What the trigger will cut.

[Mass]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-defense-cuts-arent-the-biggest-problem-with-the-trigger/2011/11/21/gIQAyORTiN_blog.html

Yet there’s nowhere near the same anxiety about the cuts to domestic discretionary spending that will also bite down once the supercommittee chucks in the towel. Arguably, there should be. Budget experts are already warning that these cuts to domestic spending — totaling $294 billion over 10 years, starting with a 7.8 percent cut in 2013, and coming on top of the spending caps in August’s debt-ceiling deal — could have even harsher consequences, both for everyday Americans and for the ability of the United States to maintain a thriving, competitive economy in the years ahead.

“This isn’t just a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington who are going to have fewer jobs,” says Isabel Sawhill, a former associate director of the Office of Management and Budget now at Brookings, of the cuts. “This is going to affect public safety, it’s going to affect low-income people, it’s going to affect veterans’ health care. We can’t just wave our arms and pretend it won’t have an impact on people’s lives.”

First, let’s define terms. “Non-defense discretionary spending” has been known to glaze over eyes and induce snores whenever it’s thrown around. Which is part of why politicians like to cut it. Everyone knows what Social Security is. Everyone knows what Medicare does. But what about domestic discretionary spending? Well, it’s anything that falls into Congress’s appropriations budgets each year. It’s the Veterans Health Administration. It’s medical research at the National Institutes for Health. It’s low-income housing assistance. It’s the Coast Guard. It’s highway spending. It’s EPA clean-air enforcement.
To make this more intuitive, Sawhill has picked through domestic discretionary spending and sorted all of the programs into four broad categories. There’s “competitiveness,” which includes things like energy and transportation infrastructure and R&D. There’s “low-income programs” like housing vouchers or nutrition assistance for women with infants. There’s “public safety”: border control, food inspections, etc. And then there’s care for veterans.

So, once again, the poorest will be hurt more. Those who are not represented by unions. Those our representatives and candidates ignore (they do not belong to the middle class, and often do not vote.

[karynnj]

1. Thanks for this

I suspect that more here will be affected in some way than thought they would.

[ProSense]

2. What does this mean:

Still, as long as Republicans refuse to raise taxes, and as long as Congress is jittery about touching Medicare or Social Security or defense spending, then this tiny portion of the budget is going to get squeezed disproportionately. And it’s hard to find the equivalent of a John McCain or a Lindsey Graham shouting, “This is not an outcome we can live with.”

Seems to me that if they're going to cut defense spending and find savings in the programs highlighted in the article (and it seems to be a generic list, see below for specific exemptions), that's much better than implying that Congress should include Medicare or Social Security.

Again, here is what the proposal states:

Fact Sheet: Reducing the Deficit, Raising the Debt Limit and Avoiding Default (PDF)

<...>

• If the Committee Fails to Report Legislation That Achieves $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction, or Congress Fails to Enact the Committee’s Recommendations, Sequestration is Triggered. If the Joint Committee fails to come to a majority agreement on recommendations that achieve at least $1.2 trillion, or Congress fails to enact recommendations that produce at least that amount, sequestration is triggered, forcing across-the-board spending cuts. The sequestration will be similar to the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings trigger and, with interest savings, will make up the differential between the deficit reduction achieved by the joint committee and $1.2 trillion.
  
  
• Sequestration Will Use Balanced Approach to Spending Cuts.
  
  
  • 50% of Sequestration Will Come From Defense. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, 50% will come from defense spending (Function 050), with the remaining 50% coming from non-defense spending. The spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending programs with important exemptions (below). The amount of the defense spending cuts each year is estimated to be over $50 billion if sequestration is triggered.
    
    
  • Social Security, Medicaid, Veterans Benefits, and Other Essential Benefits Are Exempt From Cuts. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, the following will be exempt: Social Security, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and pensions, payments to federal retirement funds, civilian and military retirement, and the child nutrition, and Supplement Security Income, among others.
    
