Sequestration will actually happen

[CardiacCoug]

Interesting that Obama thought the Republicans would never let sequestration happen because of the defense cuts -- but the crazy Republicans in congress are calling his bluff because they hate the huge deficits and hate Obama even more than they like the military. I think it's fine -- just unfortunate that sequestration doesn't slash Social Security and Medicare too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/us/politics/democrats-and-republicans-miscalculate-on-automatic-cuts.html?hp&_r=1&

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

.....the hate that exists in the GOP astounds me.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I say let it happen. Some point we have to learn to live within our means. It will be painful and I have people who I know will be hurt by this but it's something that needs to happen.

[LA Ute]

It's been interesting to watch President Obama try to distance himself from the sequester, claiming it was not his idea. Bob Woodward disagrees, and kicked up quite a storm with an op-ed in the Washington Post last Friday:


My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1451651104/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1451651104&linkCode=as2&tag=slatmaga-20)” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-at-lynn-university-on-oct-22-running-transcript/2012/10/22/be8899d6-1c7a-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html) last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html). “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress (http://www2.tbo.com/news/nation-world/2012/oct/25/namaino4-top-obama-aide-backs-fiscal-cliff-debate-ar-543653/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+tbo%2Fnationworld+%28TBO+%3E+NationWorld %29) for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

[cowboy]

.....the hate that exists in the GOP astounds me.
The hate certainly isn't exclusive to the GOP. It's a subjective measure with no hard data, but there seemed to me to be much more hate for Bush on the left than Obama on the right. Regardless, the scare tactics surrounding the sequester are even more ridiculous than the sequester itself. We're talking about $85 billion in cuts out of a $3.5 trillion budget - that's a rounding error. Even with the sequester, we'll spend more this year than we did last year, so really with sequester we're saying we're still increasing the budget, just not as much as we planned to. What the GOP should do is tell Obama that the cuts will still happen, but he can decide where he want them. There is plenty of dead weight to find $85 billion in savings (lets start with the green energy boondoggle) without cutting first responders and air traffic control. The Obama administration is using these examples to try to convince the public that there is no place else to cut and that the only option is to raise taxes to make the wealthy "pay there fair share," which is nonsense.

[utebehindenemylines]

I say let it happen. Some point we have to learn to live within our means. It will be painful and I have people who I know will be hurt by this but it's something that needs to happen.

If it happens I'm taking a 20% pay cut. They hiring where you work?

[Jarid in Cedar]

If it happens I'm taking a 20% pay cut. They hiring where you work?

Yes, can you handle Foley catheters?

[U-Ute]

This is what boggles my mind: the same people screaming for spending cuts are the ones complaining about the sequestration.

[big z]

I also will be taking a 20% hit once this happens

Both side are responsible for this mess, they've had a year and a half to work on it and nothing is being done.

[Uncle Ted]

It's been interesting to watch President Obama try to distance himself from the sequester, claiming it was not his idea. Bob Woodward disagrees, and kicked up quite a storm with an op-ed in the Washington Post last Friday:

Let the blame game begin...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNBhue9OMTY



Greta van Susteren: Tonight, here's a tip: If you are reckless enough to create a crisis for the nation, you had better know how to fix it.
Chris Wallace: Whose idea was the sequester, and did you ever think we'd actually get to this point?
Guest: First, it was the White House
Barack Obama Oct-22: First of all, the sequester's something that I proposed. It's something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.
Steny Hoyer: Everyone should be clear that sequestration is a Republican policy, and it is a bad policy.
Lindsey Graham: All I can say is the Commander-in-Chief came up with the idea of sequestration
Someone else: The President is part of the sequester. I mean, the White House recommended it, frankly.
Rand Paul: It was requested by the President. It was his idea, signed into law by him
Barack Obama: First of all, the sequester's not something that I proposed. It's something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.
John Boehner: The sequester was the President's idea
White House reporter: Didn't it originate -- the idea for the sequester -- originate here in the White House?
Jay Carney: The sequester was something that was discussed, and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward...


Someone proposed it and it seem like is going to happen.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The spending cuts need to happen and I believe congress wants the cuts to happen. However nobody dares put their name on a spending cut. This maneuver gives them all cover in the form of plausible deniability.

I can see the failure of Jude Wanniski's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski)'Two Santa Claus Theory' gamesmanship at play in this situation: The Republican 'Santa' is low tax rates, and the Democrat 'Santa' is domestic spending programs. This position is taken because it is not politically strong to propose spending cuts in domestic programs when the opposition party proposes spending increases. It is more politically tasteful to counter the proposal with tax cuts or tax credits.

According to the two-santa theory, when in power the Republicans should spend money like drunken sailors and grow the size of government through increases in domestic programs, military spending, corporate breaks, etc, all while keeping taxes rates relatively flat. They effectively out-Democrat the Democrats.

Then when they are out of power they scream about any hint of a tax increase and claim to support the 'little guy', and when time comes to pay the piper, they attempt to force the other party to 'kill its Santa Claus'. If one party can force the other party to 'kill Santa Claus' (as the Democrats did to GHWB after his 'no new taxes...' statement), they can politically ostracize that party for a few election cycles.

In this case neither party will budge because (it seems to me) both parties can sense a great amount of tension and voter uneasiness. If one party concedes and 'kills Santa Claus' it could be enough to cause a permanent shift away from that party which could lead to the rise of a third party.

So I see sequestration as an 'out' for each party. Both parties will be able to spread around a great deal of blame for the shitstorm we are about to endure for the 3rd and 4th fiscal quarters this year, but neither party will truly be forced to accept the blame. 'It wasn't my fault, my hands were tied by the law and we ran out of options. We worked as hard as we could, but those blasted <fillintheblankparty> in the <senate/house> were just unwilling to budge on the tiniest of details'.

