CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

Estimated Impact of Automatic 

Budget Enforcement Procedures 

Specified in the Budget Control Act

September 12, 2011

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (enacted on August 2 as Public Law 112-25) made 

several changes to federal programs and established budget enforcement mechanisms—including caps on future discretionary appropriations—that were estimated 

to reduce federal budget deficits by a total of at least $2.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 

period.1

 The caps on discretionary appropriations will decrease spending (including 

debt-service costs) by an estimated $0.9 trillion during that period, compared with 

what such spending would have been if annual appropriations had grown at the rate 

of inflation. At least another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction was anticipated from 

provisions related to a newly established Congressional Joint Select Committee on 

Deficit Reduction. That committee is charged with proposing legislation to trim budget deficits by at least $1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021. However, if legislation 

originating from the committee and estimated to produce at least $1.2 trillion in 

deficit reduction (including an allowance for interest savings) is not enacted by January 15, 2012, automatic procedures for cutting both discretionary and mandatory 

spending will take effect.2 The magnitude of those cuts would depend on any shortfall 

in the estimated effects of such legislation relative to the $1.2 trillion amount. 

The automatic reductions—if triggered—would take the form of equal cuts (in dollar 

terms) in defense and nondefense spending starting in fiscal year 2013. Those cuts 

would be achieved by lowering the caps on discretionary budget authority specified in 

the Budget Control Act and by automatically cancelling budgetary resources (a process known as sequestration) for some programs and activities financed by mandatory 

spending.3

 The law exempts a significant portion of mandatory spending from 

1. For an analysis of the new law, see Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable John A. 

Boehner and the Honorable Harry Reid estimating the impact on the deficit of the Budget 

Control Act of 2011 (August 1, 2011). 

2. “Discretionary spending” refers to outlays from budget authority that is provided and controlled 

by appropriation acts. “Mandatory spending” refers to outlays from budget authority that is provided by laws other than appropriation acts. (Budget authority is the authority provided by law to 

incur financial obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays of federal government 

funds; it may be provided in an appropriation act or an authorization act.)

3. Budgetary resources consist of all sources of authority provided to federal agencies that permit 

them to incur financial obligations, including new budget authority, unobligated balances, direct 

spending authority, and obligation limitations. 
Page 2

CBO

sequestration, however. The total savings attributed to the automatic procedures 

would include lower debt-service costs resulting from those cuts.4

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the changes in discretionary 

and mandatory spending that would occur if the automatic enforcement mechanisms 

were triggered because no new deficit reduction legislation was enacted. CBO’s 

analysis can only approximate the ultimate results; the Administration’s Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) would be responsible for implementing any such 

automatic reductions on the basis of its own estimates. 

CBO estimates that, if no legislation originating from the deficit reduction committee 

was enacted, the automatic enforcement process specified in the Budget Control Act 

would produce the following results between 2013 and 2021:

B Reductions ranging from 10.0 percent (in 2013) to 8.5 percent (in 2021) in the 

caps on new discretionary appropriations for defense programs, yielding total 

outlay savings of $454 billion.

B Reductions ranging from 7.8 percent (in 2013) to 5.5 percent (in 2021) in the caps 

on new discretionary appropriations for nondefense programs, resulting in outlay 

savings of $294 billion.

B Reductions ranging from 10.0 percent (in 2013) to 8.5 percent (in 2021) in mandatory budgetary resources for nonexempt defense programs, generating savings of 

about $0.1 billion. 

B Reductions of 2.0 percent each year in most Medicare spending because of the 

application of a special rule that applies to that program, producing savings of 

$123 billion, and reductions ranging from 7.8 percent (in 2013) to 5.5 percent (in 

2021) in mandatory budgetary resources for other nonexempt nondefense programs and activities, yielding savings of $47 billion. Thus, savings in nondefense 

mandatory spending would total $170 billion.

B About $31 billion in outlays stemming from the reductions in premiums for Part B 

of Medicare and other changes in spending that would result from the sequestration actions.

B An estimated reduction of $169 billion in debt-service costs.

