Afternoon read: Sequestration cuts into military education support
Photo: National Center for Veteran Studies
I’m getting tired of writing about the sequester, you’re getting tired of hearing about it (and not just from me), but it’s just starting to get rolling, unless something happens to end it (this is the subject of President Obama’s weekly address this week, video here and a transcript here.)
This morning David Sommerstein reported on how sequestration could affect the Akwesasne Mohawk nation: It looks like cuts to education and law enforcement. Today the Watertown Daily Times reports that the Army is suspending its tuition assistance program as a result of the sequester. That program makes up to $250 per credit hour with an annual limit of $4,500 (according to some math I did earlier this month, that buys you about a year at Jefferson Community College if you live in the county.) More on tuition assistance here.
Veteran Josh Jones (seen here in his dorm room at Paul Smiths College) went back to school with help from the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which will not be part of the cuts described in this post. Brian Mann reported on Josh and returning veterans like him in three stories late in 2012. Photo: Mark Kurtz.
JCC has 102 students who use this program, and about a third of the school’s student body is affiliated with the military or has a spouse who is. In the article, JCC continuing education dean Jill M. Pippen says the school will lose more than $100,000 if this funding goes away, and that impact might force the school to consider reducing its course offerings.
Other schools in our region have far fewer students using this particular type of funding, not surprisingly: SUNY Potsdam has 11; Canton has 18; and Clarkson and St. Lawrence have few to none.
GI Bill funding is still available, by the way, as are other funding programs. Servicemembers who are currently enrolled in courses using tuition assistance won’t be affected.
This for me is among the most painful cuts I’ve seen. Education for servicemembers has long been part of our compact with those who agree to risk, and even lose, their lives in service to our country. It’s a pretty big deal. And although tuition assistance doesn’t provide nearly as much support as the GI Bill does, taking swipes at that compact seems like something our government should take pains to avoid.
We’re in early days with the sequester, and it seems to behoove our government to deal with this now before it gets worse. I’m obviously not advocating for any particular way of dealing with it (that’s not my job or my place here), but let’s keep it front and center that these cuts aren’t just a political football. They’re really cutting into us as a nation.
The military has made all of the cuts at the bottom, hurting the people who need help, or jobs the most. Meanwhile, the big military contractors keep making their millions. No one at Lockheed Martin is postponing their next beach house. Not one multi-billion dollar weapons system has been put on hold. No aircraft carriers or missile systems have been shelved, and the rich keep growing richer.
Welcome to reality. “The deficit” seems like such an awful thing when it’s spoken of in broad, nebulous terms and fixing it seems a no-brainer. But suddenly when we realize the consequences include cutting education for Our Heroes ™ or for disabled people or whomever, suddenly it becomes “painful.”
Sorry but if you want to slash the deficit without raising taxes or closing loopholes, then you simply have to accept that programs like this may be gutted. Welcome to the point where fuzzy ivory tower theories intersect with hard reality.
tootightmike,
You must have missed the story about naval shipyards that will lose thousands of jobs because of delayed contracts. I’m sure there are other examples. The real problem with the sequester is the “across the board” indiscriminate nature of the cuts. There are places that could be cut without necessarily hurting those most in need, unnecessary weapons systems for example, but the ultimate reality is that we are dealing with the fallout of the Bush/Chaney notion that “deficits don’t matter”. Of course they don’t matter if the result is something that don’t hit until you leave office (which I suspect was the plan) but unfortunately the fiscal crash happened before W and company got out of town, complicating an already bad fiscal policy of cutting taxes at the same time they increased spending. Just like any other binge, there’s a hangover.
I’m pretty sure one aircraft carrier is remaining in port, rather than patrolling the Med. I’m not sure whom this hurts. Not the Norfolk, VA hospitality industry, I imagine.
The cuts Brian described are likely affecting bases in red the red states, whence most these gummit spending cutters. The cuts impact the salaries of teachers and administrators. They will not be happy, and they vote. Multiply this by a couple of thousand similar program cuts, and the pot should start boiling before too long.