The crap will roll downhill, but somehow most of the congressionals will be able to deflect it and will avoid getting covered in it at the local level.

[Devildog]

How are we ever going to stop over-spending our budget, if we can never cut any spending?

[GarthUte]

.....the hate that exists in the GOP astounds me.

It's no different than the hate that exists in the Democrat party. An honest person would acknowledge that it goes both ways.

[GarthUte]

I agree with cowboy that the sequester should happen with Obama making the decision where to make the cuts. He refuses to admit that it was his idea, but allowing him to make the cuts will force him to own it and the GOP could then hold him accountable for all of it. And making the cuts in the wrong areas will help the GOP to increase the majority in the House and just might get them the majority in the Senate.

[Moliere]

I Obama doesn't want sequestration to happen, and it does happen, then he's a pretty inept leader. Real leaders find ways to get things done and improve things overall. He's acting like the GOP rammed this thing down his throat in the middle of the night, which is laughable.

[U-Ute]

I agree with cowboy that the sequester should happen with Obama making the decision where to make the cuts. He refuses to admit that it was his idea, but allowing him to make the cuts will force him to own it and the GOP could then hold him accountable for all of it. And making the cuts in the wrong areas will help the GOP to increase the majority in the House and just might get them the majority in the Senate.

Both sides signed onto this sequester, and I actually think both sides want it to happen, despite what they say. Maybe I'm being a dick, but I actually hope it happens. Yes, a lot of people will be affected, but some sacred cows need to be pared down and this is the only way it will happen. We may see a small hiccup in the economy, but the sun will still come up monday morning.

[SavaUte]

I love hearing all these people who are not directly affected saying bring it on. Maybe we should just up taxes on everyone by 20%, and cancel all planned and approved vacation time - you still think its a good idea? Do you work for a company that has a goverment contract? Get ready for things to change. We'll start seeing huge flight delays... Yeah, this sounds great

The government is too big, but the way to fix it is not to screw people, but reduce by attrition (when someone retires or quits their position is not re-filled). This will take 15 years or so, but it gets the job done without directly punishing someone simply because they decided to take a job for the government (generally lower paying than the private sector, but supposed to have much higher stability)

[utebehindenemylines]

I love hearing all these people who are not directly affected saying bring it on. Maybe we should just up taxes on everyone by 20%, and cancel all planned and approved vacation time - you still think its a good idea? Do you work for a company that has a goverment contract? Get ready for things to change. We'll start seeing huge flight delays... Yeah, this sounds great

The government is too big, but the way to fix it is not to screw people, but reduce by attrition (when someone retires or quits their position is not re-filled). This will take 15 years or so, but it gets the job done without directly punishing someone simply because they decided to take a job for the government (generally lower paying than the private sector, but supposed to have much higher stability)

^^^This. It's easy to think that if you are not directly involved you won't be affected, but most will be affected indirectly. Now think of the impact this will have on the local economies surrounding military bases. 20% less income for me means I'll be trimming the fat anywhere I can (eating out, movies, electronics, vehicles). How's that housing market going to look when many default on house payments and are forced into forclosure? I'm already 30k underwater on a "slam dunk" purchase I made in 09 when the housing market had "hit bottom". 5 years into a recession that won't be ending any time soon.

An interesting read on the results of California's furlough of state employees: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/californiabudget/furloughs09.pdf

-The furloughs create a significant hardship for workers. The salary reduction is equivalent to
losing more than seven weeks of pay a year. A pay reduction of this magnitude can be expected to
result in lower employee morale and increased stress, both of which are associated with reduced
productivity and greater work errors. Wage reductions may also lead to turnover of more highly
productive workers.

-Economists have long studied the fact that wage reductions are rare in a recession. In explaining
wage rigidity, economists argue that reducing wages may lead to a loss in productivity that exceeds
the savings from the wage reduction. The loss in productivity comes from three major sources. First,
wage reductions decrease employee morale, which impacts worker effort on the job. Second, wage
reductions lead to greater turnover, which increases costs for training and hiring new workers. Third,
employers are most likely to lose highly productive workers that have greater opportunities for
outside advancement and find it more difficult to attract such workers in the future.

[U-Ute]

I feel your pain. I've been laid off before. How is this any different than being laid off in the private sector when a company loses business?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Both sides signed onto this sequester, and I actually think both sides want it to happen, despite what they say. Maybe I'm being a dick, but I actually hope it happens. Yes, a lot of people will be affected, but some sacred cows need to be pared down and this is the only way it will happen. We may see a small hiccup in the economy, but the sun will still come up monday morning.

This method is relatively 'fair' because it will gore all of the sacred cows equally. It sucks, and the economy WILL take a big hit in certain areas, but it simply must happen.

Northern Utah will take a big hit because 22k well-compensated professional employees at Hill will have their net takehome pay cut by more than 20%. The DOD alone will have 850k direct employees plus ~1.5 million tertiary contract employees affected.

Unfortunately as cowboy stated above, the amount being cut from spending is merely roundoff error. It comes to somewhere around 2.3% of the budget. It is likely you could find this much money underneath the cushions and behind the couches in Congress. Hell, the federal subsidy to Goldman-Sachs and 3 other banks was recently shown to be on the order of $64B/yr, which perhaps entirely by coincidence, is their approximate net income.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

Great point, U-Ute. I think that (and I'm not throwing rocks at anyone specific) some people in the public sector have a sense of security and entitlement about their employment to the point they are devastated and feel wronged with job loss. All I can say to them is, welcome to the real world.

[SavaUte]

Its not that different than being laid off. I haven't been hoping for massive layoffs, either

[utebehindenemylines]

I feel your pain. I've been laid off before. How is this any different than being laid off in the private sector when a company loses business?