In all, those automatic cuts would produce net budgetary savings of about $1.1 trillion over the 2013–2021 period, CBO estimates (see Table 1). That amount is lower 

than the $1.2 trillion figure for deficit reduction in the Budget Control Act for three 

reasons. First, because of the lag in timing between appropriations and subsequent 

4. “Debt service” refers to a change in interest payments from a change in projected deficits.
Page 3

CBO

Table 1.

Estimated Savings from Automatic Reductions If No Savings 

Result from Enacting Legislation Originated by the Joint 

Select Committee on Deficit Reduction

(By fiscal year, in billions of dollars)

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: For enforcement purposes, section 302 of the Budget Control Act establishes a goal of 

$1.2 trillion in reductions and stipulates that 18 percent of that amount be considered 

reduced spending for debt service, with the remainder split equally between defense and 

nondefense spending. In this analysis, the $1.2 trillion goal is allocated as follows:

* = between -$500 million and zero. “Budget authority” refers to the authority provided by 

law to incur financial obligations, which eventually result in outlays. 

a. These estimates reflect subsequent changes in spending for some programs that would offset 

estimated savings stemming from the original reductions.

b. “Debt service” refers to a change in interest payments from a change in projected deficits.

Total Goal for Reductions (Billions of dollars) -1,200

Stipulated reduction for debt service -216

Required reduction in defense budgetary resources -492

Required reduction in nondefense budgetary resources -492

Total,

2013-

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021

Changes in Mandatory Spending

Defense

Budget authority * * * ****** *

Outlays * * * * * * * * * *

Nondefense

Budget authority -16 -17 -18 -19 -19 -19 -20 -21 -22 -170

Outlays -16 -17 -18 -19 -19 -19 -20 -21 -22 -170

Total

Budget authority -16 -17 -18 -19 -19 -19 -20 -21 -22 -171

Outlays -16 -17 -18 -19 -19 -19 -20 -21 -22 -171

Changes in Discretionary Spending

Defense

Budget authority -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -492

Outlays -33 -46 -51 -53 -54 -54 -54 -54 -54 -454

Nondefense

Budget authority -39 -38 -37 -36 -36 -35 -34 -33 -33 -322

Outlays -21 -32 -35 -35 -36 -35 -34 -34 -33 -294

Total

Budget authority -94 -93 -92 -91 -90 -90 -89 -88 -87 -813

Outlays -54 -78 -86 -88 -90 -89 -89 -88 -87 -749

Outlays Resulting from 

Sequestration of Mandatory Spendinga 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 31

Changes in Debt-Service Costsb -1 -2 -5 -10 -17 -23 -30 -37 -44 -169 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____

Total Impact on the Deficit -68 -94 -105 -114 -122 -129 -135 -142 -148 -1,057
Page 4

CBO

expenditures, part of the savings from the automatic cuts in budgetary resources 

would occur after 2021. Second, CBO expects that some reductions—particularly 

those related to Medicare—would have other effects that would boost net spending 

(by the $31 billion mentioned above). Third, CBO estimates that the reduction in 

debt-service costs would be lower than the amount of such savings stipulated in the 

Budget Control Act.5

The majority of the savings from the automatic spending reductions would stem from 

further cuts in discretionary spending (beyond those embodied in the new law’s caps 

on discretionary budget authority). CBO expects that about 71 percent of the net 

savings from the automatic procedures would come from lowering the caps on discretionary appropriations, 13 percent would come from a net reduction in mandatory 

spending, and 16 percent would result from lower debt-service costs.

Of course, the Budget Control Act could produce outcomes that are very different 

than the figures outlined above. The Congress could enact legislation originating 

from the deficit reduction committee that would produce $1.2 trillion in savings 

through changes that differ significantly from the automatic reductions that would be 

required in the absence of such legislation. Or such legislation could yield some savings, but less than $1.2 trillion, so the automatic procedures would have a smaller 

impact than CBO has estimated here. Alternatively, the deficit reduction committee 

could recommend, and the Congress could enact, legislation saving significantly more 

than $1.2 trillion. (The Budget Control Act states that the committee’s goal is to 

achieve at least $1.5 trillion in savings over the 2012–2021 period.) 

