Less Than 3 Percent Will Shut Down The Entire Government?????

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Probably depends on the department. Lots of the government is running on a shoestring. And the cuts are, thank goodness, concentrated in just a few areas. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are carved out. So the cuts are more like 8% to the agencies that are being cut. I'm sure with the huge funding, that's no big deal at the Pentagon. But air traffic control doesn't have extra controllers. Their guys are already working overtime. So some of it isn't big. Other parts are.

On a shoestring? Are you fucking serious? Tell me there isn't at least 3% waste and fraud in the budget. No agency is on a shoestring, especially if it shouldn't even exist.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Coburn to White House: With cuts on way, why a 100-city spending tour?
February 22, 2013

“If Washington is truly cutting spending on missions many consider vital, how can we at the same time promise and promote more financial assistance, much less afford this mammoth 100 city cross country tour?” wrote Coburn. “While well intentioned, I urge you to cancel the 100 city government spending tour.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/coburn...stom_click=rss


See also @: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=34

Coburn is one smart guy and so is JC Watts who should be considered as a VP
possibility but again why should he take a pay cut?

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

"The Sky is Falling"

I love to watch the shoe now on the other foot LOL!

from today's Daily OK

[chefnerd]

Dead on the money with the sky is falling. The following article from Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points that out quite well with both sides claiming it.

(CNN) -- "The sequester is coming, the sequester is coming," cries Chicken Little, speaking of the across-the-board spending reductions set to kick in next Friday. As a result, much of the Washington establishment, politicians of both parties, and the media are bracing for the apocalypse.

Henny Penny worries about poisoned meat going uninspected, the air traffic control system shutting down, and schools being forced to close. Meanwhile Turkey Lurkey is afraid that national security is threatened because our military will be gutted. And Foxy Loxy is concerned there will be massive job losses and our economy will crash.
The reality, though, is that most of what we are being told about the sequester is just a fairy tale. Here's why:

The sequester imposes savage spending cuts

Actually, the sequester doesn't cut federal spending at all, or rather it cuts it only in the Washington sense of any reduction from projected baseline increases is a cut. In reality, even if the sequester goes through, the federal government will spend more every single year. In fact, in 2023 it will be spending $2.39 trillion more than it does today.

OK, but at least the reductions in projected spending are big, right?

Hardly. This year, the sequester would slow the growth in federal spending by just $85 billion, from an expected, pre-sequester budget of $3.64 trillion -- less than a 2.3% reduction. To put that in perspective, the federal government borrows $85 billion every 28 days . In fact, this actually overstates the size of this year's cuts. Because of ongoing contracts and the Byzantine labyrinth of federal budgeting, only $44 billion of that $85 billion will actually be cut from this year's budget. The rest will be cut in future years, but attributed to this year's budget. So, the real reduction in federal spending this year is just 1.2%. If the federal government can't reduce spending by less than a penny-and-a-half on the dollar without throwing us into the dark ages, something is truly wrong.

But aren't the cuts larger for domestic discretionary spending?

It is true that the cuts are not spread equally across all types of federal spending. Entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are generally exempt -- Grandma's Social Security check won't be cut -- meaning that discretionary spending takes a disproportionately larger hit. Still, we are talking about a reduction of less than 9%. That would leave domestic discretionary spending, after adjusting for inflation, at roughly the same level as 2009. You recall 2009, don't you? The starvation, the mass closure of our schools, the shutdown of the transportation system, the burning cities?

What about defense? Surely, the sequester guts defense

Defense does take the biggest cut under sequester, nearly 13% of planned spending. In fact, defense spending would really be cut, in the sense of actually spending less, over the next two years. Still, it would never fall below the level of spending we had as recently as 2007, a year we managed to survive without al Qaeda wading ashore in Long Beach. Beginning in 2015, defense spending would start rising again, in real terms, and would exceed current levels by 2019. Keeping all this in perspective, over the entire 10-year period covered by the sequester, defense spending would average roughly $100 billion more each year (after adjusting for inflation) than we spent at the height of the cold war.

I'm still worried about the impact on the economy. Some economists believe that the sequester will cost thousands of jobs and throw us into another recession. True or not?

The proposed spending reductions amount to less than 0.03% of our gross domestic product. If our economy can't survive spending cuts of that size, we truly are Greece. Of course, in the short term, there will be some layoffs and furloughs. This will be hard on some communities that depend heavily on government spending, and even harder on those workers directly affected. However, most of the numbers cited about the numbers of jobs at risk come from industry groups with a vested interest in making the cuts look as bad as possible.

This entire argument buys into the Keynesian conceit that government spending creates jobs over the long term. But the resources necessary to create those jobs have to be extracted from the private economy either through taxes or borrowing. That means the private sector then has fewer resources to invest in job creation. Given that the private sector generally puts those resources to a more productive use, it is likely that government spending destroys more jobs over the long run than it creates.

We can and should have a legitimate debate about the best way to cut spending. But let's not be distracted by fairy tales about how the sky is falling.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong!!!

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=34

FAA does a lot more that ATC. They manage and check all approaches to airports and NAVAIDS. That includes a fleet of jets that fly approaches all over the country everyday to check accuracy of charts, tolerances of VORs, RNAV, GPS, etc. I'd imagine that's in the travel budget. Consultants may be part of the longterm contract to upgrade ATC antiquated 40 year old computer system that has been ongoing for more than a decade and is now on its second generation system. You have to know a whole lot more than just what the line item on the budget says.

