Sequester

[lo country]

Here is an excerpt from AG Holder, IMO, using language to try and scare the American people.

 

"The Justice Department is going to lose nine percent of its budget between now and September 30th. We're going to lose $1.6 billion. There are not going to be as many FBI agents, ATF agents, DEA agents, prosecutors who are going to be able to do their jobs," Holder said. "They're going to be furloughed. They're going to spend time out of their offices, not doing their jobs."

 

The current guidelines are that a 30 day notice must be sent to those employees being furloughed. This would not make the furloughs immediate. They would start April 1. The current plan is to have employees furloughed for 2 days per month for a total of 14 days until Sept 30 or until the issue is resolved. I do not think this will impact the security of the US. Take into account scheduled leave, sick days etc and I am sure that you have this many people unavailable during the course of a normal month. It is not like an entire office of 300 people or even 5 would be on furlough the same day. Financial issues for the families? Absolutely. Less secure or an increase in crime? No.

 

Both sides knew this was coming since 2011. BS for the past several months they have been laying the blame on the other instead of sitting down and settle the problem.

 

For the record, this admn first suggested the sequester to Congress in 2011 per Bob Woodward. Congress passed it. I have also seen an article stating "fiscal hawks" have found approx 45 billion in unspent/non designated funds. My question, now that push has come to shove they find this. Why haven't they been looking for monies like this all along.

[Junior]

In June of 2011, the President and the Speaker began working toward a Grand Bargain of major tax increases and spending cuts to address the government’s long-term budget deficits. Until late June, Boehner had managed to keep these talks secret from Cantor. On July 21st, Boehner paused in his discussions with Obama to talk to Cantor and outline the proposed deal. As Obama waited by the phone for a response from the Speaker, Cantor struck. Cantor told me that it was a “fair assessment” that he talked Boehner out of accepting Obama’s deal. He said he told Boehner that it would be better, instead, to take the issues of taxes and spending to the voters and “have it out” with the Democrats in the election. Why give Obama an enormous political victory, and potentially help him win reëlection, when they might be able to negotiate a more favorable deal with a new Republican President? Boehner told Obama there was no deal. Instead of a Grand Bargain, Cantor and the House Republicans made a grand bet.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/04/130304fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2MDdTTv30

[strigori]

Here is an excerpt from AG Holder, IMO, using language to try and scare the American people.

 

"The Justice Department is going to lose nine percent of its budget between now and September 30th. We're going to lose $1.6 billion. There are not going to be as many FBI agents, ATF agents, DEA agents, prosecutors who are going to be able to do their jobs," Holder said. "They're going to be furloughed. They're going to spend time out of their offices, not doing their jobs."

 

The current guidelines are that a 30 day notice must be sent to those employees being furloughed. This would not make the furloughs immediate. They would start April 1. The current plan is to have employees furloughed for 2 days per month for a total of 14 days until Sept 30 or until the issue is resolved. I do not think this will impact the security of the US. Take into account scheduled leave, sick days etc and I am sure that you have this many people unavailable during the course of a normal month. It is not like an entire office of 300 people or even 5 would be on furlough the same day. Financial issues for the families? Absolutely. Less secure or an increase in crime? No.

 

Both sides knew this was coming since 2011. BS for the past several months they have been laying the blame on the other instead of sitting down and settle the problem.

 

For the record, this admn first suggested the sequester to Congress in 2011 per Bob Woodward. Congress passed it. I have also seen an article stating "fiscal hawks" have found approx 45 billion in unspent/non designated funds. My question, now that push has come to shove they find this. Why haven't they been looking for monies like this all along.

Its a bit bigger of a deal than you make it out to be. It amounts to a 10% cut in effective workforce. Say you have an office with 10 people. That's 1600 hours of work a month assuming 8 hours of work a day. Each person taking 2 days off adds up to 160 hours. That is a lot of stuff that is not not going to get done. And there are chunks of our law enforcement and legal systems that are already stretched to the limit. Not a small cut. Its not going to end the world, but its not going to help anyone out either.

[lo country]

The irony. The sequester accounts for approx 2% of the current federal budget. Much fan fare was made about its costs and ramifications yet the vast majority of us saw our own taxes (SS) increase that much in Jan without so much as a blip from DC.

[tschu]

We 100% should have just gone over the cliff back in Dec/Jan. It would have hurt a little bit in the short term, but man, it would go a long way over the next 20 years or so. We're in trouble financially and none of the good ole boys on Capitol Hill give a sh#t about it. I don't think many of them have any clue about economics. Hey, lobby & throw some more cash in their face and they're like dancing monkey puppets.

 

Sometime in the moderate future we're going to have to seriously restructure government if the current two-party system continues the way it has been. (Which I actually don't think it will. The GOP is killing itself lately, and the newest generation of voters has nothing in common with the GOP's platform. We may see the death of a party in the next 30 years, or at the very least the death of every ideal that this party currently stands for)

[carlfense]

The irony. The sequester accounts for approx 2% of the current federal budget. Much fan fare was made about its costs and ramifications yet the vast majority of us saw our own taxes (SS) increase that much in Jan without so much as a blip from DC.

You must have been quite upset with the GOP for resisting the 1 year extension of that tax cut in the late fall of 2011 . . . thankfully they eventually yielded to Democratic pressure.