Because I'm not being laid off. In a traditional layoff, you'd probably let go the unproductive or the overpaid. I bust my ass at work to be one of the top performers. So why should I get the same treatment as someone who is less productive? There is a lot of dead weight in the Govt; if the Govt were smart, it would go the private sector way of laying off the high salary (close to retirement anyway) or unproductive workers instead simply just screwing us all. At least if I got laid off I might get a severance or unemployement. The Govt is simply being creative with the way that the furlough is structured by choosing non-consecutive days so that furloughed workers cannot collect unemployment.

[3UteDad]

I'm not sure how much experience you have in the private sector, but the layoff scenarios I've experienced had nothing to do with overpaid or unproductive workers. Those types are typically handled in the normal employee evaluation process. The scenarios I've been involved with generally have included entire business segments of a company being abandoned, or an acquisition situation where redundant functions are eliminated. Personal performance often is not part of the equation.

[Mormon Red Death]

Both sides signed onto this sequester, and I actually think both sides want it to happen, despite what they say. Maybe I'm being a dick, but I actually hope it happens. Yes, a lot of people will be affected, but some sacred cows need to be pared down and this is the only way it will happen. We may see a small hiccup in the economy, but the sun will still come up monday morning.

the real sacred cows need to be pared down (medicare and Soc Security) aren't affected.

[U-Ute]

Because I'm not being laid off. In a traditional layoff, you'd probably let go the unproductive or the overpaid. I bust my ass at work to be one of the top performers. So why should I get the same treatment as someone who is less productive? There is a lot of dead weight in the Govt; if the Govt were smart, it would go the private sector way of laying off the high salary (close to retirement anyway) or unproductive workers instead simply just screwing us all. At least if I got laid off I might get a severance or unemployement. The Govt is simply being creative with the way that the furlough is structured by choosing non-consecutive days so that furloughed workers cannot collect unemployment.

I agree. But it isn't always the case. I was one of the top performers in our office. It didn't matter. They closed the whole office, and it was politics that closed our office over other offices. We weren't the best, but we weren't the worst, but the owner's buddy wasn't running our office. Public or private - it doesn't matter - politics is always involved and the powers that be only see you as a number on their bottom line. We got 8 weeks notice, and our third child was due 2 months after we were to be shut down. It was, mentally and emotionally, one of the hardest things I've ever been through. I was fortunate to have friends that helped me out, and I actually landed in a better spot in the long run. Frankly, it also helped me organize my priorities in life too.

So, should the worst happen, I will be right there trying to help out my fellow Ute fan in any way I can...

But in the meantime, in the immortal words of the NCAA tournament, just remember: Survive And Advance. :)

[U-Ute]

the real sacred cows need to be pared down (medicare and Soc Security) aren't affected.

You are fooling yourself if you don't think defense is a sacred cow.

[GarthUte]

I want it to happen as well. Spending is out of control and this looks like the only way to start to get it under control.

[Mormon Red Death]

You are fooling yourself if you don't think defense is a sacred cow.

fair enough...still the things that need massive reform I mentioned above.

[U-Ute]

fair enough...still the things that need massive reform I mentioned above.

True. But the biggest factor behind those are health care costs and an aging population. Both of those require solutions outside of "spend less". The Democrats are taking hits in the entitlement spending in a lot of other social programs.

[NorthwestUteFan]

the real sacred cows need to be pared down (medicare and Soc Security) aren't affected.

That won't/can't/shouldn't happen without causing major upheaval in the lives of older people (who can't just go out and get another job). And with the population growing older those programs are bound to grow over the coming decade.

I know we will see an increase in the age-old 'welfare queen' rhetoric, when the truth is welfare programs (WIC, housing subsidies, CHIP, etc) is only a relatively small portion of the whole welfare pie. Medicare, veterans benefits (medical, retirement, etc), and retirement pensions and benefits make up a larger portion. Those cannot be touched because they are contractually obligated, and the government MUST honor its contracts or have its credit rating downgraded. And a downgraded credit rating will be VERY BAD for the USA (imagine how hard it would be to balance the budget if our debt payments tripled overnight, a la Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc).

[U-Ute]

I want it to happen as well. Spending is out of control and this looks like the only way to start to get it under control.

If anything, it may help people realize that cuts won't end the world. Right now there is a lot of hand wringing on what the impact will be, and I predict it will be less noticeable on the macro view than people expect. Obviously, that doesn't do anything to soothe the wounds of those who it actually impacts. :(

Hopefully what happens is the way is paved for people actually making smart, surgical cuts once they realize that they can cut without the world ending. Or it may just pave the way to other "mutually assured political destruction" type scenarios since that seems to be the only way we can get congress to agree on anything.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You are fooling yourself if you don't think defense is a sacred cow.

Totally. The DOD is already operating on a 6% lower budget than 2012 (which does NOT count the cost of overseas deployments). Sequestration will force an extra 14% cut off the 2012 budget.

We can no longer afford to be the world cop and should pare back our foreign bases, etc. But even recent history has shown that world-wide stability has a price. Personally I think we have done some good things over the last half century with our presence in Europe and Japan, but have bungled Central America and the Middle East.





Hopefully what happens is the way is paved for people actually making smart, surgical cuts once they realize that they can cut without the world ending.

Unfortunately, Sequestration is brain surgery accomplished with a 10# maul. But at least both parties will be forced to kill their own Santa Claus, for the good of the country.

[BYU71]

Sadly it is in Obama and the democrats best political interest to make sure this is painful or they will look like fools for saying armageddon is coming. Perhaps all politicians and many others do believe in the "ends justify the means", but I am almost positive Obama believes in it.

Of course his buddies in the press will make sure they highlight every person who is put out over this.

I would like to see some taxes increased though. Carried interest is a joke. Sadly the dems will probably want to protect this as much as the republicans since they benefit greatly from hedge fund contributions. Secondly I would like to see the tax break given to Hollywood in the last tax increase taken back. How do you increase taxes but give Hollywood a tax credit at the same time. Maybe that is how Michelle got to present best picture.

