Regulatory: Sequestration
The outcome could have a significant impact on the 2012 elections.
September 28, 2011 at 09:13 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Federal regulatory agencies are facing the threat of extensive budget cuts in their rule writing and enforcement functions under the “sequestration” process under the Deficit Reduction law.
The appropriations process produces budget deficits because program advocates can make strong arguments for increased spending without being required to identify other programs that should be cut to offset those outlays. In 1985, the Gramm-Rudman law “sequestration” mechanism that sought to turn the process into a zero sum game.
“Sequestration” has two meanings. Technically, it means automatic, indiscriminate, pro rata budget cuts to reduce overall spending to a predetermined level. In practice, “sequestration” is a gun that Congress holds to its own head to force program advocates to accept compensating cuts elsewhere for fear that resources for their favorite program otherwise will be cut.
The Deficit Reduction law modified Gramm-Rudman to provide that sequestration will occur in January 2013 unless Congress adopts—by Dec. 23, 2011—a law reducing spending by $1.2 trillion in 2012-2021. If Congress fails to act or adopts a law that reduces spending by less that $1.2 trillion, spending will automatically be reduced in equal amounts over these years to produce $1.2 trillion in cuts.
If sequestration occurs, indiscriminate but uniform pro rata cuts will be divided equally between defense and non-defense programs that have not been exempted. Core national security functions and the major domestic entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicaid) will not be reduced, and cuts in Medicare are limited to 2 percent. The major departure from the original Gramm-Rudman process is that many more national security programs are now subject to sequestration in an effort to force proponents of defense spending to demand cuts in domestic programs in order to prevent reductions in military spending.
The conventional wisdom is that disputes over spending and taxes are so intractable that the Joint Select Committee (JSC) established to draft a deficit reduction law cannot possibly succeed in devising a proposal to save $1.2 trillion that will pass both Houses and that the President will sign. If that prediction is correct and a full sequestration occurs, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that eligible defense programs will be cut by 10 percent, eligible non-defense programs by 7.8 percent and Medicare by 2 percent.
Few regulatory agencies are exempt from sequestration. Budget cuts of this magnitude, extending for nine years, would have substantial adverse effects on regulatory agencies in all their functions, including promulgating rules, supervision of regulated entities, inspections and enforcement. Regulators would be forced to scale back their operations and concentrate of fewer, priority targets. The uniform pro rata cuts would produce similar effects in all other covered programs.
The calculus underlying the sequestration mechanism is that the adverse consequences of extensive, indiscriminate cuts will break the policy deadlock. It is designed to force Congress to end the zero sum game, prioritize among programs and agree to targeted reductions in less-essential programs to avoid extensive cuts in vital programs. The Gramm-Rudman process had this effect in 1985. Although a sequestration was imposed in early 1986, the pro rata amount was small and readily absorbed by the agencies. Congress thereafter took steps to assure that the sequestration experiment was not repeated.
Based on that experience, I believe the most likely outcome of the JSC process is passage of a law that will make substantial progress toward the $1.2 trillion level, with the shortfall covered by a threatened sequestration in January 2013. Whatever the result, this exercise will frame the principal issue for the 2012 elections.
Federal regulatory agencies are facing the threat of extensive budget cuts in their rule writing and enforcement functions under the “sequestration” process under the Deficit Reduction law.
The appropriations process produces budget deficits because program advocates can make strong arguments for increased spending without being required to identify other programs that should be cut to offset those outlays. In 1985, the Gramm-Rudman law “sequestration” mechanism that sought to turn the process into a zero sum game.
“Sequestration” has two meanings. Technically, it means automatic, indiscriminate, pro rata budget cuts to reduce overall spending to a predetermined level. In practice, “sequestration” is a gun that Congress holds to its own head to force program advocates to accept compensating cuts elsewhere for fear that resources for their favorite program otherwise will be cut.
The Deficit Reduction law modified Gramm-Rudman to provide that sequestration will occur in January 2013 unless Congress adopts—by Dec. 23, 2011—a law reducing spending by $1.2 trillion in 2012-2021. If Congress fails to act or adopts a law that reduces spending by less that $1.2 trillion, spending will automatically be reduced in equal amounts over these years to produce $1.2 trillion in cuts.
If sequestration occurs, indiscriminate but uniform pro rata cuts will be divided equally between defense and non-defense programs that have not been exempted. Core national security functions and the major domestic entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicaid) will not be reduced, and cuts in Medicare are limited to 2 percent. The major departure from the original Gramm-Rudman process is that many more national security programs are now subject to sequestration in an effort to force proponents of defense spending to demand cuts in domestic programs in order to prevent reductions in military spending.
The conventional wisdom is that disputes over spending and taxes are so intractable that the Joint Select Committee (JSC) established to draft a deficit reduction law cannot possibly succeed in devising a proposal to save $1.2 trillion that will pass both Houses and that the President will sign. If that prediction is correct and a full sequestration occurs, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that eligible defense programs will be cut by 10 percent, eligible non-defense programs by 7.8 percent and Medicare by 2 percent.
Few regulatory agencies are exempt from sequestration. Budget cuts of this magnitude, extending for nine years, would have substantial adverse effects on regulatory agencies in all their functions, including promulgating rules, supervision of regulated entities, inspections and enforcement. Regulators would be forced to scale back their operations and concentrate of fewer, priority targets. The uniform pro rata cuts would produce similar effects in all other covered programs.
The calculus underlying the sequestration mechanism is that the adverse consequences of extensive, indiscriminate cuts will break the policy deadlock. It is designed to force Congress to end the zero sum game, prioritize among programs and agree to targeted reductions in less-essential programs to avoid extensive cuts in vital programs. The Gramm-Rudman process had this effect in 1985. Although a sequestration was imposed in early 1986, the pro rata amount was small and readily absorbed by the agencies. Congress thereafter took steps to assure that the sequestration experiment was not repeated.
Based on that experience, I believe the most likely outcome of the JSC process is passage of a law that will make substantial progress toward the $1.2 trillion level, with the shortfall covered by a threatened sequestration in January 2013. Whatever the result, this exercise will frame the principal issue for the 2012 elections.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250