Skip to main content

SOMETIMES what I write is really good, but I never know it until well after the fact, in retrospect. Last summer I was feeling especially aggravated by dumb Republicans in Congress, so I made a stab at understanding the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( the debt limit deal), and then wrote about it in September. The entire blog post is reproduced below the fold, but text only. If you want to see the photos, links and graphs, you can click to the original. It's not perfect, but that's mainly because I still don't understand the damn nightmare called "The Budget Control Act of 2011."

The grand budget bamboozle
September 20, 2011

bam·boo·zle (tr.v.)
Informal. To take in by elaborate methods of deceit; hoodwink.
Variations: bamboozled, bamboozling, bamboozles

The Sting

Seeking a cultural metaphor to encapsulate the debt ceiling standoff of July and August, one need look no farther than the 1973 Paul Newman – Robert Redford classic film, The Sting. In that movie, a vagabond group of petty criminals band together to right a wrong, and to steal from the rich and murderous crime boss for the benefit of the poor. The Sting is a Robin Hood story executed by means of finesse and intelligence, rather than with swords and force,  with an impressive display of of legerdemain and over-the-top showmanship. Nobody actually gets killed or injured as justice is dispensed.

The audience understands at the movie’s end how badly crime boss Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw) was out-foxed, but Lonnegan himself is merely confused. suspicious, and hustled. It will take him some time to understand that the Redford and Newman characters picked his pocket of half a million dollars, and got away with it.

Photo: Obama arrives in Chicago August 3, 2011

Budget Control Act of 2011
(P.L. 112-25, S. 365, 125 Stat. 239, enacted August 2, 2011)
Full text from the Government Printing Office

This is the name given to the deal enacted on August 2, 2011 that raised the Federal debt limit and staved off the Republican threat of self-inflicted sovereign default. It is a difficult bill to read and understand, and it contains several parts in addition to raising the debt limit. Two Hundred two Congressional Republicans, seventy percent of them, voted for this bill. It might be fair to say that not one of them understood in full detail what the Budget Control Act of 2011 (“The Act”) actually provided. If the Republicans  had understood it, they would never have voted for it.

Cut, cap and no balance

A salient feature of The Act is the limit it places on Federal discretionary spending for fiscal years 2012 through 2021. The Federal budget concept of “discretionary spending” is adjusted by The Act by specifically including the following items in the working totals.

Overseas contingency operations and global war on terrorism;
Continuing disability reviews under Social Security;
Health care fraud abuse control program (account 75–8393–0–7–12 571), and;
Disaster funding.
Some of these are nominally mandatory spending items and have caps of their own imposed by The Act.

For fiscal years 2012 and 2013, The Act expresses its basic adjusted discretionary spending limits in two categories:  Security and non-security. The spending limits for all subsequent years (2014 – 2021) are aggregate sums.

The term ‘security category’ includes discretionary appropriations associated with agency
budgets for:
The Department of Defense;
The Department of Homeland Security;
The Department of Veterans Affairs;
The National Nuclear Security Administration;
The intelligence community management account (95–0401–0–1–054), and;
All budget accounts in budget function 150 (international affairs).
The ‘non-security category’ is everything else.

For fiscal year 2012, The Act caps security spending at $684 billion, and non-security at $359 billion. For fiscal year 2013 these numbers are, respectively, $686 billion and $361 billion. At first glance, one might think that these spending caps are weighted in favor of defense spending, and against domestic spending. That’s what I thought at first, but digging into the budget numbers tells a different story. The ‘security category’ is cut by a percentage amount greater than  2 to 1 compared to the ‘non-security category” .

Hard numbers

Using numbers provided by the Office of Management and Budget, Public Budget Database – Budget Authority, it is possible to add up the amounts that comprise the ‘security category,’ as defined by The Act.

FY 2006 – $629 billion
FY 2007 – $727 billion
FY 2008 – $812 billion
FY 2009 – $824 billion
FY 2010 – $857 billion
FY 2011 – $879 billion
FY 2012 – $684 billion
FY 2013 – $686 billion

By capping the FY 2012 ‘security category’ spending at $684 billion, Congress has agreed to roll that collection of budget items back to pre-2007 levels, in aggregate.  It is a 22.2% decrease from the $879 billion FY 2011 funding levels. This compares to The Act’s 10.4% reduction in the ‘non-security category,’ from $400 billion to $359 billion.

