Was Sequestration The Weakest Attempt To Get American Spending Under Control Reducing Domestic And

What's so wrong with sequestration, i.e., across the board budget cuts equal by percentage for every program?

This answer to another question may be useful in framing the "household budget" problem: Does the U.S. Federal government have a spending problem?Basically, it's inaccurate and intellectually lazy to analogize the federal budget to that of a household.The real reason why the sequestration cuts would be such a bad idea is because any kind of deficit reduction in the current economic climate would be a bad idea.As Joshua Engel mentioned, interest rates on T-bills are low, but that's not the most impressive fact: Real treasury yields on a 5-year bond are less than -1% (Daily Treasury Real Yield Curve Rates). This means that investors are literally paying the federal government to hold on to their money.If there actually existed a fear among real investors that the US was taking on such a colossal debt burden that it posed an imminent danger of economic collapse, they would be taking their money out of government bonds in droves. We don't see this happening because there is no danger posed by the current deficit.There are no gains to be realized by deficit reduction. The fantasy that government spending is crowding out private investment is belied by the fact that the private sector is sitting on $1.5 trillion in cash, mostly out of a perceived lack of demand in the marketplace. Inflation is low and stable, so as long as it stays that way, it makes more sense to hold off on investing until either demand improves or inflation rises, driving up the cost of holding onto extra cash. In the short term, cutting government spending or raising taxes will actually hurt demand and stymie inflation, by reducing consumer spending and increasing price competition over those fewer consumer dollars. No private company with anyone approaching sane management is going to go rushing in for a slice of that bonanza .This is monetary policy theory 101. We have known all of this in some form for about 150 years. The only reason you hear any noise about deficits is because there are people out there with an agenda who equate any expansionary monetary and fiscal policy with irresponsibility.*TL;DR*: The sequester is a bad idea because 1) austerity of any kind would hurt the economy in the current environment, and 2) sequesters are also bad ways to implement austerity.

What is happening with the U.S. federal budget sequestration?

See my other answers on this topic for more context.  In a nutshell, John Boehner has abdicated control of the House to the Tea Party.   Virtually everyone agrees he could bring a clean 'continuing resolution' (aka CR) to the House floor and pass it easily with  all of the Democrats and a huge number of Republicans voting for it.  Of course he'd be ending his tenure as Speaker, or so the thinking goes.  However, it now appears, thanks to some good conservative reporting from Bryon York (York is a conservative who is def no fan of Obama or Obamacare but is also a great reporter ), that Boehner could not only pass the clean CR but he could pass it and get a majority of his own caucus to vote for it!!   In other words, a minority of the majority in the House is holding up the CR and shutting down the government.  Here is York in his own words and reporting "I've been trying to figure this out," says one House Republican of the current standoff over funding the government. "It seems to me that Boehner could do whatever he wants with Democrats on the floor and still get about 180 or 190 of us. So why doesn't he do that?"The lawmaker was referring to the fact that a large majority of the House's 232 Republicans, plus a large majority of its 200 Democrats, would likely support a "clean" continuing resolution to fund the government but not defund, delay, or limit Obamacare. If House Speaker John Boehner were to bring such a bill to the floor, it would probably pass with a majority of Republican as well as Democratic votes. But Boehner doesn't do it.York goes on to suggest that there are likely only between 30 and 50 House members who are really committed to the current course - well under a quarter of the House GOP caucus!   A high estimate is 80.  You heard right, this fight is being waged by no more than 80 members of the House against  the rest of the government combined!! And Boehner is siding with the at most 80 holdouts to save his speakership but pretending that it is the Senate's fault.   Remember this the next time you hear some pundit say that Obama and the Democrats are the ones that need to compromise here.    On Capitol Hill, the Obamacare fight is no longer about Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com

Has the US become weaker since Barack Obama became president?

As opposed to the period before Barack Obama became President when... our troops were being killed thousands of miles away in a war of choice that didn't benefit America in the slightest? the Administration ridiculed UN inspectors for failing to find what didn't exist in Iraq? Osama ben Laden was releasing more videos than Katy Perry? our alliance with Western Europe was frayed to the breaking point by an Administration that ridiculed those nations that wisely urged caution? the dominant political party in the United States found it productive and imaginative to rename French fries "freedom" fries? massive demonstrations occurred in London to protest the visit of an American President?  Londoners March Against War, Busha flooded American city struggled for days without federal government assistance and the man in charge of FEMA was hailed by the President for doing "a heckuva job"?By any measurement, the United States is stronger today in year seven of Barack Obama's Presidency than it was in year seven of George W. Bush's Presidency.

2013 Budget Sequestration: Will Obama end up a disgraced President?

As I have discussed the sequestration Anonymous's answer to Why did Barack Obama lie about the genesis of the 2011 budget deal that included the sequester discussed in last night's debate? the President clearly pushed this idea. He agreed with many that the mere thought of such a drastic reduction in spending would prevent the sequestration from EVER happening. Or so it was thought. But it has happened, so where do we go from here? Taxes have gone up. Food and energy costs have gone up. Everyone (read the public) has had to adjust their living standards.Now the question remains and is hotly debated: Do we have a spending problem or a tax problem?If we have a tax problem it is due to an overly complex, loophole ridden tax code.If we have a spending problem it is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security (retirement and disability) programs. They are all unfunded, and approaching bankruptcy. There are also budget issues with DoD, ACA (Obama Care) and interest payments on our debt. Fraud waste and abuse of government programs are widely known.So, here we are. Tax problem? Spending Problem? And the President's legacy. Tax problem has recently been addressed, and top marginal rates went to 39.6%. Problems solved.Spending problem is obviously the problem. If a 2% reduction in the increased proposed spending on a $16.6T existing debt causes heartburn for the government, then one can only assume that spending is their problem! Spending is a good idea when you don't have to borrow to maintain your life style. When you borrow 40% of your budget (read as the Federal Budget) there is a problem. The President's legacy will remain fine, so long as those who voted for him continue to demand government services under the mantra of " Debt doesn't matter, for now".It is NOW, and the words "for now" have arrived! It is hyped that sequestration will cause pain. Pain for whom? The pain is being felt in D.C. since a 2% "cut" is catastrophic!!! It is not. It is needed.

