Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Budget Control Act of 2011

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) is a statute enacted by the 112th and signed into law by President Barack Obama on August 2, 2011, primarily to avert a potential on obligations by raising the statutory debt limit while mandating significant reduction measures. The legislation responded to a protracted debt ceiling crisis, increasing the borrowing authority by up to $2.4 trillion in two stages, with the first tranche of $400 billion effective immediately and the remainder contingent on achieving targeted spending cuts. Its core provisions imposed annual caps on discretionary budget authority, starting at $1,043 billion in fiscal year 2012 and adjusting thereafter, projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to yield approximately $917 billion in savings over the decade through fiscal year 2021. To enforce further fiscal restraint, the established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings over ten years; failure to do so, as occurred, triggered automatic across-the-board cuts known as , affecting both defense and non-defense . The estimated that the act's mechanisms, including the caps and potential , would reduce deficits by roughly $2.1 trillion over the period, though subsequent amendments and suspensions modified these outcomes. While the succeeded in imposing spending discipline amid partisan gridlock, its provision drew criticism for indiscriminate cuts that arguably undermined policy priorities, such as military readiness and domestic programs, without addressing spending or revenue enhancements. The law's legacy includes a of constrained federal budgeting, influencing subsequent fiscal debates and partial expirations of its caps by 2021.

Background

Debt Ceiling Crisis of 2011

The federal debt reached its statutory limit of $14.294 trillion on May 16, 2011, prompting Treasury Secretary to invoke extraordinary measures, including suspending investments in certain federal retirement funds, to avert an immediate default. These measures provided temporary borrowing authority, estimated to last until early August 2011, but underscored the urgency of congressional action amid projections of $1.4 trillion in annual deficits driven by post-2008 spending and revenue shortfalls. The crisis intensified following the 2010 midterm elections, where Republicans gained control of the and demanded at least $2 trillion in spending cuts as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, viewing unchecked borrowing as fiscally unsustainable after years of bipartisan expansions under Presidents and Obama. Negotiations between President , House Speaker , Senate Majority Leader , and other leaders stalled repeatedly, with Republicans rejecting proposals lacking deep discretionary spending reductions and Democrats opposing cuts to entitlement programs without revenue increases via tax hikes on high earners. Boehner proposed a "big deal" in July targeting $4 trillion in deficit reduction over a through a mix of spending restraints and tax reforms, but talks collapsed on when Obama declined to endorse it without new revenues, leading Boehner to abandon negotiations and pursue a short-term extension. The impasse triggered market volatility, with the dropping over 2,000 points in late July, and Treasury yields spiking as investors priced in default risk, though empirical analyses later attributed much of the economic drag—estimated at 0.5-1% of GDP—to policy uncertainty rather than the ceiling itself. By early August, warned that extraordinary measures would exhaust on August 2, risking delayed payments on Social Security, salaries, and interest obligations, potentially causing a technical default and broader financial panic. On July 31, the narrowly passed a bill for a $1 cut in exchange for a $900 billion ceiling increase, but the rejected it, forcing last-minute talks that yielded the Budget Control Act framework: $917 billion in immediate caps offset by a $2.1 ceiling hike in phases. Even after passage on August 2, Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. from to AA+ on August 5, citing prolonged political and insufficient long-term fiscal reforms as eroding governance effectiveness, a move that fueled further declines despite no immediate borrowing disruption. This episode highlighted causal tensions between statutory borrowing limits and trajectories, with critics attributing the standoff to partisan incentives rather than inherent fiscal impossibility, as prior administrations had raised the ceiling over 70 times without default.

Economic and Fiscal Context Preceding Enactment

The , officially dated from December 2007 to June 2009 by the , severely contracted U.S. economic activity, with real GDP declining by 4.3 percent from peak to trough and payroll employment falling by 8.7 million jobs. rose sharply, reaching a peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009 and remaining above 9 percent through 2010, reflecting persistent labor market weakness amid housing market collapse and financial system stress. In response, expanded significantly: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 authorized up to $700 billion for the (TARP) to stabilize banks, while the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided approximately $800 billion in stimulus spending, tax cuts, and aid to states, aiming to counteract demand shortfalls through automatic stabilizers and discretionary measures. These interventions, combined with ongoing defense and entitlement expenditures, amplified federal outlays as revenues plummeted due to lower taxable income and corporate profits. Federal budget deficits surged amid the downturn, totaling $1.4 trillion in 2009—equivalent to 10.0 percent of GDP—driven by reduced receipts and elevated spending on unemployment insurance, , and recession-related programs. The deficit narrowed slightly to about 8.9 percent of GDP in 2010 but remained at $1.3 trillion in 2011, or 8.6 percent of GDP, as economic recovery proved sluggish with GDP growth averaging under 2 percent annually from 2010 to mid-2011. Publicly held federal debt rose from 40.5 percent of GDP in 2008 to approximately 62 percent by mid-2011, approaching the statutory debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion set in early 2011, which constrained Treasury borrowing authority despite projections from the indicating debt would exceed 70 percent of GDP by year-end under baseline assumptions without policy changes. This fiscal trajectory reflected structural pressures beyond cyclical factors, including pre-recession trends in entitlement growth and , compounded by the recession's exacerbation of shortfalls and . The Congressional Budget Office's January 2011 outlook warned of sustained deficits averaging over 5 percent of GDP over the absent reforms, projecting cumulative deficits of $6.2 from and held by the public reaching 90 percent of GDP by 2020—levels unseen since —heightening concerns over long-term sustainability, interest costs, and crowding out of private investment. By spring 2011, with Treasury exhausting to avoid , the mounting burden intersected with political debates over spending restraint, setting the stage for legislative action on deficit reduction.

Key Provisions

Discretionary Spending Caps

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) imposed statutory caps on new discretionary budget authority for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, designed to reduce projected deficits by limiting annual appropriations for defense and non-defense programs. These caps applied to base discretionary spending, excluding mandatory programs, emergencies, and certain other adjustments such as disaster relief or reemployment programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that adherence to the initial caps would yield $917 billion in savings over the decade relative to pre-BCA baselines, before any additional sequestration effects. For fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the caps separated into "security" (primarily defense-related) and "non-security" (non-defense) categories to enforce distinct limits:
Fiscal YearSecurity Cap (billions)Non-Security Cap (billions)Total (billions)
20126843591,043
20136863611,047
From 2014 onward, the consolidated the limits into a single discretionary category, with amounts increasing nominally each year to account for projected but remaining below unconstrained baselines:
Fiscal YearTotal Discretionary Cap (billions)
20141,066
20151,086
20161,107
20171,131
20181,156
20191,182
20201,208
20211,234
These limits were enforceable through points of order in both chambers of under amended procedures of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, preventing consideration of legislation exceeding the caps unless waived by a vote. The Office of Management and Budget was required to issue annual reports adjusting the caps for specified factors, such as program integrity savings or changes in concepts, but the core structure prioritized restraint on appropriated spending to address fiscal pressures amid the 2011 debt ceiling impasse.

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Supercommittee, was established under Title IV of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), signed into law by President Barack Obama on August 2, 2011. The committee's purpose was to identify and recommend legislative measures to reduce the federal deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the fiscal years 2012 through 2021, beyond the initial discretionary spending caps enacted in the same legislation. This target encompassed a mix of spending reductions, revenue increases, entitlement reforms, and other policy changes, with the committee required to submit its recommendations and draft legislative text no later than November 23, 2011. Success would have triggered expedited congressional consideration, including waiver of certain procedural hurdles like the Senate filibuster and restrictions on amendments, to facilitate passage without further negotiation. The committee comprised 12 members of , with equal representation from the and and balanced partisanship intended through appointments: three members each selected by the , , of the , and . Co-chaired by Representative (R-TX) and Senator (D-WA), the full membership included Democrats , , and ; Republicans , , and ; Democrats , James Clyburn, and ; and Republicans , , and . Appointments were to occur by September 16, 2011, with the committee's first meeting required within 45 days of the Act's enactment. Procedurally, the operated with a of seven members and required a vote for approval of recommendations, prohibiting to ensure direct participation. Staff support was drawn from ional offices and additional hires, funded through existing committee resources, and the was empowered to hold hearings, witnesses, and receive input from agencies and the . If the committee's proposal achieved the $1.5 trillion target and was enacted into law, it would have offset the automatic mechanism; otherwise, the committee would terminate on January 31, 2012. The structure aimed to compel bipartisan compromise by tying the outcome to broader and fiscal stability measures, though it explicitly exempted certain programs like Security benefits and military personnel pay from potential cuts in any enforced reductions.

