• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Dire Effects of Sequestration

    It’s hard to imagine a worse time to cut defense spending. While new threats emerge around the world, sequestration, mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, threatens to cut nearly $500 billion from an already slashed defense budget. These impending cuts would have serious repercussions on our military, limiting its readiness and hampering its ability to deploy forces to crucial parts of the world.

    With lawmakers unable to find a solution, sequestration is set to take effect on January 2, 2013. At The Heritage Foundation on Thursday, an expert panel convened to discuss the dire effects that sequestration would have on the United States, should the cuts go into affect.

    Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute described a few of sequestration’s more deleterious effects, and noted that some of them were already being felt. Military intelligence is a part of defense spending threatened by the impending budget cuts. With 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, it’s paramount that our troops get the intelligence they deserve.

    Defense contractors have started issuing layoffs. Many of their suppliers are single-source suppliers, and, should those suppliers exit the market, military preparedness will be jeopardized. Eaglen also pointed out the U.S. Navy’s plan to reduce the number of ships from 285 to 235 over the next 10 years. She characterized such plans as “projecting weakness to our allies and to our enemies.”

    >> WATCH: Military veterans share real stories from the front lines

    Peter Brookes, a senior fellow at Heritage, warned that “the United States is unilaterally disarming in an increasingly dangerous world.” In the panel’s estimation, these increasing dangers include Iran. This state sponsor of terrorism continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions, and is probably just one or two years from achieving its goal. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, and remains in possession of one of the largest (if not the largest) stock of ballistic missiles in the region. Despite 10 years of negotiations, Iran has given no indication of abandoning its nuclear agenda. Brookes equated it to Einstein’s definition of insanity: continuing to do the same thing expecting different results.

    Brookes also noted that Syria has entered its 18 month of “revolution,” but there’s still no sign of violence abating anytime soon; and that North Africa is currently the region where Al-Qaeda is most active. It’s essential the United States does not lose its access to these parts of the world.

    Responding to the argument that the United States is spending too much on defense, Robert Zarate, policy director at the Foreign Policy Initiative, brought some interesting facts to light. When President Eisenhower coined the phrase, “the military-industrial complex” in 1961, 51 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government was spent on defense, while 37 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government was spent on domestic programs. Today, less than 20 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government is spent on defense, while more than 70 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government is spent on domestic programs.

    Zarate mentioned the recent violence in places like Egypt, Yemen, and North Africa, and the implications they might have for the United States going forward.  He also talked about the rise of China and the need for the United States to not lose focus on the East. He called the United States that “indispensible pillar in the international system” and pointed out that “we haven’t seen a great-power war since 1945.”

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to The Dire Effects of Sequestration

    1. Alfrom Fl says:

      The next war brought about by the Obama admin's policies will most likely be initiated in the Middle East and will suck in the U.S. whether we like it or not. China will play that like a fiddle, maybe take Taiwan and fan the fire in the Middle East to keep us ingaged and our resources, already iln trouble, will be insufficient. In the meantime, we're on the brink of seeing an increase in inflation which will see the American Citizen using a wheelbarrow of money to buy food staples. And the liberals will insist we still didn't spend enough.

    2. Brian Fendley says:

      "Defence spending" The only spending at the moment liberals don't like. The president and those manipulating the strings behind him do not care about our safety or security of the nation as far as a world stage goes for now, and thats been well documented over he last four years.

      The soft tryanny or tryanny light if you will was within hours of election night already being replaced quietly under the guise of compassion. If we do not deviate from this course you I predict something extra fundamentaly changng as well down the road.

      Totalitarion states hate other totalitarian as well as capitalist states. What does this mean? At some point in our future expect to see defence spending become >.70 cents and domestic spendng decrease to <.20 cents for every dollar the government spends (Inverting the current trend).

      In short the administration is going to kill the military now but if were unable to return to our constitutional Republic expect to see giant missile parades in Washington DC.

    3. Joe Mollric says:

      Calm Down:_The cuts you are wailing about are over a ten year period. They can be changed, adjusted or eliminated after one year. Where were you folks when the $10,000 toilet seat or the "limitless black hole spending appropriations were rampant?"_When a President, Supreme Allied Commander and five star general warned of the "military/industrial complex", perhaps you should articulate your thoughts in a less bellicose manner and heed the advice of a proven "soldier/stateman."_Which sir, do you prefer: The endless military/industrial complex spending or the rampant entitlement expansion?_Since most folks "pontificate" on this venue, perhaps a specific plan of action would be of benefit._Every person and program, receiving a check/funding from the federal government, would , effective 01/01/2013, take an across the board 10% reduction._For the record:_I"m republican, a small business owner, and I am very familiar with spending cuts to stay in business._You want an education and energy policy that would benefit every citizen/taxpayer, raise the scores for education in conjunction with lowering the cost, while lowering the price at the pump, you have but to contact me to initiate the same._Jmollric@aol.com

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.