Sequestration devastation? The facts show otherwise.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
If you've been exposed to any form of news media this month, you've been told that a looming disaster is approaching as March 1 approaches, and federal budget/spending "sequestration" takes effect.


The White House today released examples of what the Obama Administration says will happen if $85 billion in automatic budget cuts are allowed to go into effect on March 1, arguing the domestic spending cuts in the "sequester" would "threaten thousands of jobs and the economic security of the middle class."

In a fact sheet given to reporters, the Obama White House argues there would be damaging across the board cuts to education, small business, food safety and more ... .

www.ajc.com...

To emphasize the grave danger about to destroy America's economy and the lives of registered (and un-registered) voters, the Obama administration released a "Fact Sheet"
with a litany of the extent of the destruction about to sweep the Nation.

A summary of the horrific impact includes:
• Cuts to education
• Cuts to small business
• Cuts to food safety
• Cuts to research and innovation
• Cuts to mental health
• Security and Safety
• Research and Innovation
• Economic Growth
• Government Services
• Education
• Economic Security
• Public Health.

Unfortunately, what the White House and Congress fail to tell you, is that the "devastation" is NOT the result of draconian slashes to our lives, welfare and futures, but a 2% decrease in the rise of total government spending; which will inevitably exceed the unprecedented total $1,358,000,000,000.00 for FY 2012.
Of this total, "discretionary" spending ( the stuff that might be "cut") has exploded by 60% since 2008!
Federal Spending by the Numbers

In case you're not sure just who's telling the truth, you could always look at the "letter of the law."
Since 99% of people will not take that step, and would rather listen to their favored "truth-teller" on the tube, here's the real deal:

‘‘Budget Control Act of 2011’’

CBO ESTIMATES.—As soon as practicable after Congress completes action on any discretionary appropriation, CBO, after consultation with the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide OMB with an estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by that legislation.

OMB ESTIMATES AND EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES.—Not later than 7 calendar days … after the date of enactment of any discretionary appropriation, OMB shall transmit a report to the House of Representatives and to the Senate containing the CBO estimate of that legislation, an OMB estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by that legislation, and an explanation of any difference between the estimates.

(A) The term ‘nonsecurity category’ means all discretionary appropriations not included in the security category defined in subparagraph (B).
(B) The term ‘security category’ includes discretionary appropriations associated with agency budgets for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the intelligence community management account (95–0401–0–1–054), and all budget accounts in budget function 150 (international affairs).

‘‘with respect to fiscal year 2013— ‘‘(A) for the security category, $686,000,000,000 in new budget authority; and ‘‘(B) for the nonsecurity category, $361,000,000,000 in new budget authority;

rules.house.gov...

So, how does "total discretionary spending under "sequestration" compare to the planned spending increases for 2013?


the sequester cuts the agencies' "budget authority" by about $85 billion between March 1 and Sept. 30,

The government spent $3.538 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September 2012. So $85 billion is 2.4% of the federal budget. … Depending on the agency, cuts are going to be in the ballpark of 5% and 13%, according to various estimates from government officials.

How Federal Spending Would Be Cut Under the Sequester

The "report" that the CBO is required to publish, has been. It shows, clearly, there is no devastation on the horizon.

It reveals that the scare tactics of the right and the left are little more than flailing attempts to protect their favorite programs and take further advantage of the taxpayers who are being stuck with these ridiculous bills:


What's really happening?

The government will have to cut 2% of projected total spending in the coming years!
Now, I'm not rich, but I am certain that I can find two cents to save from each dollar I have to spend without feeling too much pain.

If I have to cut increasing my "discretionary spending" (Jack Daniels, movies, Pecan Sandies, Marlboros, et c.) by "between 5% and 13%," I'm pretty sure I can handle that , too.

Why can't the idiots in Washington find 15% of waste in their departments, instead of whining and terrorizing the uninformed and credulous?

