Cutting Through the Rhetoric on Defense Sequestration | Benjamin H. Friedman and Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Commentary

Cutting Through the Rhetoric on Defense Sequestration | Benjamin H. Friedman and Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta repeated his warning that such cuts would lead to a “demoralized and hollow force.” One of his deputies has called the cuts the equivalent of “self-castration.” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina recently warned that the cuts will “destroy” the Department of Defense.'

'In nominal terms, sequestration is not even a cut; it would see nonwar military spending grow by about 10 percent from today, as opposed to the 18 percent the administration wants.'

'Adjusting for the CBO’s predictions for inflation, sequestration would allow the military budget to remain almost flat. The process would leave the 2021 Pentagon with purchasing power equivalent to what it had in 2006, leaving out the wars. That would be a bigger budget in real terms than what the U.S. spent on the military at the height of the Cold War.'

'Because the Budget Control Act leaves war spending uncapped, Congress can effectively take defense programs off the books, evading caps by declaring them to be war-related. Already, the defense appropriation for 2012 includes that gimmick, and it can be expected to continue as long as the Budget Control Act is in place and there are wars to fund.'

'sequestration will not occur until January 2013' ... 'with the president’s signature, Congress can always undo previously passed legislation, including the Budget Control Act and sequestration'

'If the military were to agree to come up with a 2013 defense budget that spends $492 billion or less — the amount it would have after sequestration — it could avoid sequestration while allowing defense officials to choose which programs to cut. Under this scenario, the administration could ask Congress to alter the Budget Control Act to spread the planned savings over time, avoiding a sudden bite.

The extra time could be put to good use identifying not just which programs to cut, but how to reform strategy accordingly. Such a strategic shift could allow the Pentagon to achieve savings equivalent to sequestration while avoiding its worst features, and might even improve American security in the process. Unfortunately, given the cultivated hysteria about defense sequestration, those are discussions that we are unlikely to have.'