Changes

The term is formally defined in the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) as the cancellation of budgetary resources provided by [[discretionary appropriation]]s or [[direct spending]] laws. New budget authority, unobligated balances, direct [[spending authority]], and obligation limitations are “sequestrable” resources; that is, they may be subject to reduction or cancellation under a [[president]]ial sequester order.<ref>[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process], pg. 94, pdf. www.gao.gov</ref>

The term is formally defined in the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) as the cancellation of budgetary resources provided by [[discretionary appropriation]]s or [[direct spending]] laws. New budget authority, unobligated balances, direct [[spending authority]], and obligation limitations are “sequestrable” resources; that is, they may be subject to reduction or cancellation under a [[president]]ial sequester order.<ref>[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process], pg. 94, pdf. www.gao.gov</ref>

==Background==

===Background===

The Executive impoundment of Congressionally mandated funds, i.e., a president's refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress, had a long history. But after President [[Richard Nixon]] refused to spend money appropriated by Congress for [[Lyndon Johnson|Johnson-era]] [[Great Society]] programs, Democratic President [[Jimmy Carter]] signed legislation passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress making it illegal for a president not to spend money appropriated by Congress. By 1985 it became apparent some form of budgetary restraint was necessary.  Sequestration was designed as a [[deficit]]-reduction forcing mechanism, so that unless the President and Congress cooperate each year to reduce the deficit by prescribed amounts, a “sequestration” order would reduce funds down to a mandated figure.<ref>http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/37-impoundment-of-appropriated-funds.html</ref>

The Executive impoundment of Congressionally mandated funds, i.e., a president's refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress, had a long history. But after President [[Richard Nixon]] refused to spend money appropriated by Congress for [[Lyndon Johnson|Johnson-era]] [[Great Society]] programs, Democratic President [[Jimmy Carter]] signed legislation passed by the Democratic controlled Congress making it illegal for a president not to spend money appropriated by Congress. By 1985 it became apparent some form of budgetary restraint was necessary.  Sequestration was designed as a [[deficit]]-reduction forcing mechanism, so that unless the President and Congress cooperate each year to reduce the deficit by prescribed amounts, a “sequestration” order would reduce funds down to a mandated figure.<ref>http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/37-impoundment-of-appropriated-funds.html</ref>

==2013 Obama sequester==

==2013 Obama sequester==

===Specifics of Obama's plan===

===Specifics of Obama's plan===

The Obama plan called for the President to issue [[Executive Order]]s for immediate cuts totally $85 billion to be divided equally between defence spending and programs such as [[Medicare]] and [[Social security]] for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. On the employment side, defence cuts are reflected in lost [[payroll]]s totalling half of the [[sequester]], or $42.5 billion; this is essentially $10,000,000 ''per hour'' in reduced payroll spending<ref>a classic picture of what is meant by the term, "economic contraction".</ref> by the federal government for individuals employed mostly as civilian contractors. Many will see permanent jobloss. A ripple effect, or "trickle down" effect will been seen soon thereafter in lesser paying retail positions.

The Obama plan called for the President to issue [[Executive Order]]s for immediate cuts totally $85 billion to be divided equally between defense spending and programs such as [[Medicare]] and [[Social security]] for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. On the employment side, defence cuts are reflected in lost [[payroll]]s totalling half of the [[sequester]], or $42.5 billion; this is essentially $10,000,000 ''per hour'' in reduced payroll spending<ref>a classic picture of what is meant by the term, "economic contraction".</ref> by the federal government for individuals employed mostly as civilian contractors. Many will see permanent job loss. A ripple effect, or "trickle down" effect will been seen soon thereafter in lesser paying retail positions.

===Defence cuts===

===Defence cuts===

==See also==

==See also==

*[[Backdoor spending authority]]

*[[Backdoor spending authority]]

==References==

==References==

{{Reflist}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Economic preparedness topics}}

{{Economic preparedness topics}}

[[Category:Economic Preparedness]]

[[Category:Economic Preparedness]]

[[Category:Budget Terms]]

[[Category:Budget Terms]]

[[Category:Obama Administration]]

[[Category:Obama Administration]]