Are you terrified, too? Or should we just expect "business as usual?"

jw
edit on 23-2-2013 by jdub297 because: sp




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Before I hit the back button on my mouse I had a larger post. The jest of it, because I am tired from my day was this: If the Government cannot find $85 billion in savings out of a 3.3 trillion dollar budget then we know they are all working to get more money, to ride the train as long as possible and fuel their desires of power. They, meaning Republicans and Democrats alike, care not of their actions so long as their hometown constituents will vote them back into power when their term-limit is up.

Think about it. The cuts are something of what? 2%? You can't do that Washington? You money grubbing sycophants? Instead, I have to give up 186 hours of my own time and lose out on my livelihood; while Pelosi states it is undignified to even question if they should take a pay-cut.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Look's as though you have to ride the train or get run over by it. BTW this is a world issue as the US is going to bring the rest of the world down with it. It doesn't matter where you are, if the most powerful country in the world comes to an economic collapse as many people believe, we will all feel the effects but none more than the average American citizen.
You would have to be naive to not believe that something extraordinarily sinister is approaching.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kudegras
 


I don't disagree with you here. The main point though is, our Government cannot find 2% out of a budget of $3.3 trillion. 2%, as pointed out in the OP, that is an increase over last years spending. More and more and more and I fight it everyday in my job. I despise fraud, waste and abuse and am always kept at arms length because I am that guy at work who questions why we need a 50" TV or why we need a new work-truck; to which I get the answer "because we need a bigger budget". It makes me sick. But I try and fight it.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I got a question for anyone who knows Government spending. How much money could the US save if we furloughed congress for three months including their benefits packages. I bet that would save us close to a billion dollars. Maybe we should have congress meet by internet and then they would need as many interns nor could they make US taxpayer pick up their meal tickets. It would also cut down on air travel. Also, no fact finding missions outside of the US borders. Not "conference/seminar" trips. Limit the size of their staff. Maybe a secretary and an assistant. Bet it wouldn't take long to balance the budget then.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Me personally, I'm sick and tired of the 'blame game', by both parties.

Here our country is in economic turmoil, nations around the world watching this fiasco, and all these politicians do is fear monger and spread disinformation, according to which side it benefits. [agenda]
And yes, it is hard to distinguish the truth from fiction any more, there are so many spins going on at one time.

Rather embarrassing really, for our legislatures acting like a bunch of spoiled brats!!
[Including this administration]



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kudegras
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Look's as though you have to ride the train or get run over by it. BTW this is a world issue as the US is going to bring the rest of the world down with it. It doesn't matter where you are, if the most powerful country in the world comes to an economic collapse as many people believe, we will all feel the effects but none more than the average American citizen.
You would have to be naive to not believe that something extraordinarily sinister is approaching.

It certainly is, and will come before you expect.

But, it won't be the result of sequestration.

When the sequester hits on March 1, nothing much happens. The cuts take effect, but agencies have been expecting them for months and are prepared to slow down their pace of outlays. The legislation creating the sequester back in 2011 deliberately minimized the amount of discretion that agency managers have over how to allocate cuts. But even an across-the-board cut applied to every program doesn’t imply an exact equal reduction in the amount of spending each and every day or even week. For a few weeks, any halfway competent agency is going to be able to keep things running more or less as they have been recently. Big shortfalls in services would only show up later down the road.

Forget Sequestration

Althopugh we've got to face majpr hurdles on discretionary spending yet to come, the larger problem are out-of control NON-discretionary outlays.


On March 27 the Continuing Resolution that funds the overall discretionary operations of the federal government runs out.

When that happens, it’s lights out—quite literally.
...
A government shutdown’s something we haven’t seen since Jan. 6, 1996, when then-President Bill Clinton and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich patched up their budget disagreements.
...
The bad news is that this means the odds of a government shutdown are pretty high. The good news is that the tough negotiations that’ll be needed to either avert or else end a government shutdown provide ample opportunity to resolve the problems associated with the sequester.

www.slate.com...