“Sorry but if you want to slash the deficit without raising taxes or closing loopholes, then you simply have to accept that programs like this may be gutted.”
What like you can’t cut something else? These folks need to figure out how to prioritize. They think that everything is a priority. Some programs like this may be. But others are not. But we wouldn’t notice if they cut those. So childish.
Why didn’t the administration want to accept the idea of them being allowed to determine which cuts should be made where so this didn’t happen? Everyone knows the answer.
The real problem with the sequester is out of control spending and the refusal to cut it. That anyone thinks this is a viable solution is amazing. Both sides have failed miserably.
We could save quite a bit of the military budget if we would close our bases in Europe and elsewhere, and let other countries defend themselves or not.
“What like you can’t cut something else?”
I agree this process is absurd. But my point is that EVERY dollar of spending is someone’s “essential” program.
Listen to the reports Karen DeWitt does during the state budget process. Every single report contains some interest group saying, “I know times are tough and we all have to sacrifice, I just think our wonderful group should be asked to sacrifice last.”
It’s so difficult to cut spending because every legislator, Democrat or Republican, represents these groups who will raise holy hell if their pot is touched. Heck, even the “small government” conservatives are freaking out over relatively minor cuts* to the military-industrial complex.
(*-And I can’t say for certain if defense spending is actually being cut as compared to last year or if, more likely, it’s just that they’re cutting the rate of growth of such spending)
By my count, seven people have commented on this article. If you were to ask those seven people what their top three priorities would be in terms of spending (either what to keep or what to cut), you’d get seven different sets of answers. There are 535 members of Congress.
Obama campaigned on a “balanced” approach.
By that, he meant some tax increases and some spending cuts.
We got the tax increases.
If we can’t even endure a reduction in spending increases, how will we ever make it to real cost cutting?
We’re in trouble, as it is.
We’re in bigger trouble when reductions in increases bring out the whiners.
krugman:
The issue is as Paul points out setting priorities and I don’t think this process allowed that to occur.
But the fact is the psychology of government spending has always been everything is a priority, show no weakness its all a disaster if we cut anything. Its a basic sales approach strategy, ask for everything and hope you get what you need or more.
From the military standpoint I mean come on they should be able to cut the rate of growth, I think the actual military budget AFTER the sequester is sill larger than it was in 2010/2011. We are talking about cuts to what they wanted for 2012/2013, not cuts to the baseline from previous years.
We talked about it on a different thread but in reference to Tootight, who I basically agree with; it is even harder to cut large military contractors because they employe hundreds of thousands of people spread throughout the US who are not the 1%, but who are upper middle class engineers and scientists all the way through a large contingent of unionized blue collar people who actually manufacture all of this weaponry. It is easier to cut civilian employees at bases and reduce spending on education for soldiers than it is to stop an F-22 program from going forward or the next generation of destroyer, that we don’t need, but is really awesome.
If the media would just do its job, instead of parroting the propaganda, we would be in much better shape.
Here’s an article on GE.
Sixty of the country’s largest nonfinancial corporations kept $166 billion in cash outside of the U.S. last year, shielding more than 40 percent of their profits from taxes
If we went to a flat tax, we would have $65 billion from GE alone. We could layoff the entire IRS. We would instantly have higher revenue and spending cuts.
Not so hard when you think about it for, say, 10 seconds.
Well, now that Krugman has spoken, I don’t guess there’s any point in the rest of us continuing the discussion.
yes, larry, heaven forbid we consider the analysis of a macroeconomics expert with a sterling track record.
hope you check out the whole column, btw.
GE is a government subcontractor ( mainly defense but other also) they don’t really know much about the free market. Certainly they have no input in tax policy as they essentially live off other people’s taxes.
mervel: “Certainly they have no input in tax policy as they essentially live off other people’s taxes.”
Ok. So, I’m not understanding the point.
They are not paying their taxes.