[Diehard Ute]

How do you increase taxes but give Hollywood a tax credit at the same time. Maybe that is how Michelle got to present best picture.

Please. It's the government. I pay more in taxes as a single male with no children than my coworkers with two kids.

I should not be punished for choosing to not marry or have kids, but I am.

Our tax laws make absolutely no sense and never have.

[U-Ute]

Please. It's the government. I pay more in taxes as a single male with no children than my coworkers with two kids.

I should not be punished for choosing to not marry or have kids, but I am.

Our tax laws make absolutely no sense and never have.

That's just the government's way of encouraging you to have many Mini Diehards. You are wise to see through their guise. It is not a financial win.

[U-Ute]

Sadly it is in Obama and the democrats best political interest to make sure this is painful or they will look like fools for saying armageddon is coming. Perhaps all politicians and many others do believe in the "ends justify the means", but I am almost positive Obama believes in it.

Of course his buddies in the press will make sure they highlight every person who is put out over this.

I would like to see some taxes increased though. Carried interest is a joke. Sadly the dems will probably want to protect this as much as the republicans since they benefit greatly from hedge fund contributions. Secondly I would like to see the tax break given to Hollywood in the last tax increase taken back. How do you increase taxes but give Hollywood a tax credit at the same time. Maybe that is how Michelle got to present best picture.

"Hollywood's reward to the Obamas."

That's what I told my wife when I saw she gave that out.

[BYU71]

Please. It's the government. I pay more in taxes as a single male with no children than my coworkers with two kids.

I should not be punished for choosing to not marry or have kids, but I am.

Our tax laws make absolutely no sense and never have.

You think that is a rip, how about property taxes. I think in Utah it all goes to education. I might be wrong, but I think the churches in Utah encourage, stongly encourage having a lot kids. Yet those same churches pay nothing in property taxes.

I am all for someone having as many kids as they want, but why should other people subsidize them doing so?

[U-Ute]

You think that is a rip, how about property taxes. I think in Utah it all goes to education. I might be wrong, but I think the churches in Utah encourage, stongly encourage having a lot kids. Yet those same churches pay nothing in property taxes.

I am all for someone having as many kids as they want, but why should other people subsidize them doing so?

I'm not sure I am following the complaint here.

Is it that the church encourages large families but doesn't pay any property taxes to support the education said families, or the fact that property taxes go to education in general?

[GarthUte]

"Hollywood's reward to the Obamas."

That's what I told my wife when I saw she gave that out.

I heard somewhere that she invited herself to make the presentation for whatever category it was. That seems more plausible to me than some sort of political payback.

[U-Ute]

I heard somewhere that she invited herself to make the presentation for whatever category it was. That seems more plausible to me than some sort of political payback.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZKiYgcgBAY

[BYU71]

I'm not sure I am following the complaint here.

Is it that the church encourages large families but doesn't pay any property taxes to support the education said families, or the fact that property taxes go to education in general?

I probably shouldn't have said it is a rip off. I am just tired of hearing people howl and moan about class sizes per student. There is a reason for this. Large families and a large part of the community using all kinds of government benefits pay no taxes. People ought to accept the positives of living in this culture and not whine about others needing to pay more taxes to subsidize the consequences of the culture.

[U-Ute]

I probably shouldn't have said it is a rip off. I am just tired of hearing people howl and moan about class sizes per student. There is a reason for this. Large families and a large part of the community using all kinds of government benefits pay no taxes. People ought to accept the positives of living in this culture and not whine about others needing to pay more taxes to subsidize the consequences of the culture.

Agreed!

[Diehard Ute]

I probably shouldn't have said it is a rip off. I am just tired of hearing people howl and moan about class sizes per student. There is a reason for this. Large families and a large part of the community using all kinds of government benefits pay no taxes. People ought to accept the positives of living in this culture and not whine about others needing to pay more taxes to subsidize the consequences of the culture.

I'm still not sure what your position is. Are you saying those who don't have kids, or those who have only one kid should be just be ok paying more?

[BYU71]

I guess my position is those who have a lot of kids shouldn't be whining about public education needing more money. Any additional money for education should be raised through a per kid tax.

[Diehard Ute]

I guess my position is those who have a lot of kids shouldn't be whining about public education needing more money. Any additional money for education should be raised through a per kid tax.

Ok. I agree 100% with this.

I know my coworkers have been shocked at how much more income tax I paid because I'm a single make with no kids.

When I did my taxes it had a statistical breakdown of my income tax vs others in my tax bracket.

I made $20,000 less a year than the average filer in my bracket. I paid $400 more than the average filer in my bracket.

[mUUser]

I love how Krauthammer put it....

"What we’re talking about here is two cents on the dollar. Every dollar the government spends today, 35 cents is borrowed from the Chinese and others. What is going on here is ending up in a position where we borrow not 35, but 33 cents, and that is going to bring Armageddon."

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/26/krauthammer-its-going-to-be-really-embarrassing-for-the-left-if-we-come-out-of-sequestration-alive/

[Utahute72]

Here's the problem. It's not short term debt, but long term debt that is the issue. That's why we should have neither raised taxes or cut spending in the short term. If both parties would have simply attacked the long term debt and looked at income tax reform all of this drama could have been avoided. But both parties are playing political games and blaming the other party.

The republicans have passed numerous bills that they know the Senate and President won't agree to, just to say see we are working. The senate and president make no such pretense, they just continue to babble on (or fiddle while Rome burns). It was interesting to hear the local food bank talk about cuts under sequestration and the funding they would lose, because they also said they would lose just as much funding if the president's plan passed and charitable contributions were capped, but notice no one is talking about that little nugget.

[Mormon Red Death]

That won't/can't/shouldn't happen without causing major upheaval in the lives of older people (who can't just go out and get another job). And with the population growing older those programs are bound to grow over the coming decade.