Sequestration Enforcement Mechanism

The enforcement mechanism, codified in Sections 251–261 of the and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as amended by of the Budget Control Act of 2011, functioned as an automatic trigger for spending reductions to enforce targets absent agreement by the Select Committee on Reduction. This provision required the implementation of across-the-board cuts to non-exempt budgetary resources if the committee failed to submit legislation achieving at least $1.2 trillion in reduction over fiscal years 2013–2022 by the statutory deadline of January 15, 2012. The (CBO) and (OMB) were tasked with issuing joint preview reports by August 15 of the preceding year and final reports to refine the reduction calculations, ensuring transparency in the baseline assumptions for affected spending. Upon , the President was obligated to issue an no later than of the applicable —initially set for , —directing OMB to execute the by canceling the requisite portion of budget authority and outlays. The cuts were divided equally between (primarily Department of Defense appropriations) and non-security categories, targeting a total of approximately $984 billion in reductions over nine years ( 2013–2021), adjusted for exemptions and baseline projections, to approximate the $1.2 trillion committee target including ancillary savings. OMB applied uniform percentage reductions—calculated separately for each category—to the non-exempt accounts, programs, projects, and activities within enacted appropriations, minimizing and enforcing proportionality across affected line items. Certain spending was exempt to protect core entitlements and priorities, including Social Security benefits, payments, (SNAP) benefits, unemployment compensation, federal civilian and military retirement benefits, veterans' programs, and emergency-designated appropriations. Mandatory programs faced limited exposure, with provider payments subject to a fixed 2% reduction rather than the full across-the-board rate, capped to avoid deeper structural cuts. The mechanism also extended to enforcing annual discretionary spending caps under the Act; breaches via excess appropriations would prompt similar OMB-directed clawbacks in the following year. This rigid, formulaic approach aimed to deter evasion by rendering the consequences indiscriminate and unavoidable, thereby pressuring lawmakers toward negotiated alternatives.

Legislative History

Negotiations and Bipartisan Compromise

Negotiations on the debt ceiling and associated fiscal measures began in earnest in May 2011, led by , who convened bipartisan talks with congressional leaders to address the impending limit hit on May 16. These discussions stalled on May 23 when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senator Jon Kyl withdrew over disagreements regarding tax revenue increases, with Republicans insisting on spending cuts alone. President Obama restarted high-level talks on July 5, inviting top lawmakers to the with a target deal date of July 22, amid proposals like the Senate's "Gang of Six" plan for $3.7 trillion in deficit reduction including revenue measures. Direct negotiations between Obama and House Speaker advanced in mid-July, yielding Boehner's July 19 proposal for $900 billion in spending cuts tied to a similar increase, but collapsed on July 22 due to insufficient House Republican support for further concessions. Biden then spearheaded a smaller group of senior negotiators, including Senate Minority Leader and other leaders, achieving progress by July 27. This phase emphasized reductions without immediate tax hikes, bridging partisan divides where Democrats sought balanced approaches and Republicans prioritized cuts to offset borrowing. The bipartisan compromise crystallized on in a framework announced by Obama following final leader consultations, incorporating $917 billion in mandatory and caps over ten years, a $900 billion initial increase, and establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction targeting an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by November 23, 2011. If the committee failed, automatic would enforce $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts, split evenly between and non-defense programs, serving as a mutual deterrent—pressuring Republicans on defense reductions and Democrats on domestic spending. This structure avoided immediate revenue measures, a key Republican demand, while preserving potential for future tax reforms via the committee, reflecting the deadline-driven concession to prevent default on August 2. The deal's passage later demonstrated cross-aisle support, with 174 House and majorities in both chambers approving the legislation.

Congressional Votes and Passage

The passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011, by a vote of 269–161 under , reflecting divided support amid the ongoing . Of the 242 Republicans, 174 voted in favor, while 66 opposed; among the 193 Democrats, 95 supported the measure and 95 voted against it. The concurred with the amendments and passed the bill on August 2, 2011, by a 74–26 margin. This included yes votes from 28 of 47 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including independents caucusing with Democrats). The passage, achieved just hours before the deadline to raise the , demonstrated reluctant bipartisan compromise under pressure to prevent a U.S. .
ChamberDate PassedYea VotesNay VotesRepublican YeasDemocratic Yeas
HouseAugust 1, 201126916117495
SenateAugust 2, 201174262845

Presidential Signature and Immediate Effects

President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( 112-25) into law on August 2, 2011, in the Oval Office, moments before the midnight deadline that could have led to a U.S. government default. The enactment immediately raised the statutory limit by $400 billion, from $14.294 trillion to $14.694 trillion, providing the Treasury Department with authority to issue additional to cover existing obligations and avert default, which Treasury Secretary had indicated was imminent without congressional action. Provisions for further debt limit increases—up to $500 billion subject to congressional disapproval and an additional $1.2 trillion tied to Joint Select Committee recommendations—followed, enabling a total effective increase of approximately $2.1 trillion over time. Financial market strains eased in the short term following the signing, as short-term funding markets stabilized after weeks of volatility during the debt ceiling impasse. However, equities declined sharply in subsequent trading sessions amid disappointment with the compromise's spending cuts lacking revenue measures and broader economic concerns; the dropped over 5% from 2 to 8, , intensified by Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S. sovereign from AAA to AA+ on 5.

Implementation

Supercommittee Deliberations and Failure

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, established under the Budget Control Act of 2011, comprised 12 members evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with equal representation from the House and . The Democratic members included co-chair (), (), and (), along with House members (), (), and (). The Republican members consisted of House co-chair (), (), and (), as well as members (), (), and (). Appointed by August 11, 2011, the committee's mandate required it to propose legislation achieving at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over fiscal years 2012–2021, beyond the $917 billion in caps already enacted, with recommendations due by November 23, 2011. Deliberations began with an organizational meeting in early September 2011, followed by public hearings featuring economists and policy experts to inform options for spending cuts, revenue enhancements, and reforms. Much of the substantive work occurred in closed-door sessions and through staff-level negotiations, focusing on balancing cuts to , , and Social Security against potential code changes. By mid-October, the committee considered frameworks incorporating deeper discretionary reductions and targeted adjustments, but progress stalled as Republicans prioritized spending restraint without revenue increases, proposing measures like block-granting and raising the eligibility age. Democrats, in contrast, advocated for closing corporate loopholes and limiting deductions for high-income earners to generate $300–400 billion in revenue, alongside modest spending trims, arguing that exclusive reliance on cuts would insufficiently address fiscal imbalances. Partisan divides deepened in November 2011, with no full committee meetings scheduled after mid-month amid irreconcilable positions: Republicans rejected any net tax increases, viewing them as contrary to pro-growth principles and the 2010 midterm electoral , while Democrats deemed insufficient overhauls unacceptable without contributions to protect vulnerable programs. Efforts to bridge the gap, including a late Republican offer for $1 trillion in spending cuts offset partially by assumptions rather than taxes, failed to secure the seven votes needed for passage, as four Democrats and three Republicans reportedly held firm against compromise. On November 21, 2011, co-chairs and Hensarling issued a joint statement declaring the committee's inability to produce a viable plan, citing "principled disagreement" over fundamentals that prevented consensus. This outcome precluded a vote in either chamber, activating the act's trigger for automatic, across-the-board cuts totaling approximately $1.2 trillion over the decade.

