Re: [GroundswellGroup] Fwd: Inhofe-Toomey flexibility bill - Google Groups

3/14/13 5:19 PM

Google Groups Re: [GroundswellGroup] Fwd: Inhofe-Toomey flexibility bill

vthomas Posted in group: Groundswell Feb 28, 2013 9:18 AM

Steve and all Our special guest at Groundswell yesterday called this: "a TOTAL ABDICATION of congressional leadership and legislative authority provided by the Constitution by Republicans."
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Steven Chartan <scha...@gmail.com> wrote: To the groupThe Senate will be voting on an Inhofe-Toomey sequester flexibility bill today at some point, as well as a Democrat alternative. Please find the flexibility bill text and a technical summary attached, as well as additional information below. Please note that this email is not an endorsement - just an effort to share information. Best, Steve ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: "Chartan, Steve (Toomey)" <Steve_...@toomey.senate.gov> Date: Feb 28, 2013 8:00 AM Subject: Inhofe-Toomey flexibility bill To: "scha...@gmail.com" <scha...@gmail.com> RPC Section by Section The bill does not turn off the March 1st sequester. Under the bill, the March 1st sequester goes into effect but it also sets up a process for the President to propose achieving the sequester savings in a different manner and a process for Congress to disapprove or approve of his suggested cuts. If Congress disapproves of the Presidents plan, than the March 1st sequester stays in place. If Congress fails to disapprove of the Presidents plan, than his proposed cuts would go into effect. Section 1 requires the President to submit a sequester replacement plan no later than March 15, 2013. This plan must permanently cancel budget authority of $85 billion in discretionary or direct spending. This amount is equal to the amount that the sequester would cut. Of this amount, no more than $42.67 billion can be cut in budget function 050 (Defense and national security spending) and such cancellation has to comply with policies and authorization amounts in P.L. 112-239, the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The Presidents plan may not increase revenues. The Presidents plan may not use cuts in one program to offset spending increases in another program. Section 1 further provides that no later than 7 days after March 15, 2013 Congress must consider a Joint Resolution of Disapproval. It creates an expedited process for consideration of the joint resolution. If the joint resolution is enacted into law, the President may not carry out his plan, and sequestration continues as was established under the BCA. If the joint resolution is not enacted, the Presidents new sequester
https://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/groundswellgroup/74fwOmkEWtA/vuNHyKv-p70J Page 1 of 4

Re: [GroundswellGroup] Fwd: Inhofe-Toomey flexibility bill - Google Groups

3/14/13 5:19 PM

plan would go into effect. Section 2 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer budgetary resources among accounts at DOD if the Budget Control Act sequester is implemented. These transfers must comply with policies and authorization amounts in P.L. 112-239, the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Spencer Wayne Policy Analyst Budget, Tax, and Appropriations t: 202.224.2762 -U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Barrasso http://rpc.senate.gov

Inhofe-Toomey Sequester Flexibility Bill What does the bill do? ! As sequestration currently stands, the uniformed across-the-board cuts do not distinguish high priority programs from low priority spending. This proposal would keep the $85 billion in sequester cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year but gives Office of Management and Budget needed flexibility in implementing the cuts. ! No gimmicks: The legislation does not cede power to the President. o Instead it gives Congress the power to overturn the OMBs proposed cuts by passing a joint resolution of disapproval by simple majority. o It explicitly denies the President the ability to increase spending on any program. The President is still bound by the Congressional spending limits passed by Congress, and requires OMBs proposed cuts have the same outlay impacts as sequester. ! On the defense aspect, the bill will require defense cuts to be in a manner consistent with the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), enforcing the President to listen to the advice of his military leadership. ! In the interest of national security, our bill would cap defense cuts at $42 billion. But, it will also give the President the opportunity to take less cuts from defense by allowing him to shift those cuts instead over to the non-defense side. ! The proposal would also grant the Department of Defense transfer authority under the Continuing Resolution. ! Explicitly prohibits a tax increase The facts about spending ! Even with the sequester, spending will increase in 2013 ! The Sequesters $85 billion in spending restraint represents about 2.4% of the federal governments $3.55 trillion budget ! Annual outlays are expected to soar by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years, reaching $6 trillion by 2023
https://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/groundswellgroup/74fwOmkEWtA/vuNHyKv-p70J Page 2 of 4

Re: [GroundswellGroup] Fwd: Inhofe-Toomey flexibility bill - Google Groups

3/14/13 5:19 PM

! The sequester is problematic for two reasons: o Uniform across the board cuts that do not distinguish high priority programs from low priority spending o Half of the cuts target defense, even though defense comprises only 18% of federal spending ! The Inhofe -Toomey bill will cut the same amount as the sequester but allow the cuts to occur in a more rational way National Defense: This bill mitigates the catastrophic impacts ! This bill allows the President to listen to the advice of his military leadership and offset some of the devastating impacts of sequestration with modest reductions to lower priority non-defense programs. ! If sequester is allowed to take place and the continuing resolution is not fixed, the Department of Defense stands to waste billions of dollars through the canceling of contracts, the termination of multiyears, and the reduction in force readiness. Resulting in a less capable military at an increased and equally unacceptable cost. ! Providing the Department of Defense the flexibility to determine how these cuts will be implemented will help make a devastating situation a little less devastating. It will allow the department to implement these still unacceptable cuts in the smartest way possible and could help ease the necessity and duration of furloughs and help prevent millions from being wasted over contract terminations costs. ! Earlier this month, the Secretary of Defense abruptly announced that he has indefinitely delayed the deployment of the Truman Carrier Strike Group to the Middle East, denying the two carrier force presence our Commander in the region urgently requires. While our bill wont fix all of the impacts of sequester, it will give the Department the flexibility to ensure that our security posture will not be driven by the indiscriminate cutting of every account by almost 9 percent. ! This bill also provides the flexibility necessary to address, among others, the unintended shortfalls in the Departments Operation and Maintenance account by giving the Secretary the authority to allocate funding under the current continuing resolution in a manner consistent with the FY13 Defense Authorization bill that Congress passed overwhelmingly just a couple months ago. Flexibility to the Continuing Resolution o Affording the department this CR flexibility will help prevent: The cancellation of 4 of 6 Army brigade combat team training center rotations. The canceling of 3rd and 4th Quarter depot maintenance in the across all services, along with the termination of thousands of temporary employees. ! Equating to almost $500 million in delayed Navy ship depot maintenance and the firing of about 3,000 people who support that work. The firing of some 5,000 people supporting Army depot maintenance, and up to 3,200 people in the Air Force. It will also help prevent reduced ship operations, flying hours, and collective and individual training. All of which will take months to restore proficiency and in some cases will cost at least 2-3 times more money to restore to normal readiness levels. -You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Groundswell" group. To post to this group, send email to groundsw...@googlegroups.com.

-Virginia "Ginni" Thomas Liberty Consulting & Daily Caller

https://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/groundswellgroup/74fwOmkEWtA/vuNHyKv-p70J Page 3 of 4

Re: [GroundswellGroup] Fwd: Inhofe-Toomey flexibility bill - Google Groups

3/14/13 5:19 PM

5765F Burke Centre Parkway #302, Burke, VA 22015 vthomas@libertyinc.co/ginni@dailycaller.com (o) (888) 900-7611 / (703) 563-9462 (fax) Latest Daily Caller posts: The surprising Juan Williams of Fox News this week! - http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/23/juan-williams-liberal-media-will-shutyou-down-stab-you-kill-you-fire-you-if-disagree-video/

https://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/groundswellgroup/74fwOmkEWtA/vuNHyKv-p70J

Page 4 of 4