I know we will see an increase in the age-old 'welfare queen' rhetoric, when the truth is welfare programs (WIC, housing subsidies, CHIP, etc) is only a relatively small portion of the whole welfare pie. Medicare, veterans benefits (medical, retirement, etc), and retirement pensions and benefits make up a larger portion. Those cannot be touched because they are contractually obligated, and the government MUST honor its contracts or have its credit rating downgraded. And a downgraded credit rating will be VERY BAD for the USA (imagine how hard it would be to balance the budget if our debt payments tripled overnight, a la Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc).

are you saying we can't alter medicare or social security without having our downgraded? My thought on reform was a staggered approach of moving ages of retirement back 5 years. Over the next 10 years we make it so social security can't start until 66 (currently its at 62) and we incentivize people to wait till they are 70 or 72 to start taking from the till. I also think we should cap the increase in payments to Soc Sec to 2% a year. For Medicare I would phase people in as well. Let people from 60 - 70 buy High Deductible Health savings (5K deductible with current medicare premiums that reimburses at Medicare rates). After 70 its Medicare as it currently is.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Not at all. Tweaks to Medicare and Social Security would likely help bring the budget for those entities into balance.

The contracts that must be fulfilled are pensions, acquisitions, debt payments, certain multi-year service contracts, etc.

[LA Ute]

Looks like Bob Woodward is catching some heat from the White House about his report that sequestration was the President's idea:

Woodward: White House Warned Me "You Will Regret Doing This" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/27/woodward_white_house_warned_me_youre_going_to_regr et_this.html)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: You're used to this kind of stuff, but share with our viewers what's going on between you and the White House.

BOB WOODWARD: Well, they're not happy at all and some people kind of, you know, said, look, 'we don't see eye to eye on this.' They never really said, though, afterwards, they've said that this is factually wrong, and they -- and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top --

BLITZER: What was said?

WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this.

BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?

WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say.

BLITZER: Was it a senior person at the White House?

WOODWARD: A very senior person. And just as a matter -- I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'you're going to regret doing something that you believe in, and even though we don't look at it that way, you do look at it that way.' I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communication's strategy, let's hope it's not a strategy, that it's a tactic that somebody's employed, and said, 'Look, we don't go around trying to say to reporters, if you, in an honest way, present something we don't like, that, you know, you're going to regret this.' It's Mickey Mouse. (The Situation Room, February 27, 2013)


Video at the link.

[Mormon Red Death]

I thought sequestration didnt have anything to do with Medicare?

Crain's business daily


If sequestration kicks in Friday as planned, the 2 percent payment reduction to Medicare providers and insurers will be for services provided on or after April 1, an Health and Human Services spokesman confirmed Wednesday.

When asked if HHS has already alerted providers and insurers about the date of the payment cuts, the spokesman replied in an e-mail, “If sequestration occurs, official notifications will be made.”

The lack of any notice from HHS left provider groups to wonder when their members will see those reductions. An official for the American Health Care Association — which represents skilled-nursing facilities and assisted-living providers—said there has been confusion among the organization's staff and lawyers about when those cuts would take place, while the American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals and National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems all anticipated the cuts would begin in April.

“That was an extrapolation from the January extension,” said Shawn Gremminger, an NAPH lobbyist, about the two-month delay to the start of the sequester approved in a Jan. 2 budget deal.

Legislation that created the sequester specified that it cut Medicare reimbursements for services provided the month after the sequester's start, which was originally scheduled for Jan. 2. Providers are expected to see the cuts show up in their Medicare reimbursements sometime around mid-April—depending on the time the CMS typically takes to process their payments.

[cowboy]

I love hearing all these people who are not directly affected saying bring it on. Maybe we should just up taxes on everyone by 20%, and cancel all planned and approved vacation time - you still think its a good idea? Do you work for a company that has a goverment contract? Get ready for things to change. We'll start seeing huge flight delays... Yeah, this sounds great

The government is too big, but the way to fix it is not to screw people, but reduce by attrition (when someone retires or quits their position is not re-filled). This will take 15 years or so, but it gets the job done without directly punishing someone simply because they decided to take a job for the government (generally lower paying than the private sector, but supposed to have much higher stability)

I agree that attrition is the best way to contract, though our real problem is non-discretionary SS and Medicare spending and MRD has good ideas on addressing those issues. I would like to address your premise that those of us who say bring it on are not affected. I've been very much affected. Most of my income comes from cattle that I have held for more than one year, and is therefore capital gain income. Thanks to the fiscal cliff negotiations and Obamacare, my after-tax income is 10% lower than it would have been under previous tax rates. Further, the sequestration scare has knocked up to 13% off of the value of the cattle I intended to sell. Total it all up, and my after tax income is 18% lower than it would have been without all of this nonsense. I have skin in this game.


^^^This. It's easy to think that if you are not directly involved you won't be affected, but most will be affected indirectly. Now think of the impact this will have on the local economies surrounding military bases. 20% less income for me means I'll be trimming the fat anywhere I can (eating out, movies, electronics, vehicles). How's that housing market going to look when many default on house payments and are forced into forclosure? I'm already 30k underwater on a "slam dunk" purchase I made in 09 when the housing market had "hit bottom". 5 years into a recession that won't be ending any time soon.
I understand you are directly affected and it sucks, as do all layoffs/reductions. But we can't keep spending beyond our means, and tax increases won't close the gap. We have to reduce the size and obligations of our government, which means pain for everyone. However, there is no reason that a 3% decrease in the planned budget (we're still spending more than we did last year) should cause furloughs of this magnitude. There is plenty of fat to trim $85 billion without furloughs (maybe we could start with the $2.2 billion we spend in buying cell phones for food stamp recipients,) and it seems to be this administration's strategy to make the cuts as painful as possible to gain public support for tax increases.