Overview of the Budget Control Act’s Enforcement Process

Section 302 of the Budget Control Act specifies procedures that, if triggered, would 

result in automatic cuts in mandatory and discretionary spending beginning in 2013. 

The law requires that any necessary automatic reductions be calculated as follows:

1. The deficit reduction amount of $1.2 trillion for the 2012–2021 period would be 

reduced to account for any estimated savings stemming from legislation originated 

by the deficit reduction committee and enacted before January 15, 2012. (This 

analysis shows the automatic reductions that CBO estimates would occur if no 

such legislation was enacted.)

2. To determine the amount of the reductions in spending for the government’s programs and activities that would be necessary to achieve the required savings, the act 

stipulates that 18 percent of the savings should be assumed to come from decreases 

5. The Budget Control Act specifies that 18 percent of the $1.2 trillion goal for deficit reduction 

be assumed to result from debt-service savings; that amount comes to $216 billion. In the analysis 

presented here, CBO estimates that the automatic spending reductions would produce debtservice savings of $169 billion through 2021.
Page 5

CBO

in debt-service costs. Thus, if the required savings were the entire $1.2 trillion, 

$216 billion would be assumed to come from reduced debt-service costs, leaving 

$984 billion to come from reductions in budgetary resources through 2021.

3. That adjusted target would be divided evenly over the nine years from 2013 to 

2021, requiring a reduction of about $109 billion per year to produce a nine-year 

total of $984 billion.6

4. That annual total would be allocated equally between defense spending (accounts 

in budget function 050, most—but not all—of which finance activities of the 

Department of Defense) and nondefense spending (all other budget functions).7

Thus, reductions of roughly $55 billion per year would be required in each of those 

two broad spending categories if no savings resulted from legislation originated by 

the deficit reduction committee. 

5. Within the defense and nondefense categories, the required reductions would be 

allocated proportionally between discretionary and mandatory spending, according 

to various rules discussed below. 

Each year, OMB would determine the proportional allocations of required cuts in 

budgetary resources for mandatory and discretionary programs in both the defense 

and nondefense categories. The President would order any necessary sequestrations 

for mandatory programs and activities or reductions in discretionary spending caps in 

order to achieve the required reductions. For discretionary spending, reductions in 

2013 would be executed by canceling new budget authority made available in that 

year (that cut would take the form of a sequestration of existing appropriations 

because it would occur in January 2013, well after the start of the fiscal year). Reductions in discretionary spending from 2014 to 2021 would be achieved by reducing the 

caps on such spending for each year, pursuant to the procedures specified in the 

Budget Control Act.8

 For mandatory spending, reductions in all years would be 

achieved through sequestrations.

6. The $109 billion annual amount is slightly less than the annual savings included in CBO’s 

The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update (August 2011) because that report showed a 

placeholder for provisions related to the deficit reduction committee, whereas this analysis shows 

the estimated effects of the enforcement provisions of the Budget Control Act in the event that no 

legislation stemming from the committee’s work is enacted.

7. Budget functions are the 20 general subject-area categories into which budget accounts are 

grouped so that all budget authority and outlays can be presented according to the national 

interests being addressed.

8. The Budget Control Act specifies caps on discretionary spending that take the following form: 

One overall cap applies to total discretionary spending over the 2014–2021 period, but separate 

caps are in place in 2012 and 2013 for “security” and “nonsecurity” funding. The categories and 

the caps used in the Budget Control Act’s automatic enforcement process are different, however. 

For carrying out that process, the act specifies two separate caps for every year through 2021. 

