A Glance At Automatic Spending Cuts From 2013

The Budget Control Act passed last August stipulates that failure of the supercommittee and Congress to act on further deficit reduction will trigger across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion in both defense and non-defense programs, starting in 2013.

Here is a general look at how those cuts may play out through 2021 -- some savings would occur after 2021:

--The Congressional Budget Office says caps on new, Congress-approved spending on defense programs will be reduced from 10 percent in 2013 to 8.5 percent in 2021, with savings of $454 billion.

--Caps on Congress-approved spending on non-defense programs would be reduced from 7.8 percent in 2013 to 5.5 percent in 2021, with savings of $294 billion.

--Most Medicare spending would be reduced by 2 percent a year, with savings of $123 billion. Savings from other mandatory spending programs would produce another $47 billion.

--The CBO estimates that the savings would reduce interest payments on the national debt by $169 billion.

--In a further breakdown, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that in 2013 the cuts to mandatory programs include about $10.8 billion in Medicare payments to providers and insurance plans and about $5.2 billion to other programs such as farm price supports.

--Mandatory programs that are exempt from sequestration, or cuts, include Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, the CHIP children's' health program, child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income, the Earned Income Tax Credit, veterans' benefits and federal retirement.

--Veterans' medical care and Pell grants would also be exempt from cuts to Congress-approved, discretionary programs.

--The CBPP estimated that both defense and non-defense cuts would total $54.7 billion in 2013. It said that would represent a cut in 9 percent in defense programs, or 7 percent if the president elects not to exempt military personnel funding from the reductions.

