Insight into how sequestration will impact defense spending
Rep. McKeon, Rep. Smith weigh in
- Duration 5:59
- Date Feb 27, 2013
Rep. McKeon, Rep. Smith weigh in
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
5000 Border Patrol agents.
It means time.
Over time and ability to hire port officers so longer lines there it means.
Really the same method at the TSA.
Longer lines there.
It means that we can't continue to invest and build.
It will have a negative impact on -- safety of Americans across this great country.
To respond to crimes to investigate wrongdoing.
-- to hold criminals accountable early childhood side a cut of about 400 million dollars what that means concretely.
-- as many as 70000.
Children would lose access to head start slots this fall.
In his many years 141000 teachers.
-- teach those told him.
Would you would lose those -- That series of dire warnings about the upcoming sequester from White House cabinet secretaries.
But what will it really mean when it comes to national defense let's take a look at the current projection for defense spending in 24 team without the sequester 640.
With the sequester the Pentagon loses about 47000000007%.
Of its budget leaving 593.
Billion remaining four defense.
Let's talk about it with a couple of people who know this issue very well California congressman Buck McKeon a Republican and chairman of the armed services committee.
Washington congressman Adam Smith is the committee's ranking -- Democrat and -- congressman Smith will start with you because you have introduced a bill.
To rearrange the way the sequester money.
-- several problems but doesn't mean first of all is the sequester is the amount of money being cut.
Also that's the way they do it they do it -- pressure just across the board every program gets cut by the same amount.
-- already five months into the fiscal year the Pentagon has started spending money on a variety of different programs.
Hey you can't build two thirds of the submarine for instance it doesn't really work.
So what my bill does is eliminates a sequestered says yes you have to find savings in both the defense budget and the other non discretionary programs.
But you can do it in a rational way you can do it over the course of eight years not in the next day and a half.
-- congressman that's that's what the sequester was supposed to motivated right it was supposed to motivate both sides to sit down take a look at some spending and find places to -- Now and then the super committee wasn't able to do their work.
-- the thing that always focus on sequestration we forget that we have already cut.
But trillion dollars out of discretionary spending half of that came out -- defense defense accounts for about 18% of our overall spending.
But about 50% of the savings we've taken on defense and this is a time of war.
And I think that what we need to do a step back and take a breath and and Adam's bill.
While I I don't agree with -- His his premise I do congratulate him on -- courage because.
His his caucus has been.
Asking for tax increases as has the president and his proposal.
Push for tax increases not without some break position for him to take in -- -- -- I just talked with Juan Williams about about you know what's happened to the federal budget in the last ten years -- almost 90% increase in federal spending in ten years it seems unsustainable.
What is unsustainable I appreciate that the the the -- -- -- and let let the record reflect I do support tax increases it's just that that's a separate part of the equation.
If we're gonna deal with the deficit the idea behind sequestration was we're gonna threatened to make draconian cuts.
In defense in other discretionary programs.
Because we won't want to -- those cuts will finally address both taxes and also mandatory programs which aren't addressed in this and which are 60% of the overall budget.
But we had a huge deficit problem we got to get spending under control but we've also cut taxes for the last fifteen years.
And to the tune of about seven trillion dollars so -- really gonna deal with the deficit I think we need to raise taxes.
And cut mandatory progress -- refusing to do that.
And simply torturing the discretionary portion of the budget.
Including defense in a way that I think harm's our country need to come from opposite sides of the political fence and congressman -- -- is over here nodding seemingly in agreement.
What his comment I got up -- the mandatory spending.
As he said it accounts for 60% of our budget fifty years ago it was less than 30%.
Discretionary spending has dropped the same amount defense spending is half what was fifty years ago and world war.
And so what we're talking about -- some huge cuts on top of already huge cuts that we're just instituting and in this fiscal year.
And I I think what we need to do is step back take a -- And and say look if we're -- -- -- have a balanced approach.
Then we better look at mandatory spending if we totally eliminated.
Discretionary spending no defense no educational -- of translational partial border security no FBI.
A limited at all we would still be running a deficit about half trillion dollars a year that does not just an.
Ironically these cuts have an impact I watched you earlier segment there have been 800000 furlough notices that have gone out to defense civilian employees.
Most importantly the readiness the preparation of our troops that we're getting ready to send Afghanistan.
There are cuts happening now because of the way this question has done because you can't plan we are reducing the number of flying hours -- reducing the amount of ammunition.
Under these troops can use in training so that that soldiers and we're going to be sending.
Over to fight are not going to be as prepared as they should be because these cuts are happening in such a mindless across the board what.
A quick yes or no from each of you will from the sequester happen -- -- yes yes.
Congressman Scott McCain and congressman Adam Smith thank you -- thank you thank you.