Sequester

[carlfense]

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.

An aging population is the root of our deficit problem. It's not greedy poor people . . . it's not minority welfare queens . . . it's grandpa's health care.

[zoogs]

I agree.

[strigori]

How about we take a chunk out of the congress members pay first? The idiots cant seem to get anything done, why should we pay them and cut hours of the people who actually do something.

 

435 members of the House and 100 Members of the Senate, without counting their staff members, we are spending billions a year on their pay.

 

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PL%5B%3D%23P%20%20%0A

 

Rank and file of both houses make $174,000. The Majority and Minority leaders make $193,400 and the Speaker of the House makes $223,500.

 

100 Senators, 435 voting members of the house, 6 non voting members, 5 delegates, and the resident commissioner of Peurto Rico make up this part. So we pay $95,305,100 in salary for just these people, it does not include all their staffs. And they get a cost of living raise every year. That must be nice, as I don't know many people who have had raises since 2007.

[zoogs]

$95 million is a pittance.

 

I think we can think about maybe curbing the spending on that, although I don't really see it as a priority and I don't know about performance-based pay for these guys. How do you metric performance? I don't think you want to introduce those kinds of incentives into the equation. Don't like their performance - vote them out of office.

 

The problem continues to be the ballooning entitlement spending, which is considered non-discretionary because they automatically rise each year. It's not an easy problem to solve clearly. Pressure regarding the deficit issue is how we got here today, which is to say, ignoring the difficult problem and getting numbers down the painful but 'simple' way.

[Junior]

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/27/173054385/old-triumph-over-young-in-federal-spending-and-sequester-makes-it-worse

 

For years, federal programs for seniors and those that help kids have been on a collision course.

 

Now, given the automatic spending cuts taking place under sequestration, the moment for real competition may have arrived.

 

While Medicare and Social Security will come through the sequester mostly unscathed, a broad swath of programs targeted toward children — Head Start, education, nutrition assistance, child welfare — stand to lose hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

 

"There's a conflict between parts of the budget that go to younger people and that part that goes to older people," says Neil Howe, a demographer and consultant. "Up to this point, young people are on the losing side."

[NUance]

[BigRedBuster]

I still believe that this is exactly what both sides wanted. Both sides know we need to get control of spending in a drastic way. Neither side wants to actually vote to cut programs they have supported for years. So....why not put in place a system where all spending is cut across the board and they actually don't have to vote on it. On the flip side, they can attempt to all blame the other side for what ever automatic spending cuts comes down.

 

Honestly, maybe this is the best way to handle this. Spending needs cut more drastic than anything Washington has done in decades. At least now it is being accomplished. The one problem I have with this is that I feel like the attitude coming out of Washington/government is kind of a pissy attitude wanting to show the public how horrible life will be if certain programs have to cut their spending.

 

For instance. I heard/read the other day that "because of sequester" air traffic control stations at smaller airports across the country will be shut down. Hmmm....why? From the article it sounded like these stations have been in place for decades. Why now all of a sudden do they need to be shut down because of sequester?

[knapplc]

I still believe that this is exactly what both sides wanted. Both sides know we need to get control of spending in a drastic way. Neither side wants to actually vote to cut programs they have supported for years. So....why not put in place a system where all spending is cut across the board and they actually don't have to vote on it. On the flip side, they can attempt to all blame the other side for what ever automatic spending cuts comes down.

 

Honestly, maybe this is the best way to handle this. Spending needs cut more drastic than anything Washington has done in decades. At least now it is being accomplished. The one problem I have with this is that I feel like the attitude coming out of Washington/government is kind of a pissy attitude wanting to show the public how horrible life will be if certain programs have to cut their spending.

 

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is true.

[knapplc]

 

[carlfense]

 

(^^^my personal favorite)

[carlfense]

I still believe that this is exactly what both sides wanted. Both sides know we need to get control of spending in a drastic way. Neither side wants to actually vote to cut programs they have supported for years. So....why not put in place a system where all spending is cut across the board and they actually don't have to vote on it. On the flip side, they can attempt to all blame the other side for what ever automatic spending cuts comes down.

 

Honestly, maybe this is the best way to handle this. Spending needs cut more drastic than anything Washington has done in decades. At least now it is being accomplished. The one problem I have with this is that I feel like the attitude coming out of Washington/government is kind of a pissy attitude wanting to show the public how horrible life will be if certain programs have to cut their spending.

Could be.

 

 

For instance. I heard/read the other day that "because of sequester" air traffic control stations at smaller airports across the country will be shut down. Hmmm....why? From the article it sounded like these stations have been in place for decades. Why now all of a sudden do they need to be shut down because of sequester?

It's probably the least painful way to cut the required percentage. In theory, closing a air traffic control station in Latrobe, PA would cause less disruption than cutting 10% of controllers at O'Hare.