--The Pentagon had been headed for a budget of some $700 billion in 2021. With cuts already enacted under the Budget Control Act and future across-the-board cuts, that would be reduced by more than $100 billion.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Obama Snake Oil co Location: Washington on Nov 22, 2011 at 08:12 AM
    "To destroy this country", clarify, to save whats left of this country is factual. Being 15 trillion in debt with over 2 trillion over budget...its pretty much destoryed there moped guy.
  • by Lavon Location: Goldsboro on Nov 22, 2011 at 06:14 AM
    I told you that the Republicans will stop at nothing to destroy this country. They will bring this country down at all costs because they think that it will somehow win them the White House next year. Well I don't think they realize that it does the exact opposite. It turns the American people against them because we see their true colors. We've seen Republicans get rejected and recalled a couple of weeks ago. Walker is next! Out with the Republicans next year. Yeap you really messed up.
  • by I never voted for Norquist on Nov 22, 2011 at 01:45 AM
    Why does the Grover Pledge trump the Oath of Allegiance to this country? To what position has Grover ever been elected? Isn't it treasonous to sign a pledge that violates the oath of allegiance? A country made of starving peasants and heartless rich opportunists will develop unless we get people like Grover out of politics! Let's send him back to his home under a dirty rock.
    • reply
      by Obama Snake Oil co on Nov 22, 2011 at 05:16 AM in reply to I never voted for Norquist
      You didn't seem to mind letting the democrats spend 15 trillion in debt and charge them with treason for spending your kids future. Yeah, there will be a gap, based on paying back the chinese for what? Tell us how your life is better under Obama and the spending programs....I'll wait...
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Nov 22, 2011 at 11:29 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil co
        So you are OK with Newt wanting kids to stop school and go to work? Hows that for our kids future that you are so concerned about?
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil Co on Nov 23, 2011 at 06:02 AM in reply to
          I am OK with anyone but Obama! We have all seen his failure as a leader to help pass this bill or offer a compromise...infact, he was on international vacation during the event. He did it for the old people and "the children".
  • by unbelievable. on Nov 22, 2011 at 12:14 AM
    The failure of the super committee shows how broken our government is. When one political party is more loyal to a "no tax pledge" from some nobody named Grover Norquist than to the American people they work for and the US constituti­on that they took an oath to uphold, it is time for things to change.
    • reply
      by Obama Snake Oil co on Nov 22, 2011 at 05:20 AM in reply to unbelievable.
      Oh and that tax pledge the democrats propose will solve all the problems....it will not even put a dent in 15 trillion plus the defict if you taxed those rich people all of their money. This is the part that the democrats will not come clean on. Stop spending more than you take in. Try that at home boys and girls and let us know how that works out for you. Its common sense. Yet you come here and post the lie from the left that raising taxes is any solution, its not. STOP SPENDING!!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Nov 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil co
        The. Deems gave up programs, and wanted to increase revenue also.........remember the definition of the word BALANCED?
  • by Munchy Location: Pitt County on Nov 21, 2011 at 07:00 PM
    After reading a number of previous posts, I'm moved to weigh in. There are three entities that have drawn lines that show they each are unwilling to compromise. The most recent is the President along with Democrats and Republicans. This democrat takes a more pragmatic view of the current US economics. We got here because of spending. We didn't get here because of taxes. It's the spending Stupid. Entitlements don't produce jobs. A reduction in the defense budget will INCREASE job losses (and that is the line drawn by Obama, our jobs president). Give me a break.
    • reply
      by Bloke on Nov 22, 2011 at 04:21 AM in reply to Munchy
      AMEN, and the failure to negotiate and do their jobs will not cost them one red cent. It will cost all of the taxpayers and entitlement receivers dearly. That is everyone except these stinking poiticians. They need to GROW UP AND DO THEIR JOBS!
    • reply
      by To Munchy on Nov 22, 2011 at 09:01 AM in reply to Munchy
      You said, we got here because of spending. We didn't get here because of taxes". You just assume that is correct-WRONG. Both were to blame. At the same time Bush was giving tax cuts, he was starting two wars with no way to pay for them! That is the same as buying a new car and quitting your job! Less income-more expenses!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Nov 22, 2011 at 11:34 AM in reply to To Munchy
        The lack of taxes were one of the contributors to the problem....where have you been? The majority of Americans agree with the Democrats on increasing taxes on the middle class.
        • reply
          by Munchy on Nov 22, 2011 at 06:18 PM in reply to
          It's not a lack of taxes, we already pay taxes, at least half of us. So what's wrong with the other half? We have legislators that pass bills that are unfunded and therefore we can't afford them including entitlements. I give priority to emergent defense spending that's unfunded before additional entitlement spending. I'm not sure what "class" you profess to be, but do you really, really want more of your income going to increased taxes?
      • reply
        by Munchy on Nov 22, 2011 at 06:07 PM in reply to To Munchy
        If you quit your job, why would you spend money on a new car. Pay attention to what you are saying. It's the SPENDING. If you don't have the money, get rid of the car and cut your expenses. So, based on the the lack of any other comments from you, I assume you agree with my other points concerning the "Obama line in the sand", entitlements don't produce jobs and defense cuts will lead to increased job losses.
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil co on Nov 23, 2011 at 06:09 AM in reply to Munchy
          Agree! Its the spending. Does any of these meatheads consider that even with two wars going on, Obama and democrats spent more money than all past presidents combined? I know that the WWI and WWII were expensive, but we came out of it by cutting back on government spending afterwards. I looked at the debt numbers over the past 50 years by year and this president is plain nuts. The US cannot sustain this massive debt and all we hear is raise the borrowing amount. This equates to throwing money at a problem to fix it when creating and environment for jobs is the solution.
  • by Should be against the law on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:58 PM
    The Republican­s pledged to Grover Norquist that they would not raise taxes. Why is that pledge to a single person more important than fulfilling their pledges and obligation­s to the American people to do what's right for the country?
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Nov 21, 2011 at 06:07 PM in reply to Should be against the law
      Darn republican­s. Grover Norquist has something on those jerks. This man is not an elected official. Those lilly livered jerks are scared to death of him.
      • reply
        by Get these GOP Clowns out of office ...NOW!!! on Nov 22, 2011 at 12:18 AM in reply to
        Which is worse, loyalty to a no-tax pledge or cutting defense and aide to the elderly and disabled?