[Switzerland]

This is what the two sides cannot agree upon:

239

[DU Ute]

This is what the two sides cannot agree upon:

239
Wow, spending really skyrocketed during the Bush years. I think Defense is important, I'm just not a fan of all the Offense.

[GarthUte]

Wow, spending really skyrocketed during the Bush years. I think Defense is important, I'm just not a fan of all the Offense.

Yep, Bush was no conservative. He only seems fiscally conservative compared to Dear Leader.

[USS Utah]

Boehner, Cantor, the majority whip, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Biden and Obama should all resign for this epic fail. I know, it would never happen, but they should pay the price for this, not the ordinary Americans who actually will pay for it.

[Ma'ake]

The only thing that is humane about how the federal government is going about this is they're doing a furlough rather than dumping mass quantities of people on the streets.

20% pay cut? A whole lot of people need to be expecting they'll be getting pay cuts in the years upcoming, not just government workers. I'm in healthcare, and I'm personally expecting some kind of pay cut like that, because the average US worker's wages are falling, relative to global competition, in a lot of areas.

There's a Systems job available for the F-35 Fighter program at Hill AFB, and I just have to shake my head at whoever might have a good job now jumping for that job. F-35 fighter is an awesome piece of hardware, but the American taxpayer just can't afford that machine. As we get more Walmart type jobs, we'll be able to afford the same level of defense spending less & less.

[big z]

The only thing that is humane about how the federal government is going about this is they're doing a furlough rather than dumping mass quantities of people on the streets.

20% pay cut? A whole lot of people need to be expecting they'll be getting pay cuts in the years upcoming, not just government workers. I'm in healthcare, and I'm personally expecting some kind of pay cut like that, because the average US worker's wages are falling, relative to global competition, in a lot of areas.

There's a Systems job available for the F-35 Fighter program at Hill AFB, and I just have to shake my head at whoever might have a good job now jumping for that job. F-35 fighter is an awesome piece of hardware, but the American taxpayer just can't afford that machine. As we get more Walmart type jobs, we'll be able to afford the same level of defense spending less & less.

The Lockheed Martin folks are still getting paid, and the F-35 like the Raptor isn't going anywhere. Those jobs are relatively safe for now, but if you're in the private sector looking to get into the civil service right now isn't a good time to do it.

[big z]

Boehner, Cantor, the majority whip, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Biden and Obama should all resign for this epic fail. I know, it would never happen, but they should pay the price for this, not the ordinary Americans who actually will pay for it.

I agree with everything in this post!

[GarthUte]

Boehner, Cantor, the majority whip, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Biden and Obama should all resign for this epic fail. I know, it would never happen, but they should pay the price for this, not the ordinary Americans who actually will pay for it.

Like Z, I agree with this. This entire mess has been brought to us by the United States federal government.

[Ma'ake]

The Lockheed Martin folks are still getting paid, and the F-35 like the Raptor isn't going anywhere. Those jobs are relatively safe for now, but if you're in the private sector looking to get into the civil service right now isn't a good time to do it.

It looks OK for now, but as people wake up and look at what we're paying for what, and considering the pretty minor part of the budget that is being axed through sequestration, I wouldn't rule out significant reductions in defense expenditures, including the F-35. I read Canada cancelled their order for the F-35 - just too much money.

The funding situation at the National Institutes of Health is such that we're beginning to see more & more researchers return to their countries of origin because the research funding situation in the US is seen as increasingly tenuous. NIH funding has become far more constrained since the beginning of the financial crisis, and more & more researchers are not getting grant money, and subsequently they're being asked to leave their research institutions. We recently "lost" a talented researcher who is no longer doing high level research, and before that one of our best (American) researchers went to Singapore, where they're getting substantial government funding, electing to bypass the stressful & tenuous funding situation here.

The common retort from conservatives is the private sector should be doing this research, not government funding. Right now and historically we already partner with corporate entities, extensively. Government funded research usually handles the initials parts of the research (such as the Human Genome project) and corporations come in when they see more immediate opportunities for profitability. As the US government tightens it's belts further, more of the foundational research will be moving to China, India, Germany.

[BYU71]

I am so upset at the President and his minions (same thing as Butters lackey's when he is Dr. Chaos). The last two weeks I sold all my stocks, bought gold, bought a little cabin up in the mountains and stocked it with lots and lots of food.

Of course since Maxine said there would be no job for me I just up and quit my job yesterday What the heck!!!!

I am going to watch for the lawyer ad that comes on and says they can sue if you get terrible investment advice.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Question to those who will soon be directly affected by the Sequestration: how will your work slowdown be scheduled? Is it every Friday, every other Fri-Mon, lump sum of 22 straight work days off, or something else?

Best of luck to everyone? This will surely be a painful summer for all involved.

[Dawminator]

I don't think I will be satisfied until spending is down to 1.5 (or what it was in the early 70s) at a maximum. In short, I will never be satisfied. I think our country is toast in the long run. We can't sustain what we are doing. Too many untouchables (medicare, defense, education, social security, etc.).

[NorthwestUteFan]

I don't think I will be satisfied until spending is down to 1.5 (or what it was in the early 70s) at a maximum. In short, I will never be satisfied. I think our country is toast in the long run. We can't sustain what we are doing. Too many untouchables (medicare, defense, education, social security, etc.).

Sweet!

According to a CPI calculator the $1.56 Trillion budget in 1975 is equivalent to $6.68 Trillion today.

If you take our $3.8T 2012 budget and include the $1.1T deficit, we are still $1.78T ahead of the curve.

You should be thrilled!

[Dawminator]

My 1.5 T was adjusted for inflation.

[NorthwestUteFan]

My 1.5 T was adjusted for inflation.

Oops, I didn't realize the budget numbers I grabbed for 1975 were listed in current dollars. Disregard.

