Talk:2013 United States budget sequestration/Archive 1

Discretionary?
The article contains references to "domestic discretionary spending" as half of the sequester. However, CBO's table on page 14 of "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023" (and other sources) say that discretionary nondefense is only $28.7B while non-discretionary spending is $13.9B (for a nondefense total of $42.7B). Since this amounts to one dollar out of every three, I suggest that the word "discretionary" should not be used in this context. Comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Change in sequestration amount: from $110B to $85B
I understand that $24 billion in new ATRA taxes was used to offset monies from sequestration. That reduces the yearly amount to about $85B and should reduce the 10-year amount of over $1T by a like amount, say to something around $850B. I also have heard that the DoD portion for FY 2013 is $46B which would make the domestic portion $39B.

Am I wrong? If so then why are all the news reports saying $85 billion? It was $110B for FY2013; what's happenned to it? I haven't looked up reliable sources for these amounts but they should exist somewhere. There should be a CBO or OMB report saying what are the new sequestration amounts for both defense and non-defense for each year. Even if these sources say that $1T is the correct 10-year amount then the $85B should be explained. However, if they do talk about different sequestration amounts then the figures in second paragraph of the lead and in the entire CBO projections section should be revised. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the difference was because January and February cuts were not made. It is 10 months of cuts vs. 12 months that is the difference. I'll see what I can dig up.Farcaster (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that all amounts of the sequestration will have to be made by September 30, 2013, the last day of fiscal year 2013. The difference is due to new taxes and a revision to the Roth IRA rules contained in the ATRA: $109.3B (original estimate) minus $24B (tax increase) equals $85.3B. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that says the $85B is cuts. This isn't going to move the $1.2T estimate very much. CBPP-How Big are the Sequestration CutsFarcaster (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I think it is going to move the $1.2T estimate significantly. It reduced 2013 by 20%. Why shouldn't it reduce the other years by an equal amount?
 * I think the original source is the CBO report here. So far as I can tell, if CBO estimated the years 2014 thru 2021, they aren't saying. Can you find anything about these out years? If not, shouldn't we couch the language about these years in less precise lingo? (Like: Calcuations made before the ATRA increased taxes said that over the 2013-2022 period...) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Table 1-7 in The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 To 2023 contains the out years but in outlays rather than authority. Therefore I changed the 2013-2022 budget authority amounts (based on a 2011 CBO report) to the 2014-2023 amounts in actual disbursements. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary non-defense claim incorrect?
I'm not sure how to reconcile the article's claim that non-defense discretionary spending will stay the same from 2012 to 2013, with news reports that there will be across-the-board cuts to non-defense discretionary programs that could reduce staffing at national parks, airport towers, etc. -- Beland (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Non-defense spending will be about the same as inflation under the sequestration. However, many programs would have grown significantly beyond inflation if we did not have the sequester. For example, Medicare would have grown way beyond the general cost-of-living index both for the enhanced increase in medical expenses (which is way beyond other, non-medical expenses) and the new spending which would come online in the period 2013-2021 due to laws that have already (pre-2013) been passed. The sequestration limits Medicare spending to an increase of 2% per year. Since we are already contractually committed to work at national parks and airports, we have bar rest rooms and furlough employees. This is my understanding but I may be wrong.
 * Farcaster, you know more about this stuff than I do. Could you (or anyone) add a (properly sourced) paragraph to the non-defense discretionary spending section, explaining all this? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've redone the CBO discretionary section with a better source document. This shows the decline in spend more clearly. The CBO February 2013 Budget & Economic Outlook and its "Additional data" supporting excel tables have the numbers. I couldn't find a CBO table with the 2013 discretionary amounts split into defense and non-defense. However, they do this for 2012 and 2014-2023 and show the 2012-2013 changes in Table 1.2 of the Budget Projections excel file on the home page of the Outlook.
 * 2012 and prior: Historical Budget Data
 * 2013: Historical Budget Data for 2012 less amounts in Table 1.2 of the Budget Projections, which show 2013 changes vs. 2012.
 * 2014-2023: Budget Projections Table 1.5
 * CAGR and changes and % changes calculated by yours truly.Farcaster (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Great chart, Farcaster! Question: When you say "discretionary", do you mean (in general) defense and the non-entitlement portions of non-defense or do you mean (specifically) defense and the portions of non-defense subject to the sequester, which includes Medicare up to 2% and $4B in other mandatory spending for FY2013 (according to table 1-2 on page 14 of the CBO's 2013 Outlook). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The former. Discretionary spending (Defense and non-defense), not mandatory spending. As you point out, the sequester has some mandatory elements, such as the Medicare reduction. So the chart doesn't cover some mandatory accounts affected by the sequester, such as Medicare.Farcaster (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Under the sequestration, the projected spending will increase
I've added the following to the lead:


 * Under the sequestration, projected outlays will increase in 2013 and will increase an average of $238.6 billion per year for the next decade.

I tried to add it once before but it was removed, challenging the source. This time I included the exact page so the challenging editor can easily find the the table in the source which shows that spending will increase with the sequestration.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  04:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A well-written lead
Several editors have been struggling with the lead recently, and Farcaster just made an edit that resulted in (IMO) the best yet. I'm linking to it here for reference in case the lead goes astray in the future again.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  05:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the ideal lead sentence must include the date at which the cuts started. A different editor recently removed it, but I just added it back because (a) it's obviously a necessary basic introductory fact, and (b) it distinguishes it from other sequestrations. Trinitresque (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the date is helpful. Thanks for the feedback!Farcaster (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An article about an event needs a date; thanks for catching that.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  22:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's a good way to describe it. Trinitresque (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the sentences about discretionary spending (everything from "The area most..." to "...than previously planned.") do not belong in the first paragraph. This first 'graph is supposed to contain the definition and why the subject is notable. WP:MOSBEGIN says "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific [italics mine].". I suggest that this clutter (see here) be moved (and edited, where necessary) to "CBO projections > Discretionary spending" or, at a minimum, to a subsequent paragraph (perhaps in note1?). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Page Title
The title of this page makes it look like a movie. 78.148.15.86 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to something more natural-sounding. Anyone should feel free to suggest further improvements to the title.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How about naming it "US Budget sequestration in 2013" to be neutral / less US-centric? Like United States fiscal cliff, United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. --JohannesBuchner (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Furloughs
I respectfully suggest that the furloughs be addressed in this article. They are a significant component of the sequester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.152.100 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Origins of term
What is the origin of the very peculiar euphemism "sequester"? The article reads as if the word was the accepted and normal word for a budget cut. But it is clearly an invented euphemism, surely. In any other country what has occurred in the USA would be described as a budget cut.203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Calling it a "sequester" is actually a misuse of the word, A sequester is what happens when you go to war with another country and some of the enemy citizens have land/item/bank accounts in your country, you can't just "steal" their property even in a war, but you can't let them have access to it either, so you "sequester" it from them until the war is over. "Sequester" in the political sense is actually the name of the political maneuver that caused the budget cuts, not the actual budget cuts themselves. Politicians tend to use colorful names for political maneuvers, there's also the "Guillotine", the "Filibuster", and the "Poison Pill". - Ikmxx (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Budget sequestration in 2014
If sequestration is still in effect for FY2014, which seems likely, do we want to expand the scope of this article to include both years, or should a new article be written for each year? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article already covers projections for the entire period 2013–2021. This should be reflected in the article title somehow. Perhaps Sequestration under the Budget Control Act would keep it open-ended while avoiding WP:CRYSTAL. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)