Need another reason why the sequestration is overblown? First, as Reason.com reports, it’s only $44 billion for the remainder of FY2013, not the $85 billion number being reported.
The first thing to note is that the $85 billion figure that gets bandied about overstates this year’s cuts due to sequestration by about $40 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its February 2013 report on the budget outlook, “Discretionary outlays will drop by $35 billion and mandatory spending will be reduced by $9 billion this year as a direct result of those procedures [sequestration]; additional reductions in outlays attributable to the cuts in 2013 funding will occur in later years.”
You got that? When President Obama scaremongers about national parks closing and TSA lines getting longer – and when Republicans bitch and moan about the military having to set up bake sales to buy bombers – they are already misstating basic facts. The sequester will slice $44 billion off this year’s budget, not $85 billion.
Next, only half the cuts come from discretionary spending, the other half are defense. So now we’re talking about $22 billion. Will $22 billion in cuts bring America to a grinding halt from federal government spending that will exceed $3.5 trillion in 2013? After all, Maxine Waters claims it will cost the country 170 million jobs. Ummm, no would be the answer.
In fact, $22 billion wouldn’t even break the 11 richest American individuals. According to Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans for 2012, eleven of them could absorb all of the discretionary cuts for 2013 and still remain billionaires!
1. Bill Gates – $66 billion
2. Warren Buffet – $46 billion
3. Larry Ellison – $41 billion
4. Charles Koch – $31 billion
5. David Koch – $31 billion
6. Christy Walton – $27.9 billion
7. Jim Walton – $26.8 billion
8. Alice Walton – $26.3 billion
9. S. Robson Walton – $26.1 billion
10. Michael Bloomberg – $25 billion
11. Jeff Bezos – $23.2 billion
Sorry, number 15 George Soros didn’t qualify at only $19 billion. Must be spending too much of his fortune on advancing the progressive movement.