Budget Control and Sequestration


Book Description

Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions to meet or enforce certain budget policy goals. In the 1990s, sequestration was used to enforce statutory limits on discretionary spending and a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement on direct spending and revenue legislation. In general, sequestration entails the permanent cancellation of budgetary resources by a uniform percentage. This book examines the new considerations and potential impacts of budget control and sequestration with a focus on select program exemptions and special rules; the Budget Control Act of 2011; and the potential impact of automatic spending reduction procedures on health reform spending.




Budget Control and Sequestration


Book Description

Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions to meet or enforce certain budget policy goals. In the 1990s, sequestration was used to enforce statutory limits on discretionary spending and a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement on direct spending and revenue legislation. In general, sequestration entails the permanent cancellation of budgetary resources by a uniform percentage. This book examines the new considerations and potential impacts of budget control and sequestration with a focus on select program exemptions and special rules; the Budget Control Act of 2011; and the potential impact of automatic spending reduction procedures on health reform spending.




Budget Control Act: Potential Impact of Sequestration on Health Reform Spending


Book Description

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) established new budget enforcement mechanisms for reducing the federal deficit by at least $2.1 trillion over the 10-year period FY2012-FY2021. The BCA placed statutory limits, or caps, on discretionary spending for each of those 10 fiscal years, which will save an estimated $0.9 trillion during that period. In addition, it created a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Joint Committee) with instructions to develop legislation to reduce the federal deficit by at least another $1.5 trillion through FY2021. On November 21, 2011, the Joint Committee announced that it was unable to agree on a legislative package of deficit cuts, which raises the likelihood of automatic annual spending reductions beginning in FY2013. Under the BCA, the reductions would be achieved by a combination of sequestration—an automatic across-the-board cancellation of budgetary resources (i.e., spending cuts) for nonexempt direct spending programs—and lowering the caps on discretionary spending. The potential impact of spending reductions triggered by the BCA on health reform spending under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) would appear to be somewhat limited. ACA sought to increase access to affordable health insurance by expanding the Medicaid program and by restructuring the private health insurance market. It set minimum standards for private insurance coverage, created a mandate for most U.S. residents to obtain coverage, and provided for the establishment by 2014 of state-based insurance exchanges for the purchase of health insurance. Certain individuals and families will be able to receive federal subsidies to reduce the cost of purchasing coverage through the exchanges. The new law included direct spending to subsidize the purchase of health insurance coverage through the exchanges, as well as increased outlays for the Medicaid expansion. Under the rules governing sequestration, Medicaid spending would be exempt from any reduction, and cuts to Medicare would be capped at 2%. ACA also included numerous mandatory appropriations that provide billions of dollars to support temporary programs to increase coverage and funding for targeted groups, provide funds to states to plan and establish exchanges, and support many other research and demonstration programs and activities. These appropriations would, in general, be subject to direct spending reductions under a sequestration order. However, for any given fiscal year in which sequestration was ordered, only new budget authority for that year (including advance appropriations that first become available for obligation in that year) would be reduced. Unobligated balances carried over from previous fiscal years would be exempt from sequestration. ACA is likely to affect discretionary spending subject to the annual appropriations process. The law reauthorized appropriations for numerous existing discretionary grant programs and activities authorized under the Public Health Service Act, permanently reauthorized funding for the Indian Health Service (IHS), and created a number of new grant programs and provided for each an authorization of appropriations. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office projected that both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service will incur substantial administrative costs to implement the policies and programs established by ACA. Those costs will have to be funded largely through the annual appropriations process. ACA related discretionary spending would, in general, be subject to automatic spending reductions triggered by the BCA.







The Impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and Sequestration on National Security


Book Description

The impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and sequestration on national security : hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, first session, January 28, 2015.










The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget


Book Description

Congress has an interest in the cost and effectiveness of foreign affairs activities that promote U.S. interests overseas. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240/H.R. 8, signed into law on January 2, 2013), requires across-the-board reductions (sequestration) in most federal defense and nondefense discretionary programs, projects, and activities, including those in foreign affairs. These automatic cuts went into effect on March 1, 2013. Of ongoing interest will be the impact of these cuts on State Department operations, foreign aid programs, and their ability to protect Americans and promote U.S. interests overseas. According to a February 22, 2013, Pew Research Center survey, Americans surveyed support cuts in foreign aid spending more than any other government activity mentioned. Although still not the majority, 48% of those polled prefer a decrease in foreign aid, while 49% prefer it remains at the current level or is increased. When asked about the Department of State, 34% said they prefer the Department of State funding be decreased, while 60% support maintaining current State Department funding or increasing it. At the same time that sequestration is being implemented, Congress is also working on continuing government funding through the remainder of the fiscal year. Currently, the government is operating under a continuing resolution (CR, P.L. 112-175) that provides stop-gap funding through March 27, 2013. Some believe that Congress might pass a CR that provides more flexibility for implementing the sequestration law. Whether or not a CR amends the across-the-board cuts, many expect the new CR funding levels to change the baseline of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calculations and, thus, change the current estimates of sequestration cuts, including for foreign affairs spending accounts. In addition, the Administration has indicated that it intends to submit its FY2014 budget request to Congress in April. It will identify President Obama's priorities and plans for meeting the BCA caps in the next fiscal year. This report discusses current OMB estimates of foreign affairs accounts sequestration amounts. For background on the current foreign affairs budget, see CRS Report R42621, State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2013 Budget and Appropriations. This report will be updated as changes occur.




Crs Report for Congress


Book Description

"Sequestration" is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions under which budgetary resources are permanently canceled to enforce certain budget policy goals. It was first authorized by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-177, commonly known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act). Sequestration is of current interest because it has been triggered as an enforcement tool under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25). Sequestration can also occur under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Statutory PAYGO, Title I of P.L. 111-139). In either case, certain programs are exempt from sequestration, and special rules govern the effects of sequestration on others. Most of these provisions are found in Sections 255 and 256 of BBEDCA, as amended.