They probably owe more taxes than the reduction in increases that’s causing all this hubbub.
“Reduction in increases”. I wish the media would learn how to say that.
Everyone’s upset over a reduction in increases.
Go tell GE to pay their taxes, then there would be no “reduction in increases”.
Speaking of the media, now that Krugman has spoken, and referenced, and supported, it can now go back to ignoring him and going back to the conventional wisdom that we need to continue cutting, not grow the economy.
A couple of weeks back, Krugman had a column in which he compared the current economic situation to the Iraq War, where the media and decision makers in Washington continued to give credence to Administration claims long after they had been totally discredited on the ground. He mentioned the fact that John McCain can even today gets on Sunday morning talk shows, even though he has the demonstrated credibility of, say Dick Cheney.
The point is not to rehash the Iraq War, but illustrate how the media and establishment continues to honor discredited ideas (Austerity), and refuses to honor proven ones (Keynesianism). Sad.
It’s really heartening to see so many ordinary folks standing up against Obama’s tax hikes (that he calls “closing loopholes”). As if not allowing American corporations to export profits to overseas branches, costing the treasury $80 billion a year, or making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as secretaries do ($1.4 billion), or not allowing Mark Zuckerberg to claim a $40/share deduction on stocks he originally paid $0.06 a share on ($12 to 60 billion) a year are actually closing loopholes.! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-hallman/what-obama-means-when-he-_b_2720042.html
God knows the damage that would happen to our economy were these vicious tax hikes to be put into place.
“Certainly they have no input in tax policy as they essentially live off other people’s taxes.”
Does that also apply to the 40% + of Americans who pay no Federal Income taxes?
All Obama knows how to do is raise taxes.
He can’t *improve* the economy.
He’s had 5 years, and GDP growth is so anemic, it barely registers, and it’s going lower, lest you want to continue to blame Bush.
He can’t cut spending. He can’t even lower the rate of growth without whiners.
No. He’s left with one option.
Raise taxes. Raise them directly. “Close” loopholes (i.e. play favorites).
Raise taxes in the morning.
Raise taxes on the rich.
Raise taxes in the evening.
Raise them on the poor. (but tell them something else, low information, you know).
Raise them on minorities.
Raise them on majorities.
Raise them on Republicans.
Raise them on Democrats (see Raise them on the poor).
Yep.
That’s all he knows how to do.
Not everyone is convinced of Krugman’s divinity.
JDM:
You are on the side of those who, metaphorically, shot Obama in one foot, and blame him because he cannot run faster.
And to fix the problem, you want to shoot him in the other foot.
Borrowing and tax hikes worked to end the Depression, they worked for Clinton, and, yes they worked for Reagan (the guy who raided taxes and quadrupled the national debt while pontificating on the value of frugality).
Your remedy is being tried in Europe. They mostly have negative GDPs, and substantially higher unemployment.
JDM yeah I was agreeing, GE is a prime example of these problems. But as you know corporations are going to do everything in their power to legally pay zero taxes. I would; why pay more than you have to pay, you would not be much of a business if you did that.
Raising taxes or cutting government spending are the different sides of the same coin, it does not really matter. The bottom line is deficits can only be cut by doing one or both of those two things. But when you economy stinks doing either of those two things will slow the economy.
The issue I have is when do we start to close the gap? I understand not doing it in a bad economy, but what if we never get a good economy? It’s been bad since 2008, we are going on 5 years of a “bad” economy. How long do we wait for things to get better 20 years?
Hey, deficits don’t matter!
Just ask the Bushies.
Too bad delusional JDM is parroting the myth that the poor vote for Democrats. Most (7 I believe) of the 10 poorest states in the country voted for Romney. Of the states who get more in federal pork than they pay in federal taxes, most at the top of the list are red states. #1 is Sarah Palin’s Alaska. But to his crew, facts don’t matter anyways.
brian, you’re right that poorer states tend to vote republican overall, but jdm is definitely right that poorer people tend to vote democratic. (though jdm is generally wrong about so much that no one should be blamed for not believing him.) the trick is that in poorer states, for whatever reason, the relatively well-off lean strongly to the gop.