Triggering of Sequestration in 2013

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, established under the , was tasked with identifying at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures over fiscal years 2013 through 2022, excluding certain adjustments like savings already enacted. The committee failed to submit a legislative proposal by its statutory deadline of November 23, 2011, as neither chamber of enacted qualifying legislation disapproved by the within the required timelines. This failure automatically activated the mechanism outlined in Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the , mandating across-the-board cuts to enforce the deficit reduction target. Originally scheduled to commence on January 2, 2013, for 2013, the 's implementation was postponed by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, enacted on January 2, 2013, which delayed the cuts until March 1, 2013, to allow additional negotiation time amid the fiscal cliff debates. On March 1, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) finalized its calculations of the required reductions, determining approximately $85.3 billion in cuts for the remainder of 2013—roughly $42.7 billion from defense programs and $42.7 billion from non-defense discretionary programs—after accounting for prior appropriations and exemptions. President then issued the sequestration order that day, directing federal agencies to execute the uniform percentage reductions across applicable accounts, with limited protections for programs like Social Security, , and low-income assistance. The triggering applied separate sequestration processes: discretionary cuts took effect immediately on March 1, 2013, reducing unobligated balances and new obligations, while reductions, such as a 2% cut to payments, began on April 1, 2013. These measures enforced the BCA's baseline by imposing pro-rata reductions on non-exempt budgetary resources, with the later confirming compliance in agency reporting. Annual s continued through 2021 unless altered by subsequent legislation, though the initial 2013 trigger marked the mechanism's operational debut.

Budgetary and Economic Impacts

Projected Versus Actual Deficit Reduction

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) was estimated by the () to reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $2.1 trillion over fiscal years 2012 through 2021 relative to baseline projections. This total comprised $917 billion in savings from caps on authority for defense and non-defense categories, plus an additional $1.2 trillion from the enforcement mechanism tied to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, including $984 billion in specified cuts and approximately $216 billion in lower debt-service costs assuming full implementation. The supercommittee failed to produce legislation achieving the targeted $1.5 trillion in further savings by its November 2011 deadline, triggering automatic cuts beginning in 2013. CBO projected these across-the-board reductions—applied proportionally to defense (about 50%) and non-defense discretionary programs (about 50%), with exemptions for certain categories like veterans' benefits and low-income programs—would yield the $1.2 trillion in net deficit reduction, though actual debt-service savings could vary with interest rates and implementation timing. In practice, enforced initial annual cuts of about $85 billion in 2013, slowing discretionary outlay growth and contributing to restrained federal spending. Actual savings fell short of projections due to subsequent congressional actions that modified the BCA's constraints. The suspended for two years and raised spending caps by $63 billion, while the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 further increased discretionary limits by about $80 billion over two years and replaced deeper cuts with shallower ones through 2017; these and related adjustments through 2019 effectively reduced the BCA's net impact on deficits by hundreds of billions relative to original estimates. Analyses from the Committee for a Responsible Budget indicate ultimately delivered around $940 billion in primary spending reductions plus $200 billion in interest savings from 2014 to 2023, but combined with cap relaxations, total BCA-attributable deficit reduction approximated $1.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion over the decade, below the $2.1 trillion target. U.S. federal deficits declined sharply in the years following enactment—from $1.077 trillion in 2012 to $442 billion in 2014—reflecting in part the BCA's pressure on , which constitutes roughly 30% of the budget and fell to historic lows as a share of GDP (about 5.5% by 2023 projections under full enforcement). However, this trend was amplified by revenue growth from economic recovery post-Great Recession and slower-than-expected increases, factors not directly tied to the BCA; deficits later rebounded above $1 trillion annually by 2019 due to tax cuts, entitlement expansions, and emergencies like the , underscoring the Act's limited long-term causal influence amid broader fiscal dynamics.

Effects on Federal Discretionary Spending

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) imposed statutory caps on new discretionary budget authority for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, initially projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to yield $917 billion in savings relative to baselines adjusted for prior legislation. These caps limited total discretionary appropriations to $1,043 billion in FY2012, rising nominally to $1,066 billion by FY2021, while constraining growth below historical trends and inflation-adjusted expectations. Discretionary spending, encompassing defense and non-defense programs funded annually through appropriations, constituted about 40% of federal outlays at the time but faced bifurcated limits: "security" categories (primarily defense) capped at $684 billion in FY2012, and "non-security" at $359 billion. The caps markedly slowed discretionary spending growth compared to pre-BCA projections, where outlays were expected to rise with GDP; actual appropriations adhered closely to limits in early years, averting deeper automatic enforcement initially. However, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction's failure to achieve $1.2 trillion in additional savings triggered sequestration under the BCA, enforcing across-the-board cuts effective March 1, 2013. This reduced FY2013 discretionary funding by $55 billion—from $1,043 billion under caps to $988 billion—comprising roughly 7.8% cuts to defense (about $42.8 billion) and 5.0% to non-defense ($12.7 billion, after adjustments for exemptions like military personnel). Sequestration's formulaic application, exempting certain programs like veterans' benefits and low-income entitlements, disproportionately affected operational accounts, leading to furloughs, deferred maintenance, and scaled-back grants. Over the BCA's initial decade, cumulative discretionary outlays totaled approximately $18.5 , reflecting nominal increases but real-term restraint: non-defense spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.2% from FY2012 to FY2015, versus 4.5% pre-BCA, while defense hovered near flatlines post-. analyses indicate the caps and sequestration together averted over $1 in discretionary outlays relative to unconstrained baselines, though actual savings varied with congressional overrides and economic conditions; for instance, FY2013 non-defense cuts totaled $37.6 billion before partial mitigations. These mechanisms shifted federal priorities toward dominance, reducing discretionary's share of total budget authority from 6.6% of GDP in 2011 to 5.9% by 2013.
Fiscal YearTotal Discretionary Cap ($ billions)Actual Appropriations ($ billions, approx.)Key Notes
1,0431,043Initial adherence to caps.
1,047988Post-sequestration reduction.
20141,0661,047Continued enforcement with .
This table illustrates early-year compliance, where enforced the most abrupt contraction, though later bipartisan acts (addressed elsewhere) relaxed caps. Empirical data from the Office of Management and Budget confirm that BCA-induced limits curbed procyclical spending impulses, contributing to deficit stabilization from 2012 peaks, albeit amid debates over long-term efficacy.

Impacts on Defense Capabilities and National Security

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) established spending caps on discretionary budgets, including defense, totaling approximately $487 billion in reductions over fiscal years 2012–2021, with sequestration—triggered after the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction—imposing an additional roughly $500 billion in across-the-board cuts, half to defense, beginning in fiscal year 2013. These measures reduced the Department of Defense (DoD) discretionary budget by about $37.2 billion (7 percent) in fiscal year 2013 alone, with operations and maintenance accounts bearing 55 percent of the cuts ($20.3 billion), procurement 93 percent ($9.1 billion), and research, development, test, and evaluation 8.1 percent ($6.05 billion). DoD Comptroller Robert F. Hale described the sequestration as "devastating" to military readiness, noting an effective 8 percent cut to the requested $526.6 billion defense budget, which undermined the President's defense strategy and threatened core national security funding. Sequestration's indiscriminate nature forced abrupt reallocations, severely impacting training and maintenance critical to force readiness. The Army canceled 7 of 14 Combat Training Center exercises and deferred $630 million in equipment maintenance (9 percent of planned repairs), pushing costs into fiscal year 2015 and delaying unit readiness goals to 2020. The Air Force reduced participation in 32 of 48 large-scale exercises, stood down 17 squadrons, and cut flying hours by $315 million, eroding pilot proficiency and emergency response capacity at bases. Navy forces saw a 10 percent drop in deployed ships due to canceled deployments, while maintenance on 800 weapons systems was curtailed, alongside delays in 75,000 days of civilian labor, increasing future repair backlogs. Procurement suffered delays in 15 of 19 major weapon systems, including the P-8A Poseidon aircraft (raising life-cycle costs by $56.7 million) and CH-53K helicopter (2-month delay adding $20–30 million), with 9 systems deferring development entirely. These cuts eroded overall defense capabilities, leading to a "hollow " with diminished deterrence and responsiveness to global threats. Facilities sustainment across 's $800 billion real-property portfolio was slashed, deferring all but critical repairs and risking systemic failures in essential for operations. Contract spending dropped 16 percent in 2013, constraining modernization and structure, while persistent caps through 2021 forced trade-offs like reduced end strength and deferred investments in emerging technologies amid rising challenges from adversaries such as and . implications included heightened vulnerability, as articulated by military leaders: Secretary John McHugh noted "great cost" to readiness from curtailed training and steaming days, limiting brigade combat capabilities and full-spectrum mission proficiency. Long-term, the BCA's framework contributed to strategic imbalances, with officials warning that unchecked could impose $52 billion in annual reductions, compromising the ability to sustain high-end warfighting capacity against peer competitors.