What is sequestration?

Sequestration, in its  most recent context, refers to a series of across the board cuts to the increase in federal spending that started to take effect on March 1, 2013.  These cuts were mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which passed the House 269 to 161 and the Senate 74-26.  President Obama then signed it into law.  The Budget Control Act was meant as a compromise solution to the debt ceiling crises of 2011, specficially the differences between the two parties as to whether and under what terms to raise the debt ceiling. The cuts are to be implemented in the event Congress could not come up with an alternative solution to deficit reduction which so far they have not.   The cuts are split evenly (by dollar amounts) between the defense and non-defense categories.  Many major programs such as Social Security , Medicaid  and pay for federal employees and benefits for veterans are exempt from the automatic cuts.  Medicare spending will be reduced but by less of a percentage than the other programs.   Most although not all,  agree that the impact of the sequester on the economy will be negative .  The CBO claims that it will reduce 2013 economic growth by about 0.6 percentage points (from 2.0% to 1.4%) and cause the loss of about 750,000 jobs by year-end.  Both the President and Congressional leaders from both parties have said that more targeted cuts would be preferable to the broad based approach of the sequester but there is widespread disagreement as to what those cuts should be.  The President has also insisted that any cuts be offset by increases in revenue, something the GOP has refused to consider.  Thus, the sequester has gone into effect despite the fact that most, but by no means all, members of Congress and the White House, think it is a bad idea that is harmful to the economy.  As a result, the sequester has become a symbol for many of the breakdown and failure in  Washington. Estimated Impact of Automatic Budget Enforcement Procedures Specified in the Budget Control Act Automatic Reductions in Government Spending -- aka SequestrationHow the Across-the-Board Cuts in the Budget Control Act Will Work

When will Trump work on lowering the U.S. Public (national) debt?

My take on this is atypical, but I have worked at the top end of the capital markets for over 25 years, and I’ve met Trump. So it is arguably a more informed view than at least a few of the others here.The national debt, doesn’t really concern me nearly as much as the processes by which we arrived at it. Which is to say the problem isn’t the money we’ve spent, but the money we’re planning to spend. As bad as our national debt may look, it’s not that big a deal. But our ‘unfunded liabilities’ should truly scare anyone who looks at it.We have promised to pay far, far more in federal spending, than we can ever hope to recover in taxes during the same period. And there is no incentive for any politician to address this. Not Obama (who didn’t address it) not Trump, not anyone. It is political death to try.But it’s more serious than that.A US Federal Bond and Note are considered ‘riskless’. And as a riskless instrument, they are the foundation of all the leverage used by every financial institution in the global economy. And that’s an awful lot of leverage.Do you remember the Jenga scene from “The Big Short” where Ryan Gosling builds a jenga tower to explain how bad mortgages are the core of the credit market? Well in that scene US treasury debt is the the building that the table sits in. It is the thing we build everything else on. And if the day arrives where we begin to wonder if US debt is really going to be paid, it will cause a crisis which makes the 2008 financial crisis look like a debate about accounting rules.I don’t want to overstate this issue. The US debt is riskless for very good reason today and it will continue to be for a long time. But on our current path, it won’t stay that way forever. So it must be addressed.But I don’t think Trump is the right guy to do so, except in ways that don’t seem like he’s talking about the debt. I think the best thing he can do is simply ignore the issue for a few more years (like the last 5 presidents before him have) and hope that a new solution reveals itself.On this issue in particular, we need someone with a great deal more verbal finesse than Trump has, and someone who the press is less likely to adamantly oppose.As it stands today, if Trump invented a cure for cancer, tomorrow the press will be talking about how helpful cancer is. Our national debt is too dangerous a topic to withstand that kind of propaganda onslaught.

A leftist supports less military spending. Isn't the military too important of a trait to be neglected? Why does a liberal do that?

It is not only 'leftists' or 'liberals' who support decreased military spending, though most leftists certainly do.Less spending does not mean neglecting the military. With a defense budget in excess of $600 billion per annum, I should think there is quite a bit of wiggle room toward more responsible defense spending without broaching anything like neglect—possibly a few hundred billion dollars a year of it. (Aren't conservatives the ones generally most loudly in favor of more responsible government spending? Ah, but of course I forget: it's fine to throw money at missile projects and other private contractors, just not at education, struggling families, and social services.)However, it must be acknowledged that reductions in defense spending translates to economic realities for civilians; for example, the vibrant and relatively affluent city in which I live would suffer quite notably from serious reductions in defense spending, because the Defense Department is the lifeblood of this city and others like it. Simply turning down the money flow with no further adjustments could be immediately devastating to big sectors of the economy, because since World War II the defense industry has been a pillar of the American economy (that is fundamentally what needs changing, not just dollar amounts). So: it's not a simple issue, and we could use more proposals from the left which acknowledge and treat the attendant problems rather than just rote opposition to military spending.