Upcoming Sequester

[SparrowHawk]

This whole thing is BS. a 2.5% net cut in a budget of 3.5 Trillion is just silly.

It would be like you deciding to go an a diet and next thing is your confronted with a Bic Mac and Large Fries, Now if you're serious about your desire to lose weight you push the entire meal away. However if you're like the sequester then you eat the Big Mac and leave 6 fries.

How much weight you think you'll lose?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

This whole thing is BS. a 2.5% net cut in a budget of 3.5 Trillion is just silly.

The 2.5% is of the total federal budget. Since congress exempted much of the total budget from the sequester, the actual amount of reduction for almost all agencies is 8.2%. DOD is cut 11%. That is across all lines of budget. There is no targeted reductions allowed in the law.

If you think furloughing 8.2% (or 11%) of workers at some of these agencies will not be noticed by the public, you are in for a big awakening.

http://news.sciencem...t_Watermark.pdf


From CNBC:

Which programs will be hit by sequestration? Here's a quick look at some of them
Defense: Biggest loser
It's estimated that the DoD would have to cut 11 percent of its budget each year.
The DoD would be able to shift funds "to ensure war fighting and critical military readiness capabilities were not degraded," but non-deployed units, equipment and facilities, and research and development efforts would all take a hit.
The cuts would affect all sorts of programs, according to the DoD, including research and development as well as cause a reduction in the number of government contracts awarded.
About 108,000 defense civilian employees could lose their jobs in 2013 if sequestration takes effect, according to a report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Transportation: Long lines at airports, fewer traffic controllers, higher ticket prices
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the agency that handles airport security, would be forced to reduce its workforce, including a seven-day furlough for screeners, which would increase passenger wait times at most of the nation's airports by more than an hour.
Also adding to the burden would be furloughs in the workforce of the Federal Aviation Administration, which means fewer air traffic controllers on the job. That means reduced air travel, longer delays for passengers. As much as 10 percent of the FAA's workforce of 40,000 would be on furlough on any given day.
It could also mean higher ticket prices for passengers as the weeks went by, as the FAA depends on a trust fund for its money and that funding comes from taxes on air traffic. So, as fewer goods and people travel, the amount in the fund goes down and it will need to be replenished.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

So going back to 2008 is good for you? We should be growing as a country, not shrinking. Decreasing our transportation system capacity is not good for business. We can all agree on that. From the report:

"Budget reductions to primarily impact current operations and functioning of today's air transportation system, with a proportionate reduction across line-items (Operations, Facilities and Equipment, Research, Engineering and Development and Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)).

We estimate that such reductions would lead to an annual decrease of

1) 36.5 to 73 million in passenger enplanements, and

2) 1 – 2 billion lbs. of air freight.

 Five and 10 percent reductions in passenger enplanements and air freight-related activity would lead to net job losses of 55,000 to 109,000 jobs annually.

 1 and 2 percent reductions in aircraft manufacturing would lead to net job losses of 11,000 to 22,000 jobs annually.

 The forecasted losses in output to the U.S. economy are estimated to be between $9.2 and $18.4 billion, with $2.7 to $5.4 billion lost in personal earnings to workers, leading to 66,000 to 132,000 jobs lost annually.

 The forecasted loss in Federal and State tax revenue is estimated to be between $500 million and $1 billion annually."

http://secondtonone....sult-Report.pdf

"A significant portion of the FAA's non-operations budget authorization has been (and is expected to continue) supporting the development and continued roll-out implementation of a new, satellite-based air transportation control system. This initiative will transform the seriously outdated Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Air Transportation System (ATS) currently in use in the United States and eventually air traffic control systems throughout the world.

Dubbed the "Next Generation Air Transportation System" or simply "NextGen", these programs, equipment, and facility improvement initiatives are already being implemented throughout the country. The substantial transformation of the U.S. air transportation system is expected by 2025. It is safe to say that NextGen is considered crucial for the future of air transportation and our nation's economic growth; it is not merely a luxury.