But even this problem is realtively minor compared to what happens when interest rates begin ticking up, debt payments escalate, and the dollar's value deteriorates. Once started, we'll be looking back to the "fiscal cliff" and "sequestration" as the "good old days."

This can come as soon as this year; it may be the next, but it is coming, and it will be devastating.
jw



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The country grew and prospered before we ever had most of these government programs so i see no reason why the country would fall apart if we cut back on some of these government programs.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
budgets were cut in the uk for some councils (states ) of 20% then 15 % the next year i bet they would love a cut that small .

life will go on as normal with a small cut like this but no money for weapons o so scary



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I don't have really anything to say against this thread other than the fact that you used the CBO for a part of your analysis.

That would be fine if they've never been wrong but they are not the most reliable source when it comes to predicting what will happen in the future.

To base any estimate off their predictions is sketchy at best.

Good thread overall though.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


As a DoD Employee, we were told just yesterday by our Base Commander to expect a 20% decrease in our pay starting mid April if the sequestration goes into effect March 1st. Meanwhile congress is giving themselves a pay raise. The arguement I've heard is that the government wouldn't save much if "they" took a pay cut, but by cutting the federal civilan DoD budget they could make a difference.

It's hardly an impact as a whole on the US debt, but to the individual giving up 20% of their pay could snowball onto everyone else.

For example: with a 20% decrease in my pay, I will have to make cuts in my budget. So I will probably have to dump my Verizon triple play plan which costs me $150 a month, also I might have to discontinue both my daughters cell phone plans which cost me another $130 a month.

Now imagine if another 50,000 DoD employees do the same. That means Verizon would lose alot of customers and start laying off some of thier employees to stay a float. Which then, trickles down to every to other buisness as they start losing customers and then lay off their employees. Then so on and so forth....

I'm not complaining that I will probably have to make some cuts in my spending for it's not the first time I had to do this to make ends meet. I mean yeah it sucks, but oh well, we had a decent run. What bothers me is that this could possibly snowball out of control when our economy is as fragile as it is. Since October 2012, my father, brother and Uncle have been let go from the local Steel mill after it shut down and are still without a full time job. Many of my friends are now also unemployed due to budget cuts by their employer. So, just having a job right now, I am very thankfull.

However, it doesn't justify Obama giving Biden and Congress a pay increase. I say lead by example!
edit on 23-2-2013 by iwan2ski because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by iwan2ski
 


I truly fear for you if you have to tell your daughters they are losing their cell phones.

People will write songs about your bravery!



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I would just like to add to your post that the grave furlough of gov't employees that is being talked about isn't as grave as it's made out to be. Basically, the employees will get a 20% pay cut by only working and being paid for 4 days vice 5. So, some will get 3 day weekends, others will get another unpaid day off.

Understand that for some, if not most, a 20% pay cut will hurt but they're not being laid off or fired.

My hope is that most of America stops believing all of the hype over this sequestration. We're not talking about Greek austerity measures, we're talking about an 85 million dollar cut to a 3.3 trillion dollar budget.

Luckily though, this doesn't affect the pay checks of our glorious elected officials...so at least there's a silver lining to this made up crisis.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwan2ski
However, it doesn't justify Obama giving Biden and Congress a pay increase. I say lead by example!


Pretty much agreed until this point. Obama has no say whatsoever in Congressional pay. His authority in pay only resides withing legislative bills that sit on his desk and executive level departments under the authority of the Executive branch.

I do ask though, where do you think such authority lies?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by jdub297
 


I would just like to add to your post that the grave furlough of gov't employees that is being talked about isn't as grave as it's made out to be. Basically, the employees will get a 20% pay cut by only working and being paid for 4 days vice 5. So, some will get 3 day weekends, others will get another unpaid day off.

Understand that for some, if not most, a 20% pay cut will hurt but they're not being laid off or fired.

My hope is that most of America stops believing all of the hype over this sequestration. We're not talking about Greek austerity measures, we're talking about an 85 million dollar cut to a 3.3 trillion dollar budget.