Consequences for Non-Defense Programs and Economy

The sequestration mechanism of the Budget Control Act of 2011 imposed roughly $39 billion in cuts to non-defense discretionary spending for fiscal year 2013, enacted as across-the-board reductions averaging 5% after accounting for exemptions and adjustments. These cuts targeted programs in education, health services, environmental regulation, and housing, leading to deferred maintenance, reduced grants, and scaled-back operations across agencies like the Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency. For example, reductions in low-income housing assistance totaled about $1.6 billion, potentially displacing up to 100,000 families from subsidized units, while environmental programs faced cuts that limited inspections and enforcement activities. Federal agencies mitigated some effects through reprogramming funds and prioritizing core functions, but operational disruptions included furloughs for hundreds of thousands of civilian employees and closures of services such as Head Start classrooms and research projects. The Department of Health and Human Services reported delays in approvals and responses due to staffing shortages at the , while the Department of Education's cuts reduced support for and school improvement grants by hundreds of millions. Over the subsequent years, non-defense discretionary funding declined by approximately 15% in real terms from 2010 peaks, constraining long-term investments in workforce training, scientific research, and infrastructure maintenance. Economically, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that sequestration, combined with other fiscal tightenings like the expiration of payroll tax cuts, would reduce real GDP growth by about 1.5 percentage points below baseline levels in 2013 and eliminate roughly 1.4 million jobs by raising the unemployment rate to 9.1% in the fourth quarter. Actual outcomes showed a milder impact, with GDP expanding 1.8% in 2013 amid broader recovery factors, though the policy contributed to a short-term contractionary drag estimated at 0.6% of GDP by some analyses. Job losses were concentrated in federal contracting and public sector roles, totaling around 700,000 positions indirectly affected, but the overall labor market added 2.1 million jobs that year, indicating sequestration's effects were partially offset by private sector dynamics and monetary policy. Long-term, the spending restraints under the Act helped lower annual deficits from $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2011 to $585 billion in 2013, though critics argued the blunt cuts amplified inefficiencies without addressing entitlement growth.

Controversies and Criticisms

Evaluations of Effectiveness in Controlling Deficits

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) was projected by the () to reduce federal deficits by approximately $2.1 trillion over fiscal years 2012–2021, comprising $917 billion from initial caps and an additional $1.2 trillion from either supercommittee recommendations or automatic cuts. These mechanisms targeted discretionary outlays, which constituted about 30–40% of total federal spending, by imposing annual caps adjusted for and but falling below pre-BCA baselines. from baselines indicates that the caps and sequestration achieved savings near initial projections in the early years, with discretionary spending declining by an average of 5.1% annually from FY2011 to FY2013 and FY2013 outlays reduced by 6.4% nominally from FY2012 levels. Federal deficits contracted significantly following BCA implementation, dropping from $1.1 trillion in FY2012 (5.7% of GDP) to $680 billion in FY2013 (4.1% of GDP) and further to $485 billion in FY2014 (2.8% of GDP), reflecting combined effects of spending restraints, economic recovery-driven revenue growth, and sequestration enforcement starting in 2013. Analyses attribute roughly $1.5 trillion in discretionary cuts over the decade to BCA mechanisms, including $1.6 trillion from caps and $0.2 trillion from targeted mandatory reductions like Medicare provider payments, which lowered projected outlays relative to baselines without the law. However, these savings represented a modest fraction of overall deficits, as mandatory spending (e.g., Social Security, Medicare) and interest costs—driven by prior fiscal expansions—continued upward trajectories unaffected by core BCA provisions. Long-term effectiveness was undermined by congressional overrides and subsequent legislation, which offset BCA savings with approximately $1.8 trillion in added deficits through measures like the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 and Bipartisan Budget Acts that raised caps by $63 billion (FY2014–2015) and $80 billion (FY2016–2017), delaying or diluting sequestration. By FY2019, deficits rebounded to $984 billion (4.6% of GDP), exceeding BCA-era lows, as tax cuts and non-BCA spending growth outpaced enforced restraints; total public debt rose from 67% of GDP in 2011 to 79% by 2019 despite the law. Evaluations from conservative policy analyses credit the BCA with successfully curbing discretionary growth below historical norms (e.g., real per-capita cuts), fostering fiscal discipline absent stronger enforcement, while nonpartisan assessments like those from the Congressional Research Service note its role in initial post-recession stabilization but highlight insufficiency against structural drivers like entitlement growth. Overall, the BCA demonstrably bent the discretionary spending trajectory but failed to durably control aggregate deficits without complementary reforms to revenues and mandatory programs.

Debates Over Sequestration's Design and Equity

The mechanism in the Budget Control Act of 2011 () was intentionally structured as automatic, across-the-board reductions in non-exempt , applying roughly equal proportional cuts to eligible programs without regard for policy priorities, to create sufficient political pressure for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to identify alternative savings of at least $1.2 trillion over ten years. This design echoed earlier mechanisms like the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, aiming to enforce fiscal discipline by making inaction visibly costly and indiscriminate, thereby incentivizing compromise across partisan lines. Critics of the design argued that the uniform cuts were inefficient and disruptive, failing to target wasteful programs while harming , as agencies lacked flexibility to reallocate funds strategically, leading to operational inefficiencies such as reduced research grants, furloughs, and backlogs. Proponents, however, contended that across-the-board cuts avoided the pitfalls of selective reductions, which often devolve into political favoritism and , forcing lawmakers to confront overall spending levels rather than shielding entrenched interests. Empirical analyses post-implementation highlighted that while the mechanism achieved some deficit reduction—approximately $1.1 trillion in sequestered outlays from to —it exacerbated short-term economic drag in a fragile , with estimates of 0.5 to 1.0 reductions in GDP growth for due to the abrupt $85 billion in initial cuts. On equity, the BCA mandated a near 50/50 split between security (primarily ) and non-security discretionary spending, with $42.7 billion cut from each category in 2013, intended to distribute pain evenly and prevent dominance by either or domestic priorities. This proportionality was defended as fair by avoiding disproportionate burdens on any single sector, preserving relative funding shares and compelling bipartisan over exemptions. However, debates emerged over its regressive effects, as non-defense cuts disproportionately impacted programs serving low-income populations, including $1.6 billion from and , reductions in Head Start enrollment for 70,000 children, and curtailed nutrition and housing assistance, potentially widening without addressing root fiscal drivers like entitlements. advocates, including congressional Republicans, criticized the split for undermining readiness through indiscriminate slashes to and operations—totaling over $500 billion from 2013 to 2021—arguing it treated as fungible with domestic spending amid rising global threats. In contrast, analyses from progressive outlets emphasized the gains in curbing bloat, though these often overlooked the mechanism's exemption of core entitlements, which constitute over 60% of federal outlays and drive long-term deficits.