Those caps are also labeled “security” and “nonsecurity,” but they encompass different budget 

accounts than the caps on discretionary spending in 2012 and 2013. The caps on “security” 

spending used for the automatic reductions apply only to budget function 050 (national defense); 

the “nonsecurity” caps apply to all other discretionary spending. 
Page 6

CBO

A sequestration of mandatory budgetary resources would be subject to rules that 

exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and certain other programs from any automatic 

cancellation of funding.9 In general, unless a program is specifically exempted by such 

rules, CBO assumes that it would be included in any sequestration under the Budget 

Control Act. CBO estimates that, under current law, mandatory spending over the 

2013–2021 period would total $24 trillion and that roughly 70 percent of that 

spending would be exempt from sequestration. 

With exempt programs and activities excluded, slightly more than $600 billion in 

mandatory spending would be subject to sequestration in 2013, CBO estimates. That 

amount would grow to $950 billion by 2021, for a total of $6.9 trillion over the 

2013–2021 period—virtually all of it for nondefense programs and activities (see 

Table 2). The vast majority of that spending is for Medicare, but the Budget Control 

Act specifies that most Medicare spending for program benefits may not be cut by 

more than 2.0 percent in a sequestration.10 CBO estimates that, under current law, 

the 2.0 percent limit would apply to approximately $6.1 trillion of Medicare spending 

over the nine-year period. Other mandatory spending subject to sequestration would 

total about $725 billion over that period. (Those estimates are consistent with CBO’s 

August 2011 baseline.) Once the 2.0 percent limit was reached for Medicare, spending cuts for all other nondefense discretionary and mandatory programs would be 

increased by a uniform percentage to achieve the required deficit reduction. 

The amounts of discretionary budget authority that would be subject to sequestration 

in 2013 or to cap reductions in later years are specified in section 302 of the Budget 

Control Act. They total about $1.0 trillion in 2013 and increase to $1.2 trillion by 

2021; budget authority for defense constitutes just over half of those amounts in each 

year (see Table 2).

CBO’s Estimates of Automatic Reductions in 

Budgetary Resources

If no budgetary savings were achieved by enacting recommendations from the deficit 

reduction committee before January 15, 2012, automatic reductions in budgetary 

9. A sequestration would follow procedures and rules specified in section 6 of the Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Act of 2010 and would be subject to exemptions and special rules specified in sections 

255 and 256 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. In addition, a 

few individual budget accounts may be covered by unique statutory provisions that affect whether 

their budgetary resources are subject to sequestration.

10. Low-income subsidies and additional subsidies for beneficiaries whose spending exceeds certain 

levels defined as catastrophic in Medicare’s Part D prescription drug program are exempt from 

sequestration. (The qualifying-individual program, if funded by future legislation, would also be 

exempt.) The sequestration percentage cannot exceed 2.0 percent for payments made for individual services covered under Parts A and B and for monthly contractual payments to Medicare 

Advantage plans and Part D plans. Other mandatory Medicare spending for benefits and administrative costs would be subject to the same percentage reduction that would apply to nonexempt 

mandatory spending. 
Page 7

CBO

Table 2.

Projected Budgetary Resources Subject to Automatic 

Reductions

(By fiscal year, in billions of dollars)

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Note: * = between zero and $500 million. “Budget authority” refers to the authority provided by 

law to incur financial obligations, which eventually result in outlays. 

a. For the purposes of this table, “defense” refers to all accounts in budget function 050, and 

“nondefense” refers to all other budget accounts.

b. Limits on discretionary budget authority as specified in section 302 of the Budget Control Act.

c. Sequestration cannot exceed 2 percent for payments made for individual services covered under 

Parts A and B of Medicare and for monthly contractual payments to Medicare Advantage plans 

and Part D plans.

d. Accounts that are exempt from sequestration are listed in the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

Deficit Control Act of 1985; 2 U.S.C. 905, 906(d)(7).

resources would be triggered that would total $984 billion over the 2013–2021 

period (excluding effects on debt service)—$492 billion from defense programs and 

$492 billion from nondefense programs (see Table 3). In estimating the allocations of 

those savings among different categories of spending and the percentage reductions 

that would be required, CBO based its calculations on its most recent baseline budget 

projections, which incorporate the assumptions that programs will operate as specified in current law and that future discretionary appropriations will adhere to the caps 

in the Budget Control Act.11

11. For details about CBO’s baseline projections, see Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and 

Economic Outlook: An Update (August 2011), Chapter 1.

