The United States sequester forces politicians to focus their goals by eliminating a crucial negotiation tool- time. Sequestration gets rid of the possibility of choosing to wait as a power move in pursuing one's own policy goals. The two houses have already failed to meet two deadlines, and must now agree to something before March 27th, or some offices of the federal government will stop operating immediately. We have already felt the effects of this phenomenon in our personal lives, receiving emails from the administration letting us know about cuts to their budget forcing the elimination or reduced funding of our student groups. But out of this phenomenon that is regarded as a failure we get to see different actors in a more transparent light, and their true priorities are more visible. Even well known agendas will be easier to achieve with this forced lack of funding.
Obama has already made a move to support research for cleaner fuels instead of continuing oil and gas leases Obama's $2 Billion Plan. And although this sequester is partially caused by a refusal of house republicans to compromise on the debt ceiling, the shock seems to have made an impact on some Republicans who have now expressed interest in defense spending cuts which could mean shutting many American bases worldwide. There could be some potentially devastating effects for America's economy in the long term, as some crucial research projects are being shut down and drastically cut. This is significant when you consider the shrinking number of low-skilled jobs in the United States and our general direction towards a service economy. This may have an impact on trade because it may make the American market slightly less attractive, but as we have discussed in class, the research to marketing time in America is always desirable.
The real question we face is whether the effects of this measure are extreme in the short or long term. We will be able to predict with more certainty at the end of the month when we know if the two parties have come to an agreement.
I concur with the assertions made by Abby, about the elimination of most powerful tool utilized within US politics - time. The recent sequester did force the procedural abandonment of brinkmanship within the legislative branch. The presence of a partial government shutdown may be the necessary motivating force in order to create a quasi-bipartisan resolution. Partisan interests, the unmovable forces that drives modern Washington landscape, may need to yield for the collaborative process that must be undertaken in order to rectify a situation such as this.
ReplyDeleteTo further Abby’s assertions, the path back towards governmental solvency will be filled with bumps, pit-falls, and resentment. But the endeavor must be undertaken, in order to vanquish the recurring specter of a government without an allocated capital base in which to function properly. The instability of the federal government affects all aspects of American life. From the private sector employee, who saw their marginal tax rate increase, to the bio-med scientist, who will see federal grant money vanish from under their microscopes.
Hopefully political agendas will fall by the way side in comparison to the economically dire situation that the US faces.
This article from the Brookings Institute lists many ways we can create a smarter budget that lower costs for the short and long term.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/federal-budget-hamilton
One part I noticed was creating a carbon tax so they will be able to get rid of other regulations that are holding businesses back from producing more. A carbon tax could also be a selling point for compromise to signing off on the Keystone Pipeline XL. The tax would allow us to get rid of some subsidies that are costing the government a lot of money. The carbon tax will allow us to lower corporate income tax rates which will create incentive for companies to hire more.
I read somewhere recently that although the sequester is proposing to cut spending by about 2.5%, the US is set to increase spending by about 17% currently. So the cuts will end up scaling that back to about 14.5% of an increase which is still a large jump in spending by the US government. The unfortunate part of a sequester (sequestration? I can never remember how to use the word...) is that it invariably forces some programs which people depend on to lose money. One part of spending cuts that I agree with is the way that it provides the government with incentives to consolidate programs that overlap and essentially waste money. I'm also a firm believer that research and development is one of the most important spending types that the government engages in though. As for defense spending, I know that Robert Gates wanted to reduce some of the bloat by reducing unnecessary spending and in turn streamlining the military. I don't worry much about the defense part, seeing as China has one refurbished aircraft carrier while the United States I believe has around 10 of the most advanced carriers in the world. But the jobs aspect of those cuts is a bit more complicated of a topic. Whatever happens, I'm just glad that I'm not involved in any of the decision-making because it seems like that kind of responsibility would contribute to ulcers and poor health in general..
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post Abby. Here is a link to an article written by Mr. Krugman a week before the sequester in which he humorously bashes Simpson and Bowles. He also takes his customary jabs at congressional Republicans. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/krugman-sequester-of-fools.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteIt was not my intention to bash Republicans, and I certainly hope my tone does not match Krugman's in any capacity. I recognize the responsibility of both parties for the lack of compromise and productivity. I also meant to praise/acknowledge the willingness of some Republicans to compromise on defense spending cuts which is something they have been dogmatic about in the past. Thanks for sharing that article, it is quite amusing.
DeleteTo answer your question I believe that this is primary a long term goal with short term effect, which is quite something that is ok for Obama to allow since he is already on his second term he can do these kinds of policies since he has no political survival thoughts. This policy may be a very useful and successful in the long run but until that there will be some disagreement among some interest groups in the short run.
ReplyDeleteI think Mateus brings up an interesting point. Should Obama care that his approval is way down in light of the policies surrounding the sequestration? While the Republican's hold steady? This article by the Washington Post breaks down the numbers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/13/president-obamas-sequester-stumble/. At the end of the day I think it does matter, perception is everything when it comes to the economy and if perception is that Obama is implementing policies that will damage the economy then I doubt they will be successful
ReplyDelete