[BigRedBuster]

I still believe that this is exactly what both sides wanted. Both sides know we need to get control of spending in a drastic way. Neither side wants to actually vote to cut programs they have supported for years. So....why not put in place a system where all spending is cut across the board and they actually don't have to vote on it. On the flip side, they can attempt to all blame the other side for what ever automatic spending cuts comes down.

 

Honestly, maybe this is the best way to handle this. Spending needs cut more drastic than anything Washington has done in decades. At least now it is being accomplished. The one problem I have with this is that I feel like the attitude coming out of Washington/government is kind of a pissy attitude wanting to show the public how horrible life will be if certain programs have to cut their spending.

Could be.

 

 

For instance. I heard/read the other day that "because of sequester" air traffic control stations at smaller airports across the country will be shut down. Hmmm....why? From the article it sounded like these stations have been in place for decades. Why now all of a sudden do they need to be shut down because of sequester?

It's probably the least painful way to cut the required percentage. In theory, closing a air traffic control station in Latrobe, PA would cause less disruption than cutting 10% of controllers at O'Hare.

 

Why does any need closed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in actuality, the budget isn't being "cut". The rate of growth over the next 10 years is being cut by 1.2 trillion. That is a fancy way of Washington talking about "cuts". They really don't cut anything. They just drop how much it is going to grow.

 

Now, most private organizations would look at this and become more efficient at what they do. Government agencies consume money by their very nature of how they budget. If an agency budgets $100,000,000 for one year, if they don't use that, there is a good chance they won't get it the following year. So, they always budget an increase. These people need to figure out how to do their jobs with less.

 

Many times I have been in budget meetings where a department is told they need to get by with less and they throw a fit. You know what? Usually they can make it happen and still get the job done. People that work in the government need to do the same thing. There is a culture issue in these agencies that needs to change.

[carlfense]

Why does any need closed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in actuality, the budget isn't being "cut". The rate of growth over the next 10 years is being cut by 1.2 trillion. That is a fancy way of Washington talking about "cuts". They really don't cut anything. They just drop how much it is going to grow.

The cuts amount to roughly 10% in the areas included. For example, the military budget increased by approximately 3% from 2009-2010. Even accounting for that increase a 10% cut would still require a total spending reduction of 7%.

 

Suzy Khimm with a decent quick explanation of the sequester:

http://www.washingto...ster-explained/

 

Sarah Kliff on how the sequester really hits the military:

http://www.washingto...s-in-one-graph/

 

Now, most private organizations would look at this and become more efficient at what they do.

Or bring in more money. That option has been taken off the table.

 

These people need to figure out how to do their jobs with less.

They're doing that. Unfortunately the results are sometimes things like cuts in tuition assistance for our servicemen and servicewomen.

 

Many times I have been in budget meetings where a department is told they need to get by with less and they throw a fit. You know what? Usually they can make it happen and still get the job done. People that work in the government need to do the same thing. There is a culture issue in these agencies that needs to change.

They're getting it done but that doesn't mean that there won't be financial pain for real people.

[BigRedBuster]

The cuts amount to roughly 10% in the areas included. For example, the military budget increased by approximately 3% from 2009-2010. Even accounting for that increase a 10% cut would still require a total spending reduction of 7%.

 

I think you are falling for the trick Washington pulls every time on the American people. They talk about a 10% cut but under their breath they say..."over ten years".

 

So, you claim the military budget increased 3% in one year. So, to compare apples to apples, you need to take 1% off of that for the sequester (10% divided by 10 years).

 

Now, that is how I understand it. If, I am wrong, I would like to read an article explaining it differently.

 

They're getting it done but that doesn't mean that there won't be financial pain for real people.

 

Nothing I have said has gone against the notion that there will be financial pain for real people. Unfortunately that is what happens in these situations. The private sector has been doing this every since 2007. It sucks. It REALLY sucks. But, it's reality.

[carlfense]

I think you are falling for the trick Washington pulls every time on the American people. They talk about a 10% cut but under their breath they say..."over ten years".

Would seeing a visual representation help you understand?

 

Approximately $45 billion will be cut from the military in 2013. That number will rise over the next years. (Also, for what it's worth, the DoD was going to request 1% less in funding for 2013 than they did in 2012 . . . so your calculations are even further off . . .)

http://www.washingto...fNTQ_story.html

 

So, you claim the military budget increased 3% in one year. So, to compare apples to apples, you need to take 1% off of that for the sequester (10% divided by 10 years).

What?

 

Now, that is how I understand it. If, I am wrong, I would like to read an article explaining it differently.

I posted a couple. If those don't do it for you I'm sure you could try a google search.

 

Nothing I have said has gone against the notion that there will be financial pain for real people. Unfortunately that is what happens in these situations. The private sector has been doing this every since 2007. It sucks. It REALLY sucks. But, it's reality.

Luckily the economy seems to be picking up steam.