Shows & Panels
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- The Big Data Dilemma
- Carrying On with Continuity of Operations
- Connected Government
- Constituent Servicing
- Continuous Monitoring: Tools and Techniques for Trustworthy Government IT
- The Cyber Imperative
- Cyber Solutions for 2013 and Beyond
- Expert Voices
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal IT Challenge
- Federal Tech Talk
- Mission-critical Apps in the Cloud
- The Path from Legacy Systems
- The Real Deal on Digital Government
- The Reality of Continuous Monitoring... Is Your Agency Secure?
- Veterans in Private Sector: Making the Transition
Shows & Panels
Analysis: Sequester unlikely, but major Defense cuts ahead
Thursday - 1/19/2012, 12:13pm EST
"What we've already seen from both the administration and the Pentagon is they're not going to provide a budget at sequester levels," said Russel Rumbaugh, co-director of budgeting for foreign affairs and defense at the Stimson Center. "They're going to come in at the levels mandated by the Budget Control Act, the debt deal signed last August."
Rumbaugh told The Federal Drive with Tom Temin that he thinks DoD is on the right course.
"Sequester is a very unlikely occurrence," he said. "Sequester was a very effective tool throughout the 1990s, when we did successfully reduce our deficit and did successfully bring our budget into surplus."
Russel Rumbaugh, co-director of budgeting for foreign affairs and defense, Stimson Center (Stimson Center photo)
Since sequester was created, it's been triggered five times. Once, in 1986, sequester was triggered and a portion of funds was taken away. But in three of the remaining four occurrences, Congress waived off or modified the sequester. The sequester that occurred in 1991 did take money from the budget — just $1.4 million of the entire domestic spending, which was less than 2,000th of percent.
"Nobody — the Pentagon, either party in Congress, either house in Congress &mdash really wants the sequester to take effect," Rumbaugh said. "It's a very bad budgeting mechanism. It's intentionally designed to be bad." If the sequester were to kick in, it would mean a 10-percent cut in spending in one year, not just from the DoD budget but the domestic budget as well.
Just because the sequester is bad and it's unlikely to occur, Rumbaugh said, doesn't meant there won't be a lot of talk about it in the press and in Congress. The big problem will be how long it takes for the actual deal to emerge that takes away sequester.
In the meantime, the White House and the Pentagon are dealing with the new fiscal reality. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has already announced major cuts in spending and the removal of two battalions of troops from Europe.
"A strategic rationale to reduce ground forces, that's much bolder than saying 'Hey, we had a temporary increase and I'm going to take it away,' or 'Hey, let's try to find some administrative savings and shut down a couple of back offices,'" Rumbaugh said. "But rather say, 'We really can get by by a smaller ground force.'"