Sequester Highlights Need to Prioritize Spending

Last month, spending cuts took effect to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years as agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011. These cuts, also known as the “sequester” were accompanied by dire warnings from President Obama and others about the catastrophic impacts reducing government spending would have on our economy and safety. Thankfully, these predictions have so far proven to be overstatements, and most Americans have seen little or no changes in their daily lives.

I still believe there are smarter and more appropriate ways to reduce this level of spending from the federal budget and I remain concerned about future consequences of cutting in such an arbitrary fashion. This is why the House of Representatives has voted twice to replace the arbitrary sequester cuts with targeted reductions and reforms.

The sequester has put a spotlight on government waste and reinvigorated the public debate on spending. When faced with a reduced budget, should an agency cut essential services or non-essential programs and activities? Most Americans would agree we need to prioritize what the government spends and cut waste, fraud and unnecessary expenses before cutting basic services such as safety, transportation infrastructure, and defense.

For example, the sequester requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make $628 million in spending reductions, giving the agency the same budget it had in 2008. This reduction should be manageable because the agency was fully operational in 2008, and the FAA’s budget has increased 41 percent in the last ten years. However, the FAA announced it plans to pay for this cut by shutting down 189 contract control towers starting as early as June. This decision includes closing the tower at the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island on September 30th. The agency did not announce any plans to reduce the roughly $500 million spent on consultants every year, or the $200 million the agency spends on travel and supplies.

Closing these towers would threaten the impressive growth of the Grand Island airport in recent years, and could jeopardize air safety. Although the FAA now claims it cannot operate at 2008 funding levels without severe, arbitrary cuts to tower services, it has not explained how it came to this decision and what alternatives, if any, it considered.

When Congress passed the Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the remainder of the year, some adjustments were made to prioritize spending cuts. For example, the measure included an amendment to ensure the Department of Agriculture continues to prevent meat inspectors from being furloughed, and another amendment to shift funds to pay for tuition assistance for members of our military. However, a similar amendment was introduced to keep the contract tower program going, but Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has chosen not to bring this measure up for a vote. In the absence of such a provision, the FAA and other agencies should be looking at their budgets to make the sequester cuts with as little impact on essential public services as possible.

Cutting spending is very difficult and can be painful. While the sequester is no exception, the alarmist rhetoric around these cuts hopefully will continue to expose unnecessary spending across the federal government and fuel a national conversation about the priorities and role of the federal government. Only by having this debate will we be able to start making the reforms necessary to get our budget under control and put our nation on a better path.