NextGen is not a single program or project. Rather, it is a carefully-crafted series of improvements to system and aircraft equipment and technological upgrades to existing systems, combined with new operational procedures designed to make the overall air transportation system safer and more efficient. The framework for the new system has been determined; the steps necessary to build and implement it are being developed on an ongoing basis. Initial steps have been developed and are currently being implemented, and important NextGen system components are scheduled to be rolled out from now until 2018, with the ultimate full implementation planned for 2025.
NextGen will be the most significant improvement to the U.S. air transportation system since radar was introduced in the late 1950's. It will fundamentally transform each of the three foundational elements of air traffic control: communications, navigation, and surveillance. New advances in digital communication satellite guidance systems will enhance safety, improve pilot and controller situational awareness and significantly increase overall air transportation efficiency."

I understand your concern and I whole heartedly agree that the country should be moving forward. It is the government, not the private sector that is keeping this country from moving forward. I think we can all agree that government spending is out of control. Take for example the administration’s ill-advised investment in solar, wind and biofuel technology. It’s not that any of us have a problem finding and using alternative energy sources, but there has to be a sincere effort to plan for an orderly transition to this technology. The administration seems to think that you just turn off the fossil fuel switch today and turn on alternative energy use tomorrow, anyone with half a brain knows that that can’t and doesn’t work that way. I don’t know what you call spending 535 million ill-advised dollars on solar panel production or 525 million on Fisker electric car production overseas, but I call it a waste of tax payer money. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to government waste. Private sector energy companies are the ones that will forward this technology, all without one dollar of tax payer money being invested. Then again, someone may become a millionaire doing so and we can’t have that now can we?

For decades the left has bitched about the amount of tax payer dollars spent supporting the Military Industrial Complex. Now the Republicans have handed Defense cuts to the Democrats on a silver platter and all of a sudden the democrats realize that doing so will put hundreds of thousands of DOD employees on the unemployment line! The Democrats didn’t have a problem with DOD cuts when a Republican was President, doing the same with a Democrat in office doesn’t seem to be the left thing to do!

You and I both know that there are massive amounts of tax payer money waste in government sponsored projects, including ongoing projects within the FAA. The President is all too eager to sacrifice these projects and the government jobs associated with them so as to save entitlements to those that have no intention of becoming productive members of our society. The fact that the President cannot find 85 million dollars in spending cuts in a 3.4 trillion dollar budget speaks volumes in his ability to provide leadership for the greater good of the country.

Lord forbid we stop spending $764,825 on a study on how college students use cell phones and Social Media, $136,555 for teachers to retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England, $55,660 on butter packaging, $606,000 for a study about online dating, $484,000 for a pizza restaurant, $48,700 towards the Second Annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival, $147,138 to build a magic museum, $96,000 on Ipads for kindergarteners, $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail or $130,987 for dragon robots!

You get the leadership and government you voted for. If I were in your position and my safety sensitive job was about to be cut so as to fund these kind of stupid project, I would be protecting in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I can guaranty you one thing Glen, Mitt Romney would have already found 85 million in government waste to cut in order to keep your safety sensitive job!

 

[jimntx]

If 2% across the board cripples any government agency, then who ever runs it needs to be replaced. I personally took a 25% cut in my private sector airline job and I'm still here. My retirement suxs ... maybe it's time to take a look at those public sector pension?

Before we hit public sector pensions of the average government worker, let's eliminate the Congressional pensions and put them on Social Security. A member of Congress only has to serve 1 complete term (2yrs in the House, 6 years in the Senate) to receive a lifetime pension equal to something like whatever the annual salary of a member of Congress is at the time they leave office. Not a percentage of the annual salary...the actual salary!

I bet Social Security would be made safe and secure before any other activity took place in Congress.

Oh, by the way, Knotbuyinit. $535 million is chump change in the Federal budget. And, while you are vilifying the President and the Democrats, I suggest you take a look at the past few administrations in Washington. During the administration of the past 4 Democratic Presidents, the deficit has been reduced. During the last 4 Republican presidencies, the deficit has increased. Now, who is it that has been spending money needlessly?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Before we hit public sector pensions of the average government worker, let's eliminate the Congressional pensions and put them on Social Security. A member of Congress only has to serve 1 complete term (2yrs in the House, 6 years in the Senate) to receive a lifetime pension equal to something like whatever the annual salary of a member of Congress is at the time they leave office. Not a percentage of the annual salary...the actual salary!

Not true.