Political and Ideological Perspectives

The emerged from intense partisan negotiations during the , where House Republicans, leveraging their majority, demanded spending reductions exceeding any increase to avert default. Republican leadership, including Speaker , hailed the legislation as achieving approximately 98 percent of their goals by mandating $2.1 trillion in cuts over ten years without immediate tax hikes, viewing it as a mechanism to enforce fiscal discipline on future Congresses. However, hardline conservatives and Tea Party-aligned members criticized the act for insufficient immediate cuts—projecting only $7 billion in the first two years against a $2.1 trillion hike—and for relying on a supercommittee that could propose revenue increases, with Senator deeming it a "disappointing failure." Democrats, facing pressure to avoid economic catastrophe, supported the bill in greater numbers—95 House Democrats and 45 Senators voted yes—but expressed reservations over its exclusion of measures, preferring a "balanced" reduction incorporating tax increases on high earners. President Obama signed the act on August 2, , emphasizing its role in preventing default while signaling continued advocacy for shared fiscal responsibility through , as the supercommittee's failure triggered cuts that Democrats later decried as blunt and harmful to vulnerable programs. Liberal analysts, such as those at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, faulted for indiscriminately slashing non-defense , arguing it undermined economic recovery and social investments without addressing shortfalls. Ideologically, conservatives framed the BCA as a triumph of limited-government principles, prioritizing spending restraint to curb deficits rooted in expansive federal outlays, with organizations like the later proposing enhanced versions for deeper, automatic cuts to stabilize debt. Progressives countered that such ignored causal factors like under-taxation of corporations and the wealthy, contending the act's caps exacerbated by shielding while eroding , , and funding essential for long-term growth. This divide reflected broader debates on : empirical evidence of post-BCA deficit declines was attributed by fiscal hawks to enforced caps, while critics highlighted sequestration's design flaws—intended as a deterrent but activated due to irreconcilable partisan demands—undermining targeted reforms.

Amendments and Later Developments

Adjustments via Bipartisan Budget Acts (2013–2019)

The (P.L. 113-67), enacted on December 26, 2013, modified the spending caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011 by replacing the scheduled reductions for s 2014 and 2015 with alternative deficit-reduction measures, effectively increasing the caps by a total of $63 billion—$45 billion for 2014 and $18 billion for 2015—with the adjustments divided equally between defense and nondefense . This agreement also extended unemployment insurance benefits and adjusted other fiscal parameters but prioritized averting immediate across-the-board cuts while aiming to achieve equivalent savings through revenue increases and spending offsets elsewhere. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74), signed into law on November 2, 2015, further raised the discretionary spending limits established by the 2011 act, increasing caps for both defense and nondefense categories in 2016 by approximately $32 billion combined (split evenly at $16 billion each) and setting higher baselines for 2017 that exceeded prior projections by about 3 percent for nondefense relative to the original caps. These changes, projected by the to boost outlays by $79 billion over fiscal years 2016–2025 before offsets, facilitated smoother appropriations processes amid ongoing partisan disputes over sequestration's impacts. Subsequent adjustments accelerated under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), passed on February 9, 2018, which substantially elevated the caps: defense discretionary funding rose by $80 billion in fiscal year 2018 (to $716 billion) and $85 billion in fiscal year 2019 (to $768 billion), while nondefense increased by $63 billion and $68 billion respectively (to $597 billion in 2019), yielding a total two-year expansion of $296 billion—$165 billion for defense and $131 billion for nondefense—thus prioritizing military readiness over stricter fiscal restraint. The act also suspended the statutory until March 1, 2019, and included provisions for disaster aid and other offsets, though critics noted it deviated markedly from the act's original deficit-reduction trajectory. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-37), enacted on August 2, 2019, marked the effective culmination of these revisions by rescinding the remaining orders and raising caps for fiscal years and by a combined $320 billion—approximately $169 billion in and $153 billion in , with defense receiving larger shares (e.g., $740.5 billion base in )—thereby nullifying the 2011 act's constraints through its expiration and allowing appropriations unbound by prior limits. This measure suspended the until July 31, 2021, and adjusted budget enforcement mechanisms, reflecting ional consensus to prioritize spending flexibility amid rising demands and economic pressures, though it reduced the cumulative savings anticipated under the original Budget Control Act framework. Overall, these bipartisan agreements from 2013 to 2019 incrementally eroded the 2011 act's spending discipline, enabling over $700 billion in additional discretionary outlays beyond initial projections while deferring deeper structural reforms.

Post-2021 Expiration and Fiscal Policy Shifts

The discretionary spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 expired at the end of fiscal year 2021 (September 30, 2021), eliminating statutory limits on federal appropriations for defense and nondefense programs starting in fiscal year 2022. This expiration ended a of enforced restraint on roughly one-third of federal outlays, which had previously reduced projected spending by approximately $2.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period through initial caps and subsequent mechanisms. In 2022, total discretionary outlays reached $1.7 trillion, up from $1.6 trillion in 2021, with nondefense outlays exceeding defense for the first time in decades at $895 billion versus $742 billion the prior year. Base discretionary budget authority saw its largest year-over-year increase in 2022, driven by congressional appropriations unencumbered by prior limits, including supplemental funding for and pandemic recovery. The federal budget deficit for 2022 stood at $1.4 trillion, or 5.5% of —elevated relative to pre-pandemic averages of around 3.7% but lower than the $2.8 trillion (12.4% of GDP) recorded in 2021 amid relief. Fiscal policy post-expiration shifted toward expanded expenditure baselines without equivalent offsets, as relied on omnibus appropriations and reconciliation processes to enact higher spending levels. For instance, the of 2021 authorized $550 billion in new discretionary and mandatory spending over five years, while the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 added roughly $500 billion in net outlays despite revenue measures, contributing to sustained deficits averaging over $1.5 trillion annually through 2023. These measures prioritized investment in , climate initiatives, and social programs, reflecting a departure from the BCA's deficit-reduction framework toward countercyclical stimulus amid inflation pressures that peaked at 9.1% in June 2022. No comprehensive replacement for the BCA caps has been enacted, leading to annual budget negotiations prone to short-term increases rather than long-term restraint, with public debt exceeding $31 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2022 and climbing to over $34 trillion by mid-2023. Critics from fiscal conservative perspectives argue this uncapped environment exacerbated debt accumulation, projecting unsustainable trajectories without renewed controls, while proponents of expansive policy emphasize adaptive responses to economic challenges like supply-chain disruptions and labor market shifts. Ongoing debt ceiling impasses, such as the 2023 suspension, underscore the challenges of managing fiscal policy absent structural limits, with deficits persisting at levels far above historical norms adjusted for GDP growth.

Ongoing Relevance to U.S. Debt Management

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) established caps and mechanisms that expired after 2021, following partial suspensions via bipartisan budget agreements from 2013 to 2019. These provisions had initially contributed to deficit reduction, lowering projected deficits by approximately $2.1 trillion over the decade through enforced cuts, but their lapse coincided with a sharp resurgence in federal borrowing amid pandemic-related spending and subsequent fiscal policies. By October 2025, U.S. gross national debt exceeded $37.8 trillion, with debt held by the public at $30.3 trillion, reflecting annual deficits averaging over $1.5 trillion since 2021 and pushing the toward 107% by 2029 according to projections. This trajectory underscores the BCA's demonstration of temporary fiscal restraint's limits without sustained enforcement, as post-expiration spending growth outpaced revenue, exacerbating interest costs that reached historic shares of the budget. Policymakers continue to invoke the BCA as a in debt ceiling negotiations and proposals, highlighting its role in averting in 2011 while imposing automatic cuts as a credible threat. Recent debates, such as the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act and the January 2025 reinstatement of the , reference the BCA's structure—tranching increases tied to deficit controls—as a partial model, though critics note its sequestration's bluntness led to inefficient across-the-board reductions rather than targeted s. The Act's legacy informs arguments for renewed statutory limits, with analyses arguing that without similar mechanisms, unchecked entitlements and discretionary growth will drive to unsustainable levels, potentially crowding out private investment and raising borrowing costs. Proposals for a "Better Budget Control Act" draw directly from the framework, advocating caps on total spending rather than just discretionary categories to achieve $8 trillion in savings over a , stabilizing growth at current GDP shares. Such ideas emphasize the 's proof that enforceable baselines can counter political incentives for expansion, yet stress refinements to avoid the original's inequities, like disproportionate defense cuts. In broader discourse, the serves as a cautionary example of how short-term responses yield partial successes but fail absent comprehensive reforms, with government accountability reports warning of an "unsustainable fiscal path" mirroring pre- vulnerabilities.

