaska, Virginia and the District, with 15 percent or less.

The grants category presents a mixed picture as well: Vermont, New York and Alaska receive more than a quarter of their federal spending in that category. Florida, Kansas and Virginia are the bottom three, receiving less than 10 percent of their federal dollars this way.

The rankings reverse, however, when it comes to the salaries and wages and contracts categories. Washington, D.C., for instance, gets more than 44 percent of its federal spending from pay to federal employees, followed by Hawaii at nearly a third and Alaska at one-fourth. Wisconsin, Michigan and Connecticut, meanwhile, get less than 5 percent of their federal spending in this category.

Virginia and the District each receive more than third of their federal spending in the form of contracts, followed by Maryland at 28 percent. For the bottom three states, Oregon, Arkansas and Delaware, the share coming from contracts is less than 4 percent.

Taken together, the data present an important state-by-state picture of how federal spending is divvied up among them, said Lindsay Koshgarian, research director at the National Priorities Project, which does its own analysis of federal spending by state. And, she added, the numbers offer insight into how each state benefits from federal spending.

“We all pay taxes and we all do a fair amount of griping about the taxes that we pay,” Koshgarian said. “But we do, in fact, get something for those taxes.”

Photo: Ervins Strauhmanis via Flickr