On the other hand perhaps the better measure is as a percent of GDP. In 1975 the total receipts were 17.9% and outlays were 21.3%.

This year the total receipts are 17.8% and outlays are 23.3% of GDP.

To spend the equivalent amount to 1975 the federal budget should be $3.4T instead of $3.8T.

I agree that we are spending ourselves into a Fall of the Roman Empire situation. Perhaps we need one great big war against China, Russia, and Iran to pull us back from the brink #sillysuggestion.

[happyone]

While we haven't been notified indivually yet, furloughs are supposed to start on 21 Apr - one day off per week, plus we loose the compressed work schedule (5-4-9) and have to go to 8 hour days.

[big z]

While we haven't been notified indivually yet, furloughs are supposed to start on 21 Apr - one day off per week, plus we loose the compressed work schedule (5-4-9) and have to go to 8 hour days.

I've been told we'll either have a Monday or a Friday off. If they're going to screw us, at least give us the Friday off so we can enjoy a 3 day weekend

[utebehindenemylines]

Question to those who will soon be directly affected by the Sequestration: how will your work slowdown be scheduled? Is it every Friday, every other Fri-Mon, lump sum of 22 straight work days off, or something else?

Best of luck to everyone? This will surely be a painful summer for all involved.


My agency held a webcast yesterday to discuss. Furlough days will be either Mon, or Fri depending on seniority. There will be no flexibility regarding furlough days (they can't be adjusted for training etc). The furlough is set to start the week of April 21st and run 22 consecutive weeks.

[cowboy]

Not quite sure how this is much different than what Cyprus is doing, but I'm not a Constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer. The Department of Interior has decided to deal with sequestration by not paying oil royalties due to states under federal law. How is this not a taking?



Governor Mead: Interior Cannot Meet Budget Reduction by Taking State’s Share of Mineral Revenues


CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Matt Mead is evaluating a letter sent by Director Gregory J. Gould of the Department of Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, to the State Treasurer’s Office. The correspondence is dated Friday, March 22 and was received on the afternoon of Monday, March 25 by the State Treasurer’s Office.


In his letter, Director Gould indicates that, beginning in March 2013 and continuing through July 2013, over $53 million dollars of mineral revenue payments payable to the State of Wyoming will be withheld under sequestration. The monthly amount withheld will be $10,616,442.00 with the possibility of more withholding in August and September. Under federal law, Wyoming is guaranteed 50% of the revenues from mineral leasing on federal lands in this state.


Governor Mead has sought advice from the Attorney General’s Office on recourse available to the State of Wyoming for this impending federal action. All options are being considered. “When the State reduced its budget by over 6% it did not achieve its reductions by withholding mineral revenue due under state leases. That would be taking someone else’s property. Similarly, the Department of Interior should not be able to meet its budget reduction by taking mineral revenues which belong to the states under the law,” Governor Mead said.


Governor Mead is also concerned about the timing of the March letter which addresses federal action set to begin immediately. He said, “This is no way to achieve adequate notice or give our State an opportunity to respond before the action is underway. As far as communications go, this method of passing along significant information that greatly impacts Wyoming gets a grade of F minus or worse. It is not acceptable.”


Governor Mead is consulting the Congressional delegation and neighboring states that are similarly affected, as well as Attorney General Greg Phillips.

[GarthUte]

Not quite sure how this is much different than what Cyprus is doing, but I'm not a Constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer. The Department of Interior has decided to deal with sequestration by not paying oil royalties due to states under federal law. How is this not a taking?

Yet Obama continues to steal millions of dollars from taxpayers so he and his family can take lavish vacations. It's good to be king, eh Dear Leader?

[Jeromy in SLC]

Yet Obama continues to steal millions of dollars from taxpayers so he and his family can take lavish vacations. It's good to be king, eh Dear Leader?

Sorry Garth, every president has stolen millions from us and take lavish vacations. Check GWB's vacation itinerary, and cast that against the trillions borrowed to fight our bogus war in Iraq. GWB may not of raised our taxes, but we will ultimately pay any way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[GarthUte]

Sorry Garth, every president has stolen millions from us and take lavish vacations. Check GWB's vacation itinerary, and cast that against the trillions borrowed to fight our bogus war in Iraq. GWB may not of raised our taxes, but we will ultimately pay any way.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

True, others have done it, but none as frequently as Obama nor after telling the country that we all have to sacrifice in these difficult times. He's the textbook example of a hypocrite.

[Jeromy in SLC]

True, others have done it, but none as frequently as Obama nor after telling the country that we all have to sacrifice in these difficult times. He's the textbook example of a hypocrite.

Garth, I get your hatred of the POTUS. I experienced it for eight years myself. But the truth of the matter is, the true robbers work up the road. In fact those of us in Utah have employed of them for the last 37 years.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[UtahDan]

Yet Obama continues to steal millions of dollars from taxpayers so he and his family can take lavish vacations. It's good to be king, eh Dear Leader?

Well shit. Looks like you were right all along.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=kR13y76Itks#!

[Jeromy in SLC]

You are right. They're all lying dirtbags, not just President Obama.

The presidents may steal millions. Others steal billions. It has taken me A long time to realize that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[GarthUte]

Well shit. Looks like you were right all along.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=kR13y76Itks#!

When have I ever said Dear Leader is an alien?

[GarthUte]

Garth, I get your hatred of the POTUS. I experienced it for eight years myself. But the truth of the matter is, the true robbers work up the road. In fact those of us in Utah have employed of them for the last 37 years.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

Are you saying that it's okay for Dear Leader to do it?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Are you saying that it's okay for Dear Leader to do it?

I think he is saying that focusing energy on changes locally will make much more impact in the long run. Don't strain at gnats while the elephant is trampling you.

[UtahDan]

When have I ever said Dear Leader is an alien?