References

  1. [1]
    Budget Control Act of 2011 - GovInfo
    ... date of the enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011. ``(iii) <<NOTE ... budgetary effect of the legislation beyond the year 2021. <<NOTE: Deadline ...
  2. [2]
    Summary of the Budget Control Act of 2011
    Aug 3, 2011 · The "Budget Control Act of 2011" (the Act) just enacted includes procedures to raise the debt limit by up to $2.4 trillion, in two installments.
  3. [3]
    Discretionary Spending Under the Budget Control Act of 2011
    Aug 8, 2011 · The Budget Control Act of 2011 sets caps on appropriations of new discretionary budget authority that start at $1,043 billion in 2012 and $1,047 ...Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
  4. [4]
    The Budget Control Act of 2011 as Amended: Budgetary Effects
    Dec 29, 2015 · This report discusses the effects of the BCA as amended on spending and the deficit, assuming that the discretionary spending caps remain in place.Background on the Budget... · Effects of BCA as Amended on...
  5. [5]
    Estimated Impact of Automatic Budget Enforcement Procedures ...
    Sep 12, 2011 · Summary. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (enacted on August 2 as Public Law 112-25) made several changes to federal programs and established ...
  6. [6]
    Did the Budget Control Act Work? | Baker Institute
    Feb 4, 2021 · The BCA resulted in the activation of the sequestration process in 2012, to be implemented January 2013 (later extended to March by the ATRA).
  7. [7]
    Update: As Previously Announced, Treasury to Employ Final ...
    Update: As Previously Announced, Treasury to Employ Final Extraordinary Measure to Extend U.S. Borrowing Authority Until August 2. July 15, 2011. (Archived ...
  8. [8]
    The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases - Congress.gov
    The federal debt again reached its limit on May 16, 2011, prompting the Treasury Secretary to invoke authorities to use extraordinary measures to extend ...<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    The Debt Limit Through the Years | Bipartisan Policy Center
    BPC has compiled a timeline of notable events in the history of the debt limit from its inception 100 years ago. Scroll down to see events as they occurred, ...
  10. [10]
    Timeline: How the debt talks spiraled into crisis | Reuters
    Jul 24, 2011 · May 31 - The House of Representatives rejects a measure to raise the debt limit in a vote staged by Republicans to pressure Obama to agree to ...
  11. [11]
  12. [12]
    The cost of political uncertainty: Lessons from the 2011 US debt ...
    Oct 7, 2021 · This column assesses the impact of the 2011 US debt ceiling crisis on US federal government credit risk and on US banks' funding costs.
  13. [13]
    Debt Limit | U.S. Department of the Treasury
    Treasury: No Change to August 2 Estimate Regarding Exhaustion of U.S. Borrowing Authority (7/1/2011) ... STATEMENT: Treasury Issues Updated Debt Limit Projections ...
  14. [14]
    2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis: Meaning and Outcome - Investopedia
    Congress resolved the debt ceiling crisis by passing the Budget Control Act of 2011, which became law on Aug. 2, 2011.6 This act allowed the debt ceiling to be ...U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis · Understanding the Crisis · Outcome of the Crisis
  15. [15]
    S.& P. Downgrades Debt Rating of U.S. for the First Time
    Aug 5, 2011 · ... debt ceiling but reduced the debt by at least $2.1 trillion. ... Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York. A version of this article appears ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  16. [16]
    The Great Recession - Federal Reserve History
    The financial effects of the Great Recession were similarly outsized: Home prices fell approximately 30 percent, on average, from their mid-2006 peak to mid- ...<|separator|>
  17. [17]
    [PDF] The Recession of 2007–2009: BLS Spotlight on Statistics
    Compared with the unemployment rates of other industrialized countries, the U.S. unemployment rate was higher than a few and lower than most other countries.
  18. [18]
    The Great Recession and Its Aftermath - Federal Reserve History
    As the financial crisis and the economic contraction intensified in the fall of 2008, the FOMC accelerated its interest rate cuts, taking the rate to its ...
  19. [19]
    Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009
    Nov 6, 2009 · The Treasury recently reported that the federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, about $960 ...
  20. [20]
    The Federal Budget Deficit for 2011—$1.3 Trillion
    Oct 7, 2011 · The 2011 deficit was equal to 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, CBO estimates, down from 8.9 percent in 2010 and 10.0 percent in 2009, but ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021
    Jan 1, 2011 · The baseline spending projections were prepared by the staff of CBO's Budget Analysis. Division under the supervision of Peter Fontaine, Theresa ...
  22. [22]
    CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook
    Jun 22, 2011 · By the end of 2011, CBO projects, federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product—the highest percentage since shortly ...Missing: Control | Show results with:Control
  23. [23]
    Discretionary Spending Caps - Appropriations
    The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; PL 112-25) established new discretionary spending caps for each year through FY 2021, estimated to save $917 billion over ...
  24. [24]
    The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions - Congress.gov
    Oct 1, 2019 · The BCA includes annual statutory caps that limit how much discretionary budget authority can be provided for defense and nondefense activities.<|separator|>
  25. [25]
    [PDF] BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011 - Congress.gov
    Aug 2, 2011 · Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Severability. TITLE I—TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER. Sec. 101.
  26. [26]
    CBO's Analysis of the Debt Ceiling Agreement
    Aug 1, 2011 · Create a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose further deficit reductions ... deficit by at least $1.5 trillion ...
  27. [27]
    The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
    RULES · 1. The staff of the Joint Select Committee shall be appointed as provided in sections 401(b)(4)(c)(ii) and 401(c) of the Budget Control Act of 2011. · 2.Missing: details | Show results with:details
  28. [28]
    Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process - Congress.gov
    Mar 4, 2025 · A sequester provides for the automatic cancellation of previously enacted spending, making largely across-the-board reductions to nonexempt programs, ...
  29. [29]
    Budget Basics: What Is Sequestration? - Peterson Foundation
    Mar 14, 2024 · It can be intended as an enforcement mechanism to discourage lawmakers from violating a specific budgetary goal or to encourage lawmakers to ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked ...
    Oct 8, 2024 · Sequestration is currently employed as the enforcement mechanism for three budgetary policies. 1. It is included as the enforcement mechanism ...
  31. [31]
    The Budget Control Act, sequestration and a decade of budget chaos
    May 7, 2025 · Congress passed the Budget Control Act in 2011, triggering a failsafe mechanism that suddenly reduced federal expenditures in 2013. Why it ...
  32. [32]
    The Budget Control Act of 2011: Implications for Medicare - KFF
    Nov 13, 2012 · Beginning January 2013, Medicare spending will be subject to automatic, across-the-board reductions, known as “sequestration,” which is slated ...
  33. [33]
    Joe Biden begins debt talks - POLITICO
    May 5, 2011 · During the meeting, OMB Director Jacob Lew said the White House wants to find a way to reduce the deficit to 2.8 percent of the nation's gross ...
  34. [34]
    Timeline of the Debt Ceiling Negotiations - Graphic - NYTimes.com
    Jul 31, 2011 · April 15The House passes a budget plan by Representative Paul D. Ryan that proposes deep cuts in entitlements, saving $5.8 trillion. The plan is ...
  35. [35]
    Remarks by the President on the Status of Debt Ceiling Negotiations
    Jul 29, 2011 · What's clear now is that any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan. It must have the support of both parties that were sent here to ...
  36. [36]
    Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and ...
    Jul 31, 2011 · Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  37. [37]
    What Has the Budget Control Act of 2011 Meant for Defense? - CSIS
    Aug 1, 2016 · It added $8 billion in OCO funding for defense and $8 billion in OCO for nondefense. The nondefense OCO funding was used primarily by the State ...
  38. [38]
    President Signs S. 365, the Budget Control Act of 2011
    Aug 2, 2011 · ... Senate passed the bill by a vote of 74-26. The House passed the bill on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269-161. Following are provisions of ...Missing: passage | Show results with:passage