    
  • Medicare Savings Are Capped at 2% and Are Limited to Providers Only – No Benefit Cuts. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, any cut to Medicare would be limited to no greater than 2% of the program’s cost. Any such cut would come from payments to providers and insurance plans. There will be NO Medicare benefit cuts or increases in seniors’ costs.

<…>

The failure of the committee, Dems not caving to Republicans' demand, the extension of the Bush tax cuts are still scheduled to expire at the end of next year. That's key.

[Mass]

3. This is classic media talk. There was no good solutions.

Cutting Medicare and Social Security, as well as Medicaid would have been terrible (though I can imagine ways to cut Medicare costs without hurting people, but there is no political will for that)

However, the trigger WILL hurt people, and in particular the poorest of them.

There were no good solutions given the fact that the GOP was always going to refuse letting the tax cuts expire. But it would be wrong to say the trigger will not hurt people, as I have seen in other threads.

[ProSense]

5. Here's

"There were no good solutions given the fact that the GOP was always going to refuse letting the tax cuts expire. But it would be wrong to say the trigger will not hurt people, as I have seen in other threads."

...the deal: The fact is that this Congress was going to address the deficit. The scope of the cuts, limited mostly to savings, across various programs are made even more limited because of the exemptions.

Given that some Congresssional Democrats would jump at the opportunity to include Medicare and Social Security cuts disguised as changes in formula or age, the exemptions were critical.

The fact that 50 percent of the cuts are from defense is significant.

With the Bush tax cuts still on track to expire, the best word to describe the end of this episode is, to quote Bernie Sanders, "finally."

[woo me with science]

4. It is an outrageous direction to take.

This President was warned by hundreds of economists not to slash the budget during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

This will not only hurt millions of individuals in cruel, unnecessary ways, but it will starve the economy during a time when the economy desperately needs stimulus.

Austerity is a good plan only in the eyes of a corrupt and thieving oligarchy. Just ask the Greeks and Italians who will now be ruled by un-elected corporate bosses.

SHAME on our government.

[Donnachaidh]

6. [phone] n/t

[Skittles]

8. lack of leadership

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Austerity is a good plan only in the eyes of a corrupt and thieving oligarchy:

+1

[polichick]

16. It really is amazing that much of Europe has tossed out elected officials...

...in favor of un-elected corporate bosses.

'Course the way we do it in America ensures that only corporate bosses get "elected" in the first place.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Here is what we aren't supposed to even think about.

[Skittles]

17. many DUers are APPLAUDING THIS

claiming it's some kind of fucking CHECKMATE for Obama - the ignorance is STAGGERING

[Meeker Morgan]

9. Cut everything except graft. n/t

[Johnny2X2X]

10. It will hurt people

But what was the alternative?

We all know for the Republicans to accept anything it has to hurt low income Americans. That's their central paradigm now, they wont accept anything that helps regular people out, furthermore, every deal or bill has to hurt the average American sufficiently for Republicans.

That's the Republican Party today, they literally want to hurt America and Americans because they think the average American is lazy and has it too good.

[Fearless]

18. And people believe the Republican figureheads hook, line, and sinker...

Because they respect the institutions of "journalism", of the church, and of other similar groups as well. If you can gain the blind respect of people it really doesn't matter what you believe or what you say... ahem Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Pat Robertson, etc... All that matters is that this person, whoever they are, they trust. For whatever reason it may be, blind trust. The alternative is to shine a light on how they are wrong, every time, EVERY TIME they are wrong. Show respectfully by example using other figures they trust. A minister denouncing Pat Robertson, for instance, is going to go a lot futher in many Republican circles than the president or any Democrat.

[animato]

11. I am very glad they cannot raise the SS retirement or Medicare age

That would be incredibly unfair.

[and-justice-for-all]

12. Well they should have done something to avoid the triggers then...

and instead, even with a far split of pukes and Dems, they did nothing but banter back and forth. Dems offered reasonable solutions whereas the pukes wanted to no new taxes (as usual) and cut popular social and much needed programs.

[ellisonz]

13. +1

[BlueIris]

15. A shameful situation for our entire nation.

Awful. This is one of those times I am utterly hopeless about the future.