Order shopping_cart

Toll-free:

Toll-free:

Sequester

Thesis Statement

Even though sequester has been viewed as a major budget cut that would slow down the economy, its main intention was to offer the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction an incentive to reduce $1.5 trillion in a span of ten years (Dylan 1). Sequester can be defined as a compulsory spending cut that can be applied by the Federal government, especially when the costs of running the government's operations are more than the expected gross revenue collected or an arbitrary amount in a fiscal year.

Introduction

The sequester is scheduled to begin happening in 2013 and probably end by 2012, according to the White House 2012 release, and it is happening because the US gross revenue is less than its operational expenditure in a fiscal year (Khimm 1).The sequester budget plan will put in place spending cuts, which are likely to derail economic developments of the United States. Under, the sequester, President Obama has advocated for various government investments, which are geared towards expanding the economy. The sequester would not only expand the economy, but it would also stabilize the per capita of the middle-class, boosting early-childhood education and upgrading the modern United States' railways and roads. In addition, it is geared towards more research and development spending (Dylan 1).

Proposers (argument for)

Proposers argue that even though, the sequester would provide a platform for budget cuts, there were certain benefits, which would not be exempted such as health care provided to personnel with their families and tuition assistance services. However, military salaries would be tax-exempt, as proposed under the sequester (Dylan 1).

In a supporting argument (by more proposers), the sequester policy is likely to reduce discretionary spending by $25 billion within 6 months, and this forms a 5% reduction (Dylan 1). In addition, $1.2 trillion would be saved when the defense and discretionary spending are cut for over a decade ("The Sequester: No Reprieve" 1). It can also be argued that President Obama has made significant achievements towards his vision to assist the middle class, which could be attained by securing some revenues on the tax - increase (USD 600 billion) at the beginning of the year. Another achievement has been made through the health care overhaul that was advanced by President Obama. However, few achievements might be made, because the Republicans on the opposition side (in the Congress) are intending to shrink the services of the government. The US budget was under pressure, especially during a summer deal of 2011 that was intended to constrain the country's spending (Dylan 1). The sequester cuts on both the spending and investments would be appropriate for the US long term economic growth.

Opposers (argument against)

In a different viewpoint, the White House intended to continue pushing on the proposal, which need new funding from the federal government. Such federal funding would include increasing the minimum wage, revising immigration laws, starting more manufacturing institutes, and revising the housing policies. However, it has been viewed by opposers that sequester would be permanent, and should be avoided. It would be a difficult task for President Obama because he would need to convince the Republicans to accept his views on the sequester ("Obama to sign the budget that includes sequester cuts" 1). In essence, the sequester is likely to underscore President Obama's vision for the economic growth derived from the middle class. This is due to the fact that the more than $10 billion would be lost in the following 6 months. This would be a detrimental economic situation, since its growth will be slowed by 0.6%, as more than 750,000 jobs lost as a result of the sequestration ("The Sequester: No Reprieve" 1).

In conclusion, the sequester would be used as a temporary replacement measure that included crucial items such as no increase in taxes, no cuts in defense and the significant reduction in the domestic spending. This policy is believed to take care of the economic growth, especially the one gained from the middle class.