  39. [39]
    Roll Call Vote 112 th Congress - 1 st Session - Senate.gov
    Vote Result: Motion Agreed to. Measure Number: S. 365 (Budget Control Act of 2011 ). Measure Title: An act to provide for budget control. Vote Counts: YEAs74.Missing: HR 2560
  40. [40]
    Budget Control Act of 2011 - Vote Smart - Facts For All
    Senate Concurrence Vote Passed; Aug. 2, 2011; House Bill Passed; Aug. 1, 2011 ... Requires both houses of Congress to vote on a joint resolution proposing a ...
  41. [41]
    President Barack Obama Signs The Budget Control Act Of 2011
    President Barack Obama Signs The Budget Control Act Of 2011. President Barack Obama signs the Budget Control Act of 2011 in the Oval Office, Aug. 2, 2011.
  42. [42]
    Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee
    Aug 9, 2011 · The strains in these markets eased after legislation to raise the debt ceiling and to cut the federal budget deficit was signed into law on ...
  43. [43]
    Stock markets plunge - Thursday 4 August 2011 - The Guardian
    Aug 4, 2011 · Asian stock markets tumbled Friday as investors dumped riskier assets amid fears the US is heading back into recession and Europe's debt crisis is worsening.
  44. [44]
    Super committee lineup finalized - Politico
    Aug 11, 2011 · Jim Clyburn, Chris Van Hollen and Xavier Becerra to the 12-member panel. Van Hollen and Clyburn had both served as Pelosi appointees on Vice ...Missing: list | Show results with:list
  45. [45]
    United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
    Nov 21, 2011 · Issuing a formal recommendation on how to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.
  46. [46]
    Senate Select Committee on Deficit Reduction Committee - C-SPAN
    Members · Majority · Jon Kyl, R-Arizona · Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas · Dave Camp, R-Michigan · Fred Upton, R-Michigan · Rob Portman, R-Ohio · Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania ...
  47. [47]
    All About the So-Called “Super Committee” - Obama White House
    Aug 4, 2011 · This committee is responsible for developing a bipartisan plan for reducing our deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.Missing: Select mandate
  48. [48]
    'Super committee' to hold first organizational meeting on Thursday
    Sep 2, 2011 · The bill requires the committee to meet by Sept. 16 and to issue recommendations by Thanksgiving for cutting $1.5 trillion. Seven of the 12 ...Missing: deliberations timeline
  49. [49]
    Private Meetings And Back-Room Deals Can Pay Off - NPR
    Nov 1, 2011 · The supercommittee holds most of its meetings behind closed doors, prompting some to denounce secret deliberations as undemocratic. In a ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  50. [50]
    Super Committee Impasse Continues, No Meetings Planned
    Nov 18, 2011 · The panel's goal is to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings and the Republican proposal would address a little more than half that ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  51. [51]
    Five reasons why the congressional supercommittee failed
    Nov 21, 2011 · To the surprise of few, Congress' super committee is on the brink of failure–unable to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget savings as required ...Missing: partisan | Show results with:partisan<|control11|><|separator|>
  52. [52]
    Super committee: 9 days to deadline and no deal imminent - CNN
    Nov 14, 2011 · Partisan politics still divides super committee members 10 days before the deadline for an an agreement.
  53. [53]
    Supercommittee Reconvenes On Deficit Reductions : NPR
    But as NPR's David Welna reports, partisan differences over taxes and cuts in entitlement spending are making it hard to strike a deal. DAVID WELNA, BYLINE ...
  54. [54]
    'Super committee' fails to reach agreement | CNN Politics
    Nov 21, 2011 · Earlier, the co-chairs of the bipartisan special joint committee ... failed to agree on budget cuts November 21, 2011 in Washington, DC.
  55. [55]
    Supercommittee makes it official: No deal - CBS News
    Nov 21, 2011 · Chris Van Hollen, one of the Democrats on the supercommittee, said he was "very disappointed" in the group's failure, and expressed his hope for ...
  56. [56]
  57. [57]
    [PDF] B-324723; March 1 Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year ...
    Mar 1, 2025 · § 901a. The Joint Committee failed to report a proposal, and Congress and the President did not enact legislation. This failure triggered the ...
  58. [58]
    Sequestration by the Numbers | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Mar 23, 2013 · The automatic budget cuts known as “sequestration” took effect on March 1. Under the requirements of the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) as ...
  59. [59]
    Budget Control Acts of 2011
    Jul 27, 2011 · Majority Leader Reid's Plan: CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce budget deficits by about $2.2 trillion between 2012 and 2021 ...
  60. [60]
    How the Across-the-Board Cuts in the Budget Control Act Will Work
    Apr 27, 2012 · We intend to update this analysis accordingly. The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 imposed caps on discretionary programs that will reduce ...
  61. [61]
    Understanding the Sequester
    From 2014 through 2023, the sequester and its extrapolated savings1 will cut primary spending by about $940 billion and interest by about $200 billion. The cuts ...
  62. [62]
    CRS Examines Effects of Budget Control Act of 2011 - Tax Notes
    According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the BCA will reduce discretionary spending by $741 billion over the FY2012-FY2021 period, ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] GAO-14-244, 2013 Sequestration: Agencies Reduced Some ...
    Mar 6, 2014 · This report examines (1) the effects of fiscal year. 2013 sequestration on agency operations, performance, or services to the public; (2) how ...
  64. [64]
    The Budget Control Act May Have Cost Over $200 Billion in Federal ...
    Jan 19, 2021 · First, it established an initial set of caps beginning in FY 2012 to reduce spending by $840 billion below CBO's March 2011 adjusted baseline.
  65. [65]
    Budget Control Act of 2011: The Knowns and Unknowns – FFIS
    1) Establishes caps on discretionary spending through 2021, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will reduce federal budget deficits by $917 ...
  66. [66]
    What Are Caps on Discretionary Spending and Do They Work?
    Jun 6, 2023 · The Budget Control Act established caps on discretionary spending, and those caps were reduced after lawmakers failed to come up with a deficit ...
  67. [67]
    Expiration of the Discretionary Spending Limits - Congress.gov
    Nov 18, 2022 · The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) established legal limits on the amount of discretionary spending that could be provided each ...Did Congress and the... · How did spending change... · Budget Resolution
  68. [68]
    [PDF] GAO-15-470, SEQUESTRATION - Government Accountability Office
    May 27, 2015 · This report examines, for the FY 2013 sequestration, (1) how DOD allocated reductions, (2) what effects DOD has identified on selected DOD ...
  69. [69]
    DOD Comptroller: Sequestration devastates U.S. military readiness
    May 10, 2013 · Defense Department Comptroller Robert F. Hale said the severe and abrupt budget cuts imposed by sequestration are devastating the US armed forces.
  70. [70]
    Report: Sequestration slashed DoD contract spending by 16 percent ...
    Oct 17, 2014 · Report: Sequestration slashed DoD contract spending by 16 percent in 2013 · Congressional resistance to cost-cutting opens $70B hole in DoD ...
  71. [71]
    SecArmy McHugh: Budget cuts affecting readiness | Article - Army.mil
    Oct 23, 2013 · Budget cuts, sequestration and continuing resolutions have exacted "great cost" on Army readiness, said the Army's secretary.
  72. [72]
    [PDF] Budgetary Effects of Proposals to Replace the FY2013 Sequester
    Nov 9, 2012 · $55 billion on defense discretionary, $39 billion on non-defense discretionary, and $16 billion on non-defense mandatory (including Medicare).
  73. [73]
    Sequestration and Its Impact on Non-Defense Appropriations
    Feb 19, 2015 · The legislation offset half the cost of reducing sequestration by lowering the caps for 2013 and 2014, and offset the other half through changes ...
  74. [74]
    Non-Defense Discretionary Programs Have Seen Large Cuts and ...
    Nov 18, 2014 · Sequestration is putting a damaging squeeze on appropriations and will continue to do so unless adjustments are made in the post-sequestration ...Missing: consequences | Show results with:consequences
  75. [75]
    Economic Effects of Policies Contributing to Fiscal Tightening in 2013
    Nov 8, 2012 · That contraction of the economy will cause employment to decline and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013.<|separator|>
