Talk:2013 United States budget sequestration

2013 versus the out years
I believe the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities got it wrong. (See the article section Other budget projections. This section is based solely on one CBPP article.)

In the first place, the CBPP article is almost a year old. During the period from May to December, no other source that I'm aware of even mentioned the large differences between 2013 and 2014 that CBPP was talking about. The article contains a note saying that CBPP will update the analysis but apparently they never did.

All of this makes the article suspicious.

These are the pertinent parts of the Budget Control Act of 2011: (Sorry for the length.)

As you can see, the act does not talk about appropriations committees, defense or otherwise. What it does say is that, for 2014 and onward, there is to be no difference between security and non-security spending. Remember that virtually all defense spending is discretionary and and the only mandatory appropriations are those like Medicare and Health care fraud and abuse control which are added by specific language in the act. In other words, the same reduction percent should apply across the board once we get over FY2013.

I think that the author of the CBPP article made a mistake. He thought "discretionary" meant going back to appropriations committees. I think it simply meant the accounts that were grouped under the category "discretionary". Or maybe it means that the appropriations committees will determine the breakdown by accounts and activities but each sequestration will automatically control the amounts by applying a reduction percent that will affect anything. After all, they have to leave something for the appropriations committees to do. Does that make sense?

Can anyone find one or more other sources that say the out year sequestration categories will be largely controlled by the appropriations committees? I'm worried about an entire section being based on one old source article. Thoughts, comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The updated analysis has become available, if anyone wants to update the section. It's at Sequestration by the Numbers.
 * I think how this works is that the BCA gives a cap on the defense and non-defense amounts. If the FY2014 appropriations legislation comes out less than those caps, then there is no sequestration, but if they exceed the caps, the sequestration cuts everything an equal percentage to bring the amounts down to the cap levels.  Since the appropriations committees control the FY2014 legislation, they can in principle decide how to apportion the cuts resulting from the lowered caps.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Did Sequestration Cut Spending?
The last sentence of paragraph four of this article states However, sequestration "cuts" and mathematical savings use base-line budgeting and do not reflect any real decrease in spending. This statement is somewhat unclear (at least to me), but seems to reflect the author's view that the only real cuts, those that don't necessitate quotation marks, are those that result in absolute decreases in spending, rather than relative decreases. Whether as a result of sequestration or other factors, Federal spending in 2013 was less, in an absolute sense, than spending in 2012. So this sentence, it seems to me, is false for 2013. Agencies did see real cuts, in the absolute sense, and did have to either reduce staff or furlough staff for short periods of time. I'd suggest striking this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chef0757 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. Do you have a source we can reference that says that spending was less in 2013 than 2012 in an absolute sense? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Economic Effects NPOV
There are two problems with this section: 1) Those quoted all hold that the sequester will damage economic growth. This is not a universally held opinion, and those stating contra should be enumerated. 2) This section only states predictions of the sequester on economic growth. Recording empirical results would be more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Sequester (2013" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequester_(2013&redirect=no Sequester (2013] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)