Total,

2013-

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021

Defensea

Mandatory outlays subject to sequestration ********* 2

Limit on discretionary budget authorityb 546 556 566 577 590 603 616 630 644 5,328 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____

Total 546 556 566 577 590 603 616 630 644 5,330

Nondefensea

Mandatory outlays subject to sequestration

Portion of Medicare spending subject to

2 percent limitc 542 571 598 644 671 700 756 806 860 6,148

All other nonexempt mandatory spendingd 63 71 80 83 82 83 85 88 90 725 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____

Subtotal 606 642 678 727 753 783 841 894 950 6,874

Limit on discretionary budget authorityb 501 510 520 530 541 553 566 578 590 4,889 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______

Total 1,107 1,152 1,198 1,257 1,294 1,336 1,407 1,472 1,540 11,763
Page 8

CBO

Table 3.

CBO’s Estimates of Sequestration Amounts for Mandatory 

Spending and Reductions in Caps on Discretionary 

Budget Authority 

(By fiscal year, in billions of dollars)

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: This table excludes additional savings that would accrue from reductions in debt-service 

costs attributable to the reductions in mandatory and discretionary spending. Under the 

Budget Control Act, those debt-service savings are assumed to be 18 percent of the 

$1.2 trillion total goal. (“Debt service” refers to a change in interest payments from a 

change in projected deficits.)

* = between -$500 million and zero; n.a. = not applicable. “Budget authority” refers to the 

authority provided by law to incur financial obligations, which eventually result in outlays. 

a. For the purposes of this table, “defense” refers to all accounts in budget function 050, and 

“nondefense” refers to all other budget accounts.

b. Because a portion of Medicare spending cannot be subject to a sequestration of more than 

2 percent, the remaining amount of required reductions must be reallocated proportionally 

among other nonexempt mandatory programs and nondefense discretionary funding.

Total,

2013-

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021

Defensea

Mandatory sequestration ********* *

Reduction in the cap on discretionary

budget authority -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -492 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Total -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -492

Nondefensea

Mandatory sequestration

Medicare spending subject to

2 percent limit -11 -11 -12 -13 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -123

Other nonexempt programs -3 -3 -4 -4 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -30

Additional sequestration applied to 

other programs because of the

2 percent limit for Medicareb -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -17

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___

Subtotal -16 -17 -18 -19 -19 -19 -20 -21 -22 -170

Reduction in the cap on discretionary

budget authority

Preliminary reductions -25 -24 -24 -23 -23 -23 -22 -21 -21 -206

Further reductions because of the

2 percent limit for Medicare -14 -14 -13 -13 -13 -13 -12 -12 -12 -116 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Total -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -55 -492

Memorandum:

Percentage Cut to Nonexempt Budget Accounts

Defense 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.7 8.5 n.a.

Nondefense

Discretionary 7.8 7.4 7.1 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.5 n.a.

Mandatory

Medicare spending subject to

2 percent limit 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 n.a.

Other 7.8 7.4 7.1 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.5 n.a.
Page 9

CBO

Reductions in Budgetary Resources for Defense

If none of the specified savings of $1.2 trillion was obtained through legislation originating with the deficit reduction committee, the automatic procedures would reduce 

budgetary resources for national defense (budget function 050) by about $55 billion a 

year between 2013 and 2021. Such annual reductions would be split proportionally 

between mandatory and discretionary defense spending. Because mandatory spending 

makes up less than 1 percent of all defense spending, however, CBO estimates that 

only about $150 million would be sequestered from mandatory defense programs 

over the 2013–2021 period. Consequently, almost all of the required deficit reduction 

in the defense category would have to be achieved by lowering the caps on future discretionary appropriations for defense activities. (Under the Budget Control Act, the 

discretionary caps would not constrain spending that is designated by the Congress 

for overseas contingency operations, such as war-related efforts in Afghanistan or 

Iraq). 