Luckily though, this doesn't affect the pay checks of our glorious elected officials...so at least there's a silver lining to this made up crisis.


Easy to say that when it isn't you right? Just so you know some of us are making sacrifices beyond this to maintain such equipment that ensures safe travel of airliners; point A to B. It merely isn't a 20% pay cut, but also unneeded overtime to cover such reduction. It is FUBAR all around.

Other than that, I wholly agree with you. 85 billion is nothing compared to the massive amount we spend and we could easily cut it; just doesn't have to be payroll that sees the effects.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by iwan2ski
 





For example: with a 20% decrease in my pay, I will have to make cuts in my budget. So I will probably have to dump my Verizon triple play plan which costs me $150 a month, also I might have to discontinue both my daughters cell phone plans which cost me another $130 a month. Now imagine if another 50,000 DoD employees do the same. That means Verizon would lose alot of customers and start laying off some of thier employees to stay a float. Which then, trickles down to every to other buisness as they start losing customers and then lay off their employees. Then so on and so forth....


Yep, you're exactly right.
It's the domino effect.

Sorry to hear about your pay cut.
But unfortunately our legislatures don't care about the 'little guys' being hurt as long as they get theirs.

Just goes to show they don't care about us as a whole, only their pet projects and their own constituents so they can get re-elected.

I say we vote them all out and get fresh members in there................but sadly, it won't happen.
They keep voting in the same career politicians like Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, etc.......well you get the picture.
Both parties need a cleansing.......



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
My experience from sweeping cuts to federal budgets, albeit on a regional scale, was that the boss still expected the work to get done. Sending folks home without pay for one day a week is just stealing 20% of the employees' pay. I would hope that employees make a concerted effort to make sure they only do 80% of their job and not a single percent more.

The fact that the Executive and Legislative branches aren't getting pay cuts, especially under the premise that "oh dear, we can't have a pay cut because we'd have to make a law to do it", is frankly insulting, especially to federal employees who actually work.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxpilot
My experience from sweeping cuts to federal budgets, albeit on a regional scale, was that the boss still expected the work to get done. Sending folks home without pay for one day a week is just stealing 20% of the employees' pay. I would hope that employees make a concerted effort to make sure they only do 80% of their job and not a single percent more.

The fact that the Executive and Legislative branches aren't getting pay cuts, especially under the premise that "oh dear, we can't have a pay cut because we'd have to make a law to do it", is frankly insulting, especially to federal employees who actually work.



By law, Federal workers on a furlough day are not allowed to report to work or perform their duties. It leaves a gap in places where manning is low. They cannot fill the days with other workers (that would result in overtime).



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


As I stated, it will hurt... but it's a hell of alot better than being laid off or fired. That's what the POTUS and the media are making this out to be, that on 1 April every DOD GS employee will be laid off and our security will be in jeopardy. That's not factual, it's a scare tactic.

I'm sorry you're caught in the middle of a political battle, but at least you'll still get a pay check. The lunacy of this is that foreign employees will not be affected, only Americans will.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by jdub297
 


I would just like to add to your post that the grave furlough of gov't employees that is being talked about isn't as grave as it's made out to be. Basically, the employees will get a 20% pay cut by only working and being paid for 4 days vice 5. So, some will get 3 day weekends, others will get another unpaid day off.

Understand that for some, if not most, a 20% pay cut will hurt but they're not being laid off or fired.


No, you are right! I am greatfull that I will still have a job... for now! However, while I do make around 60K gross, we are hardly living large and 20% pay decrease will have huge impact on what I will be able to pump back into the economy. Which means everyone will feel this pay decrease as well once other DoD employees cut back too.

That's the big picture here. So while it's easy for some to say, "So what, it's just Government Employees having to take a pay cut...big deal", this may have a domino effect and affect all of you as well!

It's a big deal once you or your family lose their job, because of the lack of buisness by their employers... and for what? Reducing our budget to save a very low percentage of our entire deficit.
edit on 23-2-2013 by iwan2ski because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join