Jury is not out on sequester

The first day of March heralded the beginning of the 2013 sequester. While the word “sequester” has an academic or arboricultural ring to it (semester? sequoia?), the real meaning and implementation of the concept is far more misleading. Essentially, this sequester has been a long-time plan to slash national costs by cutting government expenditures across the board. In theory, a sequester sounds amazing—reduction of budget and discretionary spending! A libertarian dream! But the realities of such a move are less than idyllic.

In some ways, the economic roller coaster that this country has been on since the 2007-2009 financial crisis has gotten even worse in recent months. The deadline of limiting the debt ceiling having come and gone from December’s fiscal cliff to the sequester, it might be fair to say that people are becoming numb to what’s happening to the economy. Or, more specifically, what the government is doing to the economy. With every apparently earth-shattering critical point that the economy reaches, Congress steps in with a supposed solution that either benefits the economy very little, doesn’t help at all or, in fact, makes economic recovery much more difficult. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office reported, “In the absence of sequestration … GDP growth would be about 0.6 percentage points faster during [the 2013] calendar year, and the equivalent of about 750,000 more full-time jobs would be created or retained by the fourth quarter.”

In some ways, it seems that the U.S. government hasn’t fully learned its lesson from the Great Depression. Any historian or economist will tell you that government intervention into the economy slowed recovery the most during the 1930s. Cutting down extraneous budgets and departments is a great first step, but execution is key.

With approximately 35 percent of the proposed budget cuts affecting military operations, the military-industrial complex will be among the first to see the effects of the sequester. As the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan end, it makes sense that the spending going toward defense be brought down to pre-war levels. Even recruiters are acting less aggressively to enlist fresh blood. In September 2011, the CBO estimated that between 2013 and 2021, military spending would be brought down from 10 percent to 8.5 percent, which they predicted would result in a saving of $454 billion over those eight years. As someone who is very close with current and former members of the military, I have heard countless stories about the inappropriate uses of funding. While it’s my sincere hope that the defense budget cuts simply increase efficiency and cut down on waste, it’s my fear that the sequester will do more to hurt our nation’s poorest people than it will help the economy.

Without a solid plan to reduce spending costs, all that will come of the sequester will be alternative methods to cutting budgets or further taxation to balance out the current cuts. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the sequestration cuts could mean even less funding for schools in Nevada, which could mean even larger class sizes with even fewer teachers. Non-discretionary funding—such as Social Security, welfare and veteran’s benefits—are still maintained under the sequestration, but military and other federal employees—including the Nevada National Guard and air travel workers—could be forced to take unpaid furloughs. Meanwhile, Congress’ $174,000 salaries will not be touched throughout this sequester. Perhaps it would be easier to submit to radical budget cuts if it wasn’t a “do as I say, not as I do” situation. Cinching one’s metaphorical belt for the sake of a business or household is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to be expected to go without when Congress isn’t willing to do the same.