Here is an interesting academic study on, apparently from Hamilton College, on the accuracy of political pundits. Guess who leads the field? Other liberalistic pols and pundits (including our own Sen. Chuck Schumer), are in the top (most accurate)group, but so is Kathleen Parker, a columnist and known one-time Romney supporter. http://www.hamilton.edu/documents/An-Analysis-of-the-Accuracy-of-Forecasts-in-the-Political-Media.pdf.
Fellow Krugman worshipers, here is our proof!
mervel:
“Raising taxes or cutting government spending are the different sides of the same coin”
Maybe from the government’s perspective.
However, if you were told that $100 more needs to come out of your paycheck (tax increase)
or
You can get $100 in your paycheck this week (spending cut)
I think I know which one you would prefer.
now that’s the typical low-information nonsense from jdm. here’s how it stacks up against reality (the reference at the start of the quote is to a particularly crazy recent o’reilly factor segment):
Hermit: the actual divide is not income level. It’s, as Brian M has written, more cultural: rural vs urban. Yes, poorer urbanites overwhelmingly tend to vote Democrat. But, poorer rural folks overwhelmingly tend to vote Republican. Even here in liberal NYS… look at, say, the 10 poorest counties in upstate New York. What is the percentage of legislators representing those counties are Republicans and what percentage are Democrats? It’s overwhelmingly GOP.
These comments illustrate the self-delusion many ideologues hold.
Conservatives tell themselves that poor people vote Democrat because that party rewards sloth (because in their worldview, you can’t work hard and still be poor).
Liberals tell themselves that poor people vote Republican because they are so stupid/brainwashed as to vote against their own self-interest.
In reality, the two major parties have broadly converged on economic issues, with slight differences that they try to convince people are chasms. As a result, the only significant differences between them is on sociocultural issues. That’s why some poor people vote Democrat (the party more associated with the cultural values urban America) while others vote Republican (the party more associated with the cultural values of rural America).
Low information readers can tune out, but…
On page 189 of Obama’s 205 page budget, shows the baseline (automatic) increase for Medicaid, Medicare plus $11 trillion over 10 years.
From the baseline increase plus $11 trillion, Obama wishes to cut $3 billion over 10 years.
Whoa.
That’s almost .02% reduction in increases over 10 years.
We’re saved!!!
G.E. actually had tax CREDITS this year it couldn’t even apply to this year’s returns because they ”never made enough” according to the laws they helped right back with chenney . DICK chenney.
they being the only jet engine manufacturer, write all losses off, hold monies off-shore, and drive a mammoth sized truckloads of money through loop holes.
i just don’t think that’s true. for instance:
i think it’s correct to say that the rural poor tend to be less democratic than the the urban poor, but both are still in the democratic column.
here’s more from larry bartels:
here’s also a nice graph comparing the rural poor vote with the rural rich vote in presidential elections (which unfortunately only goes up to 2000).
I think what’s being missed here is that defence jobs are unproductive. There is no product, there is no progress toward the future, only spending. The bombs, missiles and tanks aren’t products, they don’t generate sales, only costs. The massively expensive nuclear arsenal represents only outlay, and the fact that these weapons were never used speaks to the pointlessness of the expense.
Imagine where the world…humanity, would be today if we had never fought the cold war. Tally the cost to the American, Russian, and Chinese people…and to end up where? HERE!?? THIS is what we spent the entire national wealth of the world’s superpowers to get?
How much more will we spend to get nowhere?
newt says:
March 12, 2013 at 7:18 am
Speaking of the media, now that Krugman has spoken, and referenced, and supported, it can now go back to ignoring him and going back to the conventional wisdom that we need to continue cutting, not grow the economy.