The estimated reduction in defense funding from those automatic cuts would require 

the cap on new defense appropriations in 2013 to be lowered by 10.0 percent (see the 

memorandum in Table 3). The percentage reductions in the caps for later years would 

be successively smaller, amounting to 8.5 percent in 2021.

Reductions in Budgetary Resources for Nondefense Programs and Activities

Estimating automatic reductions for nondefense programs is more complicated, 

particularly because of provisions in the Budget Control Act that limit cuts in most 

spending for Medicare benefits to 2.0 percent. CBO estimates that about 90 percent 

of Medicare spending would be subject to that limit, and another 8 percent of such 

spending would be exempt from sequestration altogether, leaving just 2 percent of 

Medicare spending subject to the same sequestration as nonexempt mandatory 

programs.

In calculating the reductions required in the nondefense spending category, the 

$492 billion target for the 2013–2021 period would first be allocated proportionally 

between discretionary and nonexempt mandatory programs. CBO estimates that 

mandatory spending will account for roughly 58 percent of all nondefense spending 

that would be subject to enforcement procedures under the Budget Control Act during those nine years. Of that nonexempt mandatory spending, the vast majority is for 

Medicare programs and activities that would be subject to the 2.0 percent limit. In the 

absence of such a limit, reductions in budgetary resources for Medicare would total 

$256 billion between 2013 and 2021, CBO estimates; with the 2.0 percent ceiling, 

however, such reductions would total $123 billion over that period. 

The other $133 billion in required reductions that could not be accomplished because 

of the 2.0 percent limit would be reallocated proportionally among the remaining 

nonexempt mandatory programs and discretionary programs in the nondefense 

category. As a result, CBO estimates, cuts to those nonexempt mandatory programs 

would total $47 billion over the 2013–2021 period ($17 billion of which would stem 
Page 10

CBO

from the limit on the sequestration of Medicare spending), and reductions in caps on 

future appropriations for nondefense discretionary programs would total $322 billion 

($116 billion of which would result from the Medicare limit). Those cuts would represent reductions ranging from 7.8 percent for 2013 to 5.5 percent for 2021 (see the 

memorandum in Table 3). 

Estimated Impact of Budget Enforcement Mechanisms on 

Future Deficits

CBO estimates that the enforcement procedures described in this analysis would 

reduce deficits by a total of $1.1 trillion over the 2013–2021 period (see Table 1 on 

page 3). That amount comprises savings of $140 billion in projected mandatory 

spending, of $749 billion from lower discretionary appropriations, and of $169 billion in projected debt-service costs. 

The total deficit reduction is lower than the $1.2 trillion target specified in the Budget 

Control Act, for three reasons:

B Changes in outlays resulting from reductions in budgetary resources occur gradually because of the lag between the timing of appropriations and subsequent 

expenditures; therefore, some of the outlay savings (about $60 billion in this 

analysis) would come after 2021.

B CBO expects that reductions in budgetary resources for some programs and activities—such as certain parts of Medicare—would have effects that would offset some 

of the original savings; for example, premiums for Part B of Medicare are set to 

cover a fraction of that program’s costs, and if those costs are reduced, receipts from 

premiums will be lower. In total (including the effects on Medicare and other programs), those offsetting costs would amount to $31 billion through 2021, CBO 

estimates. 

B CBO estimates that savings in debt-service costs would total only $169 billion—

less than the $216 billion in savings implied by applying the 18 percent adjustment 

stipulated in the Budget Control Act to the savings target of $1.2 trillion.

This analysis is based on CBO’s August 2011 baseline budget and economic projections. However, those projections are subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty. 

Furthermore, under the Budget Control Act, OMB will calculate the reductions in 

discretionary spending caps and sequestrations of mandatory spending for each fiscal 

year. Although the amount of deficit reduction required each year would be set 

according to the provisions of the Budget Control Act, the reductions in mandatory 

programs would depend not only on future actions by the Congress but also on 

OMB’s projections of spending for those programs, which might well differ from 

CBO’s estimates.