Sequestration and the 150 Account

If we suspend for a moment the fact that the sequester likely will never happen, the extensive coverage generated by what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called a “doomsday mechanism” and its negative consequences seems to imply disproportionate discrimination against the DOD budget. To be fair, the sequester would impose an unnecessarily steep cut to the defense budget.

In reality, almost all discretionary spending would be affected by sequestration, including the 150 account. The Budget Control Act divides the budget into security and non-security. The State Department and International Affairs are considered part of national security. Under sequestration, however, the split becomes defense and non-defense spending, not security and non-security—with State and International Affairs considered non-defense. For defense, the sequester comes out to a cut of about 10% from discretionary budget authority. The non-defense category includes more mandatory spending, which means that the cut will be closer to 8%. For International Affairs, that means about $5 billion less than the FY11 funding level, which as it turns out may be close to where FY12 will end up anyway.

Yes, the sequester would hit defense. But it would technically hit all the other accounts too, including State and International Affairs, although we’re probably already headed toward those levels.

Comments

[Hank Gaffney]

One of the paradoxes of the discussion of the "catastrophic" effects of sequestration (both "discussion" and "catastrophic" are relative terms, i.e., both border on being non-serious) is that the "grand strategists" talk about "allies" and "friends" having to take up more of the global defense "burden" upon U.S. forces being "reduced." (This "burden" is something the U.S. somehow graciously determines for everyone else, but, luckily, there is no such plan or document -- it is metaphorical, i.e., a myth.) The "discussion" by the defense experts and the Services is how the U.S. will thus have to "help" allies and friends improve their forces so they can take on these burdens, and we would help them by providing training and equipment. But this talk ignores the fact that the law says we don't give away goods and services (e.g., training) to other countries for free -- the source of aid is the 150 account, which, always scant, is to be cut even more than defense, both "naturally" and in the sequestration. It is amazing how ignorant the "defense experts" are of this reality. Of course, there has been the 1206 provision to draw down funds from the defense budget, but it has never gone above $300-350 million a year, and has mostly to do with Iraq (we're out of there) and Afghanistan (we may be there forever). It is hard to believe that 1206 line item will survive in the defense cuts as the Services scramble for what's left for themselves. .