A couple of weeks back, Krugman had a column in which he compared the current economic situation to the Iraq War, where the media and decision makers in Washington continued to give credence to Administration claims long after they had been totally discredited on the ground. He mentioned the fact that John McCain can even today gets on Sunday morning talk shows, even though he has the demonstrated credibility of, say Dick Cheney.
The point is not to rehash the Iraq War, but illustrate how the media and establishment continues to honor discredited ideas (Austerity), and refuses to honor proven ones (Keynesianism). Sad.
The media and establishment figures do so because they are poorly informed on substantive issues. Most “media elites” would struggle to find their way out of a paper bag, imho.
At last, ALL IS REVEALED!
http://krugmantimes.com/
Just today, we read that the military “vows to protect the F135″……… They’ll protect their $385 billion plane, even if they have to screw 385 million people to do it. We talk and talk about the importance of education, from Headstart to college degrees, but we won’t invest in it.
Even more despicable, the F35 doesn’t even perform as claimed. By the time the build out of this clunker is complete, we’ll have spent close to a Trillion dollars on one weapons program. Designed to fight a war that becomes more outdated and improbable by the day.
The largest, strongest military in the world is irrelevant if the nation it supposedly protects collapses from within. As we continue to ignore our infrastructure (which I consider our education system to be a part of) in order to overbuild our military, we are only driving ourselves closer to our implosion.
how many drones can you get for the price of one F135?
how many tappan-zee bridges can 385 billion build?
how much to re-design an amtrak train that can stay on the tracks at over 70mph?
there are plenty of places military money should be spent, and it’s not on the proverbial 11′ pole….
Joint Committee on Taxation – Obamacare costs twice original estimate.
Thank you low-information media for once again misleading low information voters.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/tax-prof-obamacare-tax-increases-are.html
Talk about low information people– pot, meet kettle.
FactCheck: Health Care Costs Didn’t Double—
JDM, don’t you get tired of being proven wrong?
it’s also important to understand exactly why jdm is so out to lunch on this.
although the affordable care act was passed in 2010, its main provisions — on the tax and spending sides alike — don’t kick in until 2014. that big scary “doubling” that jdm is crowing about is mostly about shifting the accounting window from 2010-2019 to 2013-2022. you end up replacing the “empty” years 2010-2012 with the “normal” years 2020-2022 in the estimate. so of course the total revenues in the estimate go way up.
if jdm wasn’t himself a low-information voter, he would have already known this. i’ve known about it all along, because i’ve been reading krugman all along. it’s too bad jdm keeps falling for these kinds of tricks. it’s embarrassing.
Say what you want, guys.
Time will show that Obamacare will come in 2x – 100x cost estimates.
It will not lower health care costs.
It will do, what all government programs do, fail to deliver on any promise.
No amount of statistical mumbo-jumbo will cover up that.
how do you do it, jdm?
you know about those big government programs, medicare and medicaid?
they’re cheaper than the private sector alternative.
it’s true that the private sector does a great many things better than the public sector. but it’s not like there’s some big general principle at play here. there are some things the public sector does better. paying for health care is one of them.
by the way jdm, those horrible obamacare revenues — you do know that paul ryan just left them in his new budget, while stripping out all the obamacare benefits, right? are you going to try to tell us that now paul ryan — paul ryan! — isn’t a real conservative?
Obamacare is a classic liberal response to a problem: throw tax dollars at anything but the actual source of the problem. Artificially manipulating health insurance to provide “coverage” for all will destroy the health insurance industry as we know it. Removing the foundation of actuarial science from it may cause its complete collapse. At best, costs will rise for all, including those who currently have affordable coverage. Meanwhile, the root causes of the health care crisis, out-of-control-cost of care and unnecessary treatments and procedures, are not being addressed. No matter the issue, liberals never seem to do anything about costs, but they can always be counted on to increase funding by raising taxes.
The costs of health care and the underlying reasons they continue to rise is being ignored by many groups, not just liberals. This blame game business is a waste of time and does nothing to address the issue.