[carlfense]

This is why Obama can't make a deal with Republicans:

This had led to a lot of Republicans fanning out to explain what the president should be offering if he was serious about making a deal. Then, when it turns out that the president did offer those items, there’s more furious hand-waving about how no, actually, this is what the president needs to offer to make a deal. Then, when it turns out he’s offered most of that, too, the hand-waving stops and the truth comes out: Republicans won’t make a deal that includes further taxes, they just want to get the White House to implement their agenda in return for nothing. Luckily for them, most of the time, the conversation doesn’t get that far, and the initial comments that the president needs to “get serious” on entitlements is met with sage nods.

 

I don’t mean to pick on Murphy, who, as I said, is an important guide to contemporary Republican politics and a force for good in his party. But his series of missives on the subject today offered an unusually clear view of where the GOP actually is in the budget debate, and why there was really no alternative to the sequester. There’s no deal even if Obama agrees to major Republican demands on entitlements. There’s no deal because Republicans don’t want to make a deal that includes taxes, no matter what they get in return for it.

 

The interesting question is whether the possibility of a government shutdown, a debt-ceiling breach or simply the pressure of the sequester’s cuts will, in the coming months, break one side or the other. But as long as the GOP’s position is they won’t compromise, there’s not going to be a compromise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

[lo country]

The irony. The sequester accounts for approx 2% of the current federal budget. Much fan fare was made about its costs and ramifications yet the vast majority of us saw our own taxes (SS) increase that much in Jan without so much as a blip from DC.

You must have been quite upset with the GOP for resisting the 1 year extension of that tax cut in the late fall of 2011 . . . thankfully they eventually yielded to Democratic pressure.

Not really. IIRC, there was baggage associated with the extensions other than just a simple vote of extend or not. BUT same broken record from either party. Throw in one parties sacred cow with stuff you want and it gets voted down. Then blame the party for "obstructing" a plan great for America. Its politics and the losers are We the people......One trying to upstage the other. Dems were against extending tax cuts, saw an opportunity to gain some ground and took it. Same with the sequester. Dems against, Reps for it. Depending on how things shake out in the next few weeks will show more of the same pandering. If no real notice, Dems take credit for trimming fat and making smaller, more transparent govt. Sequester causes issues, Reps claim they offered chance for Obama to make cuts to programs at his discretion. Same old same old.

 

Look at the sequester issues govt offices are looking to employee:

Limit travel

Watch training and conferences

Hiring freeze

Fill only mission critical positions

 

These were the great ides? Give me a friggin break. This crap should be the responsibility of every agency. Not to mention "fiscal hawks" have found approx 45 billion unclaimed/assigned monies in DC. Really? 45 billion basically unfunded monies. And we wonder why we have a 16.1 trillion dollar deficit.

 

Long answer to your question, R for me is better than D. Not the party I grew up with, but IMO still better. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

 

 

As soon as Americans realizing the only ones losing are us, we can actually work towards some real change in DC.

[MLB 51]

Can't we all just along. f'ing' partisan politics.

[Junior]

It never ceases to amaze me... the Republican party really has done a phenomenal job to completely convince their base, which includes a lot of blue collar people, that protecting the wealth of the rich is the most important thing in the world.

[strigori]

It never ceases to amaze me... the Republican party really has done a phenomenal job to completely convince their base, which includes a lot of blue collar people, that protecting the wealth of the rich is the most important thing in the world.

Got there with the bait and switch with becoming the Party of Jesus.

[zoogs]

A good NYT article that covered the bases on this issue for me, which is sort of my first time getting into reading about it, so bear with me here. FYE...

 

LINK: Cuts to achieve goal for deficit, but toll is high

 

In summary, it talks about how this deal actually achieves some widely recommended deficit reduction projections, but in what appears to be all the wrong ways. The cuts don't touch the root of the problem - entitlement programs (medicare, social security...), which are going to balloon all on their own and make up the great majority of the budget anyway.

 

Instead, it cuts the knees off our discretionary spending, which, in addition to being overall much smaller in quantity than entitlements, are our annual investments into the country's future, instead of tossing money into a black hole in order to achieve a safety net, which sums up non-discretionary spending.

 

J. Keith Kennedy, a Republican former staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said: “The annual discretionary money is where you make your investments. And you decide every year where do you want to put your money to invest in the future — whether it’s education, or health care or infrastructure or national parks, or sending another rover to Mars.”

 

For two decades through the 1990s, G. William Hoagland, then the Republican staff director at the Senate Budget Committee, fought with Mr. Kennedy to get the Appropriations Committee to cut discretionary spending. But now, Mr. Hoagland said, “We have squeezed that turnip as far as we’re going to go, and that’s before sequestration. That is the component of the budget which, for all practical purposes, is the seed corn of the future.”

 

 

It's unconscionably bad that this has been allowed to happen. I don't give a damn about who should get the blame, just fix this.

[tschu]

Social Security is only a problem because of the lack of current tax funding to support it. We pay some of the lowest taxes in US history (since income taxes were implemented of course) and still we complain about lack of funding for things.

[gobiggergoredder]

[carlfense]

Look at the sequester issues govt offices are looking to employee:

Limit travel

Watch training and conferences

Hiring freeze

Fill only mission critical positions

 

These were the great ides? Give me a friggin break. This crap should be the responsibility of every agency. Not to mention "fiscal hawks" have found approx 45 billion unclaimed/assigned monies in DC. Really? 45 billion basically unfunded monies. And we wonder why we have a 16.1 trillion dollar deficit.

No arguments there.

 

Long answer to your question, R for me is better than D. Not the party I grew up with, but IMO still better. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

 

As soon as Americans realizing the only ones losing are us, we can actually work towards some real change in DC.