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Nov 22, 2011 at 01:47 AM in reply to Should be against the law
      The MSM would be throwing a hissy fit if one single democrat had signed a pledge to Jesse Jackson on any subject, including an invitation to a birthday party.
    • reply
      by Obama Snake Oil co on Nov 22, 2011 at 08:15 AM in reply to Should be against the law
      Finally, something was done to stop the overspending of our credit cards. Being a democrat and spending 15 trillion should be against the law, agree on that one.
      • reply
        by To Snake on Nov 22, 2011 at 09:02 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil co
        I can't wait to see what you say when the Republicans try to stop this trigger!
  • by GOP Traitors!! on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:49 PM
    It's been said that compromise is the art of legislatin­g. The President gave them a offer that they couldn't refuse (and many democrats like myself didn't approve of) a few months ago called there bluff. So they put this supercommi­ttee together and again these republiCon­s weren't serious about the debt but more interested in licking the boots of Grope me Norquist an unelected official with a secret list of individual­s and corporatio­ns of the rich and infamous he won't even disclose who they are. The republiCon­s are less than beginners at legislatin­g and governing our great nation. When our founding fathers put together and voted for the constituti­on - one of their main reasons for forming a new federal government was for the power to tax since it was nearly impossible for the continenta­l congress and fund the revolution and it soldiers. General George Washington­, Alexander Hamilton and Madison were the main thrust behind it. When our elected officials take that oath to our constituti­on that means all of it. The power to tax is included in it and it makes total sense when you are forming a country. So, this pledge to Grope me Norquist and his private secret list of wealthy individual­s and multinatio­nal corporatio­ns is a conflict of interest.. is it not? I consider it and I hope you do to as act of treason against our great nation and government­. This is a good enough reason for us to remove them from office.
    • reply
      by Waldo on Nov 21, 2011 at 06:10 PM in reply to GOP Traitors!!
      Congratula­ting themselves for their hard work? I wonder how much lobbying money each "super committee" Republican member got? Let's blame Senator McConnell, and Congressma­n Boehner for appointing fools who would not compromise­. Oh yea, Norquist should be charged with extortion and treason.
      • reply
        by sc9484 on Nov 22, 2011 at 03:55 AM in reply to Waldo
        Each Republican probably received no more lobbying money than the Democratic "super committee" members.
  • by Anonymous on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:35 PM
    The Super Committee is EXACTLY the same as any except only gets one chance to produce a bill, where others can amend it and try again. The trigger is the true "end run around democracy"­, it's a law enacted by default, by lack of action. Most here said Obama "caved" when he got this deal. Not true, it was brilliant, the pressure on Repubs to avoid defense cuts is huge. It will be fun watching the hawks squirm: do cut defense or raise taxes? What would Grover do? :-)
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:52 PM in reply to
      These Neocon/TBP­ers obstructio­nist need a wake-up call. The, so-called, job creators have created how many jobs? They have had the benefit of the Bush Tax Breaks for 11 years and where have the jobs been created? In China, India, Sri Lanka, but nothing here. We are paying for those jobs to be shipped overseas. We need to show these guys the door.
  • by Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study on Nov 21, 2011 at 04:35 PM
    Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University. The poll surveyed New Jersey residents about the uprisings in Egypt and the Middle East, and where they get their news sources. The study, which controlled for demographic factors like education and partisanship, found that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government" compared to those who watch no news. WE BEEN KNOWING THIS FOR YEARS!!!
    • reply
      by Nonsense on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:30 PM in reply to Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study
      Now that post takes the cake, what a bunch of nonsense that is!!!!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Nov 21, 2011 at 11:58 PM in reply to Nonsense
        When the protesters chant "Fox lies," they're right. The distortion­s and deceit on Fox are more in line with a full-time political spin operation than a self-descr­ibed "fair and balanced" news source. We need to continue the important work of countering Fox's around-the­-clock lies and distortion­s.
    • reply
      by Ha Ha Ha on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:44 PM in reply to Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study
      Ha ha , Thats the second poll that says Fox viewers are mis-informed. How may times do lightning have to strike some of you.
      • reply
        by Obama Snake Oil co on Nov 22, 2011 at 05:21 AM in reply to Ha Ha Ha
        In your case, just one more time...
  • by Anonymous on Nov 21, 2011 at 04:09 PM
    Working people paid for Medicare and they are cutting our benefits. People on Medicaid pay nothing. They do not have a deductible either. I was behind a young woman at the Doctors office who was complaining about paying One dollar (on medicaid) i was waiting to pay Two Hundred and i have Medicare and insurance. Something is bad wrong.
    • reply
      by Thank the Democrats on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:32 PM in reply to
      Thank the democrats for that one too, they are the ones that don't want any changes to entitlements. That is exactly what the republicans want to change about the entitlements, republicans want to take the entitlements away from those who don't pay in and then they will no longer be entitlements since those left collecting will have paid in!!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Nov 21, 2011 at 05:51 PM in reply to Thank the Democrats
        Grover Norquist has managed to hijack the Democratic process. Even an attempt to remove continous public scrutiny from the decision making process by use of the super committee could not remove Norquist's threats of retaliatio­n for any Republican voting for tax increases. I am glad that 60 minutes put a face to this school yard bully.His own threats now uttered on national television will in the end bring him down. It is a shame that the country has to suffer because of his arrogance.
      • reply
        by What happened to the GOP? on Nov 21, 2011 at 06:00 PM in reply to Thank the Democrats
        Congress needs a major overhaul! Every GOP Senator and every GOP Congressma­n needs to go! We as the American Voters need to send an overwhelmi­ng message to them by voting the whole bunch of them OUT! After hearing the 60 minutes report of how all these politician­s make millions on inside trading, I'm outraged! Also as a Republican­, I am no fan of Grover Norguist and his blackmail tactics and how he holds Republican candidates responsibl­e for never raising taxes. Our country is drowning in debt and it's time that Washington starts using any means necessary to get our 15 trillion dollar debt under control. The Government spends 3.8 trillion dollars a year while only bringing in 2 trillion dollars. It's not going to be too long into the future when the stuff hits the fan and this country is going to be in big trouble!
  • Page:
WITN

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 134258823 - witn.com/a?a=134258823
Gray Television, Inc.