[bojulay]

With all of the hoopla over a 3% cut in gov fraud, how
would they ever consider lowering the debt or any
serious reduction in gov spending.

And what happens when the fed stops or can no longer support the
bond market.

Wasn't the failing of their bond market what happened to Greece
and other euro countries.

The government may need all that ammo they have been buying up
if the bond market collapses.

I wonder what parts of America the Chinese are going to try and reposes
when we forfeit on our debt to them.

[Whirlaway]

Then shift funding from the departments that are over funded.....that is what the House GOP proposes...but Obama is against it!

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

FAA does a lot more that ATC. They manage and check all approaches to airports and NAVAIDS. That includes a fleet of jets that fly approaches all over the country everyday to check accuracy of charts, tolerances of VORs, RNAV, GPS, etc. I'd imagine that's in the travel budget. Consultants may be part of the longterm contract to upgrade ATC antiquated 40 year old computer system that has been ongoing for more than a decade and is now on its second generation system. You have to know a whole lot more than just what the line item on the budget says.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

FAA does a lot more that ATC. They manage and check all approaches to airports and NAVAIDS. That includes a fleet of jets that fly approaches all over the country everyday to check accuracy of charts, tolerances of VORs, RNAV, GPS, etc. I'd imagine that's in the travel budget. Consultants may be part of the longterm contract to upgrade ATC antiquated 40 year old computer system that has been ongoing for more than a decade and is now on its second generation system. You have to know a whole lot more than just what the line item on the budget says.

The point of the article is that the consultant budget of this one, single agency exceeds the total sum of the so-called "cuts" of sequestration. Hence, if wisely applied, this agency -- in conjunction with every other government agency -- could sustain these insignificant cuts in its/their budget(s) without seriously impairing its/their operation(s): which is a reality quite different from the BS Odombo et al are trumpeting.

[Whirlaway]

House GOP should do 3 things :

1. Don't back down on the sequestration cuts.

2. Approve itemizdd line item cuts for each government department.

3. Haul every cabinet head before Congress and make them explain (under oath) to the public why they cant deliver services on a 2% lower budget.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

One of my step-daughters works for the Department of the Interior in Colorado. She was just told last week that job furloughs are on the way, anywhere from a 20% cut in work (and pay), up to 100%. Furloughs scheduled to be at least 6 months in duration.

Whether the many federal jobs are REALLY necessary is a separate discussion point, but these are real, hard-working individuals whose wallets are going to be hard hit.

I have always believed that government, whether it be Federal, State, or Local, should be run like a corporation. Corporations are far from perfect but they usually stress profitability. Usually to the extreme. Get rid of pensions and replace them with 401k contributions. Justify every job and whether or not it is REALLY needed. I know that this is not going to happen in my lifetime but it would be a good start, IMHO.

[Whirlaway]

Your daughter was likely told this because of some political directive trying to turn up the heat on Obama's "Freak Out" government...ya know, govern by crisis...scare the public into accepting higher taxes and blame the GOP !

In reality it will be a vacation for the federal workers;;;

When all gets sorted out, they will get back pay for work they never performed..........just like the last government shut down....

Damn, it is good gig to be on the public dole !

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

One of my step-daughters works for the Department of the Interior in Colorado. She was just told last week that job furloughs are on the way, anywhere from a 20% cut in work (and pay), up to 100%. Furloughs scheduled to be at least 6 months in duration.

Whether the many federal jobs are REALLY necessary is a separate discussion point, but these are real, hard-working individuals whose wallets are going to be hard hit.

I have always believed that government, whether it be Federal, State, or Local, should be run like a corporation. Corporations are far from perfect but they usually stress profitability. Usually to the extreme. Get rid of pensions and replace them with 401k contributions. Justify every job and whether or not it is REALLY needed. I know that this is not going to happen in my lifetime but it would be a good start, IMHO.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Your daughter was likely told this because of some political directive trying to turn up the heat on Obama's "Freak Out" government...ya know, govern by crisis...scare the public into accepting higher taxes and blame the GOP !

In reality it will be a vacation for the federal workers;;;

When all gets sorted out, they will get back pay for work they never performed..........just like the last government shut down....

Damn, it is good gig to be on the public dole !

I'll let you know. The hit is supposed to come on Friday. Obviously won't be able to comment on them getting back pay unless something on that subject is also announced, which I doubt.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

One of my step-daughters works for the Department of the Interior in Colorado. She was just told last week that job furloughs are on the way, anywhere from a 20% cut in work (and pay), up to 100%. Furloughs scheduled to be at least 6 months in duration.

Whether the many federal jobs are REALLY necessary is a separate discussion point, but these are real, hard-working individuals whose wallets are going to be hard hit.

I have always believed that government, whether it be Federal, State, or Local, should be run like a corporation. Corporations are far from perfect but they usually stress profitability. Usually to the extreme. Get rid of pensions and replace them with 401k contributions. Justify every job and whether or not it is REALLY needed. I know that this is not going to happen in my lifetime but it would be a good start, IMHO.

+1

Sequester is a BS gimmick employed by no-account politicians to extort more money from taxpayers. One could easily create a short list of about 600 federal politicians and department heads -- starting with the president -- who should be forced to go without their annual pay for this year.

[LovingKayla]

Oh wait you guys... It's bush's fault. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Randy4Candy]

Hmmmm, so it takes an Okie Senator (and a non-teawipe Republican't) to do a little simple math for all you dumbshit Tejanos?

Figures.....