The trick

The discretionary spending limits The Act imposes are automatic, by a process called sequestration. This mechanism was perfected by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, also known as the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act.  Since the mechanism of sequestration  makes flat percentage cuts across all non-exempt budget categories, regardless of priorities, it seems extreme.  Congress so far has been unwilling  to ever let it happen. When faced with the possibility of sequestration in the past, Congress has always repealed the budget caps.

Fiscal year 2011 ends September 30, but the Congressional appropriation process is far from complete. A Joint Resolution that continues government functions  beyond October 1 at the 2011 levels has been discussed, but the sequestration process will ultimately kick in to arbitrarily remove nearly $200 billion from the ‘security category.’ It could be an administrative and political nightmare. The best solution would be for Congress to devise an omnibus budget bill that incorporates the required spending limits.

The next trick

The Act also requires a Congressional ‘super-committee’ to devise a bill that eliminates at least an additional $1.2 trillion  of the budget deficit by FY 2021. If this deficit reduction bill is not enacted into law by January 15, 2012, The Act imposes a different set of discretionary spending caps for FY 2013 through 2021 for the ‘security’ and the ‘non-security’ category, but it also redefines the meaning of the categories. The net effect of the change is to focus spending cuts on he Defense Department, if Congress fails in its mission.

Smoke and mirrors

The Budget Control Act of 2011 is a nightmare to read, and if you believe any part of the Republican claims they “got what they wanted, ” or media claims that Obama capitulated, it makes it that much more difficult. What Republican wants to cut defense spending by 22%, but to cut domestic spending by only 10%?

Did Obama eat the Republican’s lunch?

After noodling the numbers in shocked disbelief for several weeks, that’s how it looks to me. If anyone has a better understanding of this legislative horror, I want to know about it.

Photo: Barack and Rham swapping tall tales in Chicago - August 3, 2011.

I have to set this aside now for a while to let my brain cool off, but I have to say it looks like President Obama took the Republicans to the cleaners during the debt limit negotiations, and then he kept his mouth shut about it.


How much have Republicans screwed themselves?

0%0 votes
25%1 votes
0%0 votes
25%1 votes
50%2 votes

| 4 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So, now, every time a U.S. voter sees anything related to the Olympics, they are reminded: Romney . . . Burma . . . slave labor. Nice.

    by tomwfox on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 09:58:20 AM PDT

  •  DIFFERENT POV (0+ / 0-)

    I think we can get by on a defense budget that's only as large as the next two or three countries combined, and not a couple dozen.

    The idea that the defense budget can never be trimmed, even to, horrors, 2006/2007 levels, carries with it the implication that every single dollar being spent there is being spent efficiently already.  I have a subtle hunch that this may not be the case.

    Perhaps being forced to confront a budget constraint, might usher in a new era of doing more with less, some can-do spirit, some improved efficiency.

    I don't mind seeing the MIC taste a little bit of the "uncertainty" that the middle class has been swimming in for the last decade or more.

    I really don't see it as payback for Republicans, I see it as a step towards a more efficient government, and a smaller deficit.

  •  A budget is a plan. Anything one (0+ / 0-)

    puts in a plan is wishful thinking.
    What really counts in Washington is appropriations -- what is going to be spent.  Nobody looks at what is actually spent.  So, while there is something called "reconciliation," that refers to the House and Senate coming to a sort of agreement, nobody bothers to reconcile what is spent with what was planned.
    The federal budget is a scam.
    "Balanced budget" has a nice alliterative ring to it.
    Accounts are to be balanced because, at some time in the past, accountants thought that counting things twice, once as credits and another as debits, would provide more certainty that the sums were correct.
    A budget (plan for the future) can be balanced by stuffing any old thing into the income and expense columns.  Private corporations make the sides come out even by including a catch-all commonly known as "good will."
    So, the balanced budget kerfuffle is an annual charade which lets people in Congress pretend to be paying attention, when they're not. It's also an excuse for punishing non-compliant constituents without letting on how it's done.

    The denizens of Capitol Hill are masters of deceit.  Their sole objective is to keep themselves in their seats.  That's why incumbency is touted as a virtue--like crowing about still being a virgin.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 10:56:56 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site