I don't know man. But you have always known he was a badguy. ;)

[happyone]

We've been told that the furloughs will be delayed by at the minimum of one pay period (2 Weeks) We won't get our letters until the 5 April. Hopefully they will work something out.

[U-Ute]

True, others have done it, but none as frequently as Obama nor after telling the country that we all have to sacrifice in these difficult times. He's the textbook example of a hypocrite.

So are those who suddenly find it appalling when a POTUS they don't agree with does the same thing others have done.

[Jeromy in SLC]

Are you saying that it's okay for Dear Leader to do it?

Just for clarity, no I am not.

[GarthUte]

So are those who suddenly find it appalling when a POTUS they don't agree with does the same thing others have done.

I've never denied that Bush did it, if that is what you're implying. My problem is that Obama has taken more vacations - not to mention the separate vacations he and his wife have taken. Did GW and Laura ever take separate vacations?

Edit: That makes me partisan, not hypocritical. I'd only be a hypocrite if I was taking vacations paid for by the taxpayers and telling Obama not to do it.

[U-Ute]

What if I disagree with all of them? What does that make me a textbook example of? A grumpy old man?

A Libertarian.

[U-Ute]

I've never denied that Bush did it, if that is what you're implying. My problem is that Obama has taken more vacations - not to mention the separate vacations he and his wife have taken. Did GW and Laura ever take separate vacations?

I have no idea. Given your knowledge of presidential vacation schedules, I presumed you'd be the one to know that.

[GarthUte]

I have no idea. Given your knowledge of presidential vacation schedules, I presumed you'd be the one to know that.

That depends on who you ask. Liberals say Bush took more vacations. Conservatives say he took less vacations. Most of Bush's vacations were to his ranch. Most of Obama's have been to expensive resorts. As for separate vacations, I'll guess that Laura took a few of her own.

Again, my point is that Obama is telling us that we as Americans have to tighten our belts in order to get through the sequestration. There isn't enough money to open the White House to tours, but there was plenty for him to go golfing with Tiger. Does that not bother you?

[U-Ute]

That depends on who you ask. Liberals say Bush took more vacations. Conservatives say he took less vacations. Most of Bush's vacations were to his ranch. Most of Obama's have been to expensive resorts. As for separate vacations, I'll guess that Laura took a few of her own.

Again, my point is that Obama is telling us that we as Americans have to tighten our belts in order to get through the sequestration. There isn't enough money to open the White House to tours, but there was plenty for him to go golfing with Tiger. Does that not bother you?

No more or less than any other president.

Look, those guys lead such vastly different lives than I am used to, I couldn't even begin to judge what is considered "excessive". It all seems excessive to me.

But, if your point is the money being spent, then I would think that the upwards of $150M being spent on renovating Guantanamo Bay, a place that Obama said he would close in his first campaign tour, would be a much jucier target than how much his golfing lessons with Tiger are.

[Diehard Ute]

It was announced today that both filter squadrons at Hill Air Force Base have been put on reduced training. They will no longer be training to be combat ready, instead they'll be training to be "basic mission capable". Approximately 1/3 of the US Air Force was grounded today due to the cuts

Given the current level of political unrest in the world, it's shocking congress doesn't seem to care about the cuts, and keeps the finding levels of congress, including their junkets around the world without much change.

[USS Utah]

It was announced today that both filter squadrons at Hill Air Force Base have been put on reduced training. They will no longer be training to be combat ready, instead they'll be training to be "basic mission capable". Approximately 1/3 of the US Air Force was grounded today due to the cuts

Given the current level of political unrest in the world, it's shocking congress doesn't seem to care about the cuts, and keeps the finding levels of congress, including their junkets around the world without much change.

It shocks me when my fellow conservatives tell me sequestration is not a big deal.

[utebehindenemylines]

In February I was notified that I had been accepted into a 1 year rotational training in my career field at the Pentagon. I was to move to DC in June. This morning I was notified that my placement has been cancelled due to the sequestration. My house was on the market to be rented, plans on how/when to arrive were made. We had picked the place we were going to rent, basically everything short of signing a lease there in Arlington. We're 7 weeks out for crying out loud!

This news coupled with the fact that I'm about to take a $4k pay cut in the next 3 months has me crashing back to earth and heavily considering a career change.

[SavaUte]

I just got out of a meeting about how this is going to affect the air traffic control system. Sounds like very good chances of HUGE delays for legitimate reasons. They said on the worst bad weather day last year there were something like 2400 delays. They are talking somewhere along the lines of 6000 delays/day during this

[Jarid in Cedar]

In February I was notified that I had been accepted into a 1 year rotational training in my career field at the Pentagon. I was to move to DC in June. This morning I was notified that my placement has been cancelled due to the sequestration. My house was on the market to be rented, plans on how/when to arrive were made. We had picked the place we were going to rent, basically everything short of signing a lease there in Arlington. We're 7 weeks out for crying out loud!

This news coupled with the fact that I'm about to take a $4k pay cut in the next 3 months has me crashing back to earth and heavily considering a career change.

I just read this. This sucks. SOrry you are getting your chain jerked around so much.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Rumors are flying around that it may get cut from 14 days to 7 days. That is a big relief for people who were facing a serious reduction in pay.

But as of a few days ago there is still no guarantee that it was cut from 22 to 14 furlough days, as far as I know. So we will see what happens.

Being a pawn in a political game is no fun, particularly when the players seem to fall back on ideological rhetoric rather than engaging their brains.

[U-Ute]

But at least now it won't affect members of Congress (http://www.salon.com/2013/04/26/senate_fixes_the_part_of_the_sequestration_that_af fects_rich_people/).

We wouldn't want that to happen now, would we.

[LA Ute]

But at least now it won't affect members of Congress (http://www.salon.com/2013/04/26/senate_fixes_the_part_of_the_sequestration_that_af fects_rich_people/).

We wouldn't want that to happen now, would we.

Grrrr.