Members First Elected Since 1984. Members of Congress who were first
elected in 1984 or later are covered by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System
unless they decline this coverage, in which case they are covered only by Social
Security. FERS is composed of three elements:

1) Social Security,
2) the FERS basic annuity, a monthly pension based on years of service
and the average of the three highest consecutive years of basic pay,
3) the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), into which participants can deposit up
to a maximum of $15,500 in 2007. Their employing agency matches
employee contributions up to 5% of pay.

Age and Length-of-Service Requirements

Members become vested in (legally entitled to) a pension benefit under CSRS
or FERS after five years of service.

Members of Congress receive​

retirement

and ​

health benefits

under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.​

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.​

​

http://usgovinfo.abo...congresspay.htm​

http://www.senate.go...pdf/RL30631.pdf​

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

You and I both know that there are massive amounts of tax payer money waste in government sponsored projects, including ongoing projects within the FAA.

...The fact that the President cannot find 85 million dollars in spending cuts in a 3.4 trillion dollar budget speaks volumes in his ability to provide leadership for the greater good of the country.

I agree that there is plenty of waste in the government. The sequester is not the way to cut it. I know of many ways that my freinds in the government have looked at local contracts and policy and procedures in their day-to-day jobs and eliminated substantial waste.

On a side note, many government employees are not liberal democrats. They mirror the general population. I would actually go further to say that I bet in today's government, there are more republicans in the federal workforce due the mandatory veteran preference for hiring. There are huge numbers of veterans out there now from the Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan conflicts. And many of them moved into federal jobs.

Back to your statement above on leadership, there is a huge lack of it in our executive and legislative branches right now. That includes Obama and Boehner, then Reid and McConnell right there with them.

The fact that Boehner is not willing to let go of the tax loopholes (that benefit none of us middle class workers) in order to comprimise on a deal speaks volumes in his ability to provide leadership for the greater good of the country.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Oh, by the way, Knotbuyinit. $535 million is chump change in the Federal budget. And, while you are vilifying the President and the Democrats, I suggest you take a look at the past few administrations in Washington. During the administration of the past 4 Democratic Presidents, the deficit has been reduced. During the last 4 Republican presidencies, the deficit has increased. Now, who is it that has been spending money needlessly?

Now Jim, what is the name of the President that signed the Budget Control Act of 2011?

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Personal income fell 3.6% in January. Yet families will tighten their belts, cut out all frivolous spending, and deal with it. They have no other choice. Yet if you listen to the President, cutting 2.3% will practically destroy our county. If 2.3% can do this much damage, then our problems are worse than we ever imagined. The country should do what the average family will do.

 

[SparrowHawk]

When confronted with the failure of Barack Obama's fiscal policies I've NEVER seen such tap dancing in my life. All these Liberals need is some black face and it would be a real Minstrel show.
[sharedmedia=core:attachments:9416]

 

[delldude]

Tell me which?

 

[signals]

And guess who will thank us by showing their true Muslim colors?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Tell me which?

You do know who controls the purse strings. It is not Obama. Aid to Egypt is appropriated by congress, just like all other spending.

Cutting aid to other countries is a great populist/nationalist idea.

Eliminating foreign aid would bring on a huge host of other issues that I will not delve into in this sequestration thread. Let me say that you should check your Republican credentials at the door before you enter the "eliminate foreign aid" room.

 

[delldude]

You do know who controls the purse strings. It is not Obama. Aid to Egypt is appropriated by congress, just like all other spending.

Cutting aid to other countries is a great populist/nationalist idea.

Eliminating foreign aid would bring on a huge host of other issues that I will not delve into in this sequestration thread. Let me say that you should check your Republican credentials at the door before you enter the "eliminate foreign aid" room.

Why not, you seem to do it in a lot of other threads.

Who says I'm a Republican......LOL....

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Who says I'm a Republican......LOL....

I know you are an in the closet liberal.

Are you going to come out about anything else here?

Are you now a Randulan (formerly known as Ronunlan)?

 

[delldude]

I know you are an in the closet liberal.

Are you going to come out about anything else here?

Are you now a Randulan (formerly known as Ronunlan)?

Says 'No Affiliation' on my card, Pal.

Means I can go either way....its all up to the candidate....LOL