The Economy Can't Survive Abrupt Spending Cuts

I'm trying to think of an economic precedent even remotely comparable to an abrupt hit-the-wall 44% cut in federal government spending.

The closest I can imagine - and it is not very close - is the defense build-down at the end of World War II.

That build-down was foreseen and planned even before the end of the war. It occurred over three years, not three weeks. Still, it was big:

In an economy of about $200 billion (in the money of the time), annual government spending was reduced by $56 billion.

And what was the real-world effect of the build-down? In the 12 months from 1945 to 1946, GDP dropped by almost 11%.

Happily, the US economy of 1946 was well-positioned to absorb the government cutback.

1) Consumers had accumulated large savings through the years of bond drives, military pay, and rationed goods.

2) Nobody was surprised. Everybody knew that the war would end, and that the military would thereafter shrink rapidly.

3) The cutback was associated with the triumph of American institutions and a more hopeful future: victory, peace, and reconstruction.

Result: by 1947, the US economy was growing strongly again. (Although GDP did not catch up to the 1945 level until 1950.)

Contrast that to now!

1) The consumer is tapped out, still deeply in debt from the housing bubble, and facing the continuing depreciation of the most important consumer asset, housing.

2) Everybody expects a deal to happen at the last minute, so a non-deal would jolt and shock markets.

3) A congressional forced non-payment of US bills would represent a signal and shaming failure of US institutions, sowing doubts about US credibility and reliability among investors and vendors worldwide.

All in all: it would be pretty bad.

So why are we doing this again? To force budget cuts that could be achieved just the same through the ordinary budget process? That's it?