  76. [76]
    Automatic Reductions in Government Spending -- aka Sequestration
    Feb 28, 2013 · In fiscal year 2013, by CBO's estimates, federal revenues will rise and outlays will decline as shares of gross domestic product (GDP), ...
  77. [77]
    Reflecting on the Budget Control Act of 2011 and Its Relevance Now
    Feb 16, 2023 · In response to the crisis, the BCA was enacted in 2011. The BCA increased the debt ceiling by $400 billion in August 2011 and allowed President ...
  78. [78]
    Analysis of the Impact on the Deficit of the Budget Control Act of ...
    Analysis of the Impact on the Deficit of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as Revised in the Senate | Congressional Budget Office.Missing: effectiveness controlling
  79. [79]
    Reform the Budget Control Act Spending Caps
    Nov 1, 2017 · Congress should remove the firewall between defense and nondefense spending and fund discretionary programs under one aggregate spending cap.
  80. [80]
    The Case for Across-the-Board Spending Cuts | Mercatus Center
    Mar 26, 2013 · Third, across-the-board cuts are said to be ineffective because they do not touch the large entitlement pro- grams, such as Medicare, which are ...Missing: cons | Show results with:cons
  81. [81]
    [PDF] WHY SEQUESTRATION AND THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF ...
    QUESTIONS ABOUT SEQUESTRATION UNDER THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011 4. (2011) ... GRH,25 a bill designed to force Congress to reach a compromise on the ...
  82. [82]
    [PDF] Macroelasticities and the U.S. Sequestration Budget Cuts
    There was, however, wide speculation that the rather blunt nature of the across-the-board spending cuts implied by the budget sequestration would prompt ...<|separator|>
  83. [83]
    2013 United States budget sequestration - Wikipedia
    The sequester lowered spending by a total of approximately $1.1 trillion versus pre-sequester levels over the approximately 8-year period from 2013 to 2021.
  84. [84]
    The Pending Automatic Budget Cuts
    Feb 26, 2013 · The sequestration law requires that the cuts be split 50-50 between defense and non-defense programs; in 2013, this results in cuts of $42.7 ...Missing: debate | Show results with:debate
  85. [85]
    Support Responsible Plan to Transform Spending in Washington
    Jul 29, 2011 · “The Budget Control Act holds true to the two principles I've insisted on throughout this debate: no new taxes and cuts must exceed the amount ...
  86. [86]
    Budget Control Act is a 'Disappointing Failure' - Senator Mike Lee
    Aug 2, 2011 · Instead, this bill increases our national debt by more than $2 trillion and cuts spending by only $7 billion over the same time period. There is ...
  87. [87]
    Debt-Ceiling Deal: President Obama Signs Bill as Next Fight Looms
    Aug 2, 2011 · President Obama signed into law a compromise deal that averts a crisis by raising the debt limit, but signaled that he will not abandon his ...
  88. [88]
    How a Better Budget Control Act Would Limit Spending and Control ...
    May 11, 2023 · A BBCA should aim to save at least $8 trillion over the next 10 years to stabilize the debt through a combination of new limits on discretionary spending.
  89. [89]
    Congress's new spending deal: DC's leading liberal budget wonk ...
    Feb 9, 2018 · The nation, in my view, made a significant policy mistake by instituting the sequestration cuts as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA).
  90. [90]
    Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013
    Dec 11, 2013 · Thus, the legislation's changes in direct spending and revenues would reduce deficits by roughly $85 billion over the next 10 years. Some of ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  91. [91]
    [PDF] Increasing the BCA Spending Limits
    Apr 3, 2019 · CBO's October 2015 cost estimate projected that the changes to the BCA caps would increase projected outlays by $79 billion over the FY2016- ...
  92. [92]
    Making Sense of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and What ... - CSIS
    Feb 20, 2018 · In comparison, the nondefense funding for FY 2018 is raised $63 billion above the cap of $516 billion while FY 2019 funding includes a $68 ...
  93. [93]
    Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
    Feb 8, 2018 · Defense Budget (523), Budget ... Discretionary Appropriations Constrained by the Caps, Fiscal Year 2018, by Defense and Nondefense Funding.
  94. [94]
    The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019: Changes to the BCA and Debt ...
    Aug 5, 2019 · The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019: Changes to the BCA and Debt Limit · Congress.gov ...
  95. [95]
    What Does the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 Mean for Defense?
    Aug 5, 2019 · A4: The BBA 2019 budget deal is effectively the end of the BCA for defense. It adjusts the caps through FY 2021 (the last year of the ...
  96. [96]
    Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2022: An Infographic
    Mar 28, 2023 · Discretionary outlays by the federal government totaled $1.7 trillion in 2022. Nondefense outlays were higher than those for defense activities.Missing: levels | Show results with:levels
  97. [97]
    Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2021: An Infographic
    Sep 20, 2022 · Discretionary outlays by the federal government totaled $1.6 trillion in 2021, of which $742 billion was for national defense and $895 billion ...Missing: levels | Show results with:levels
  98. [98]
    Discretionary Spending in 10 Graphs | Library of Congress
    Aug 22, 2024 · Discretionary spending makes up a smaller share of total federal spending than mandatory spending, and mandatory spending on entitlement ...
  99. [99]
    The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2022: An Infographic
    Mar 28, 2023 · The federal deficit in 2022 was $1.4 trillion, equal to 5.5 percent of gross domestic product, almost 2 percentage points greater than the average over the ...Missing: levels | Show results with:levels
  100. [100]
    Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2021
    In 2021, the deficit was equal to 12.4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP), down from 15.0 percent in 2020, but up from 4.7 percent in 2019.
  101. [101]
  102. [102]
    Debt Fixer | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
    Make the hard budget choices to stabilize debt at 100% of the economy by 2035 by identifying $7.8 trillion of deficit reduction and bring it down to 60% by 2050 ...
  103. [103]
    Debt Dashboard - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee
    As of October 03, 2025, total gross national debt is $37.85 trillion. Debt held by the public is $30.28 trillion. Intragovernmental debt is $7.57 trillion.
  104. [104]
    The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055
    Mar 27, 2025 · Debt held by the public reaches 107% of GDP in 2029, exceeding the historical peak reached just after World War II, and its growth continues ...
  105. [105]
    Understanding the National Debt | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
    Over the past 100 years, the U.S. federal debt has increased from $380 B in 1925 to $37.64 T in 2025. Comparing a country's debt to its gross domestic product ( ...<|separator|>
  106. [106]
    Debt Ceiling Q&A | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
    The Budget Control Act of 2011 automatically raised the debt ceiling by $900 billion and gave the President authority to increase the limit by an additional $1 ...Missing: background | Show results with:background
  107. [107]
    The Debt Ceiling Will Be Reinstated on January 1 — Here's What's ...
    Dec 12, 2024 · On January 1, the debt ceiling will be reestablished based on the amount of debt existing on that date. At that point, the Treasury will once again start using ...
  108. [108]
    Debt Ceiling: Lessons from the 2011 Budget Debate - CME Group
    Apr 24, 2023 · Budget dispute: The two parties in Congress had difficulty agreeing on a budget plan that would address the growing Federal debt. A debt ceiling ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  109. [109]
    [PDF] How a Better Budget Control Act Would Limit Spending and Control ...
    May 11, 2023 · The Budget. Control Act of 2011 increased the debt limit, required Congress to vote on a constitutional balanced budget amendment, imposed ...<|separator|>
  110. [110]
    Financial Report of the United States Government - Management
    Feb 25, 2025 · The primary deficit-to-GDP ratio spiked during 2009 through 2012 due to the 2008-09 financial crisis and the ensuing severe recession, and rose ...
  111. [111]
    America's Fiscal Future | U.S. GAO - Government Accountability Office
    GAO takes a big-picture look at the nation's fiscal condition and offers resources to help policymakers get the nation on a more sustainable fiscal path.Fiscal Outlook · Current Financial Condition · How Could Federal Debt Affect...