Defense cuts vs other program cuts in the sequestration bill?
This is the big debate coming up. The defense cuts are starting to make the GOP very shaky. Five percent of $700 billion is a much larger cut than 5% of $7 billion. No doubt there are many programs that cost more.
But the Repubs want cuts in entitlements. Democrats want to do away with the tax subsidies, such as the oil industry and farmers, some of them in Congress.
However, so long as sequestration continues, the deficit will continue to shrink, even as some people are hurt by the cuts, including in the defense industry. But their "hurt" is at different degrees.
This is the deal that they have to work out.
In effect, the cuts in defense are similar to a tax cut that is going to decrease the deficit. The GOP has to decide if they want "deficit reduction" as bad as they say they do? They seem to want the "cuts" to stop moreso than the Democrats?? Could it be they love government so much more than they pretend?
===================
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579143873007691030
<snip>
The prospect of a deep cut in defense spending scheduled for next year is helping push Republicans and Democrats to look for a new budget deal, but the politics of the 2014 midterm elections could complicate any talks.
In the wake of the just-ended government shutdown, top Republican leaders have told the White House that they are open to rolling back parts of the automatic defense and nondefense spending cuts in any new budget deal. Democrats have broadly supported an easing of the cuts.
In exchange, the GOP leaders say they want reductions in entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, which Democrats say they would only back if a deal raised new revenue, a condition that Republicans oppose.
......more
= new reply since forum marked as read
Democrats can say they are willing to give the money to the middle class, up to $113K per year, in the form of taxcuts. After all, those folks making up to $400K already got an extra taxcut, in that they do not have to pay FICA taxes after $113K.
Or we can continue to use it to lower the deficit? But there is no need to cut entitlements if we can do away with the big tax subsidies, along with continued cuts in the Defense Dept.
Because, what if the Democrats are able to balance the budget without cuts to entitlements? How could Repubs continue to argue for cuts in entitlements if we had a balanced budget? Which would have been very possible without the Bush taxcuts and huge defense spending. If they needed more money, they could simply do away with the big subsidies to oil companies and corporations.
Voila! A balanced budget! 
