Sequestration devastation? The facts show otherwise.

Originally posted by Tardacus
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.

I have been saying and feeling the same way. If it were huge numbers (percentage wise) I could almost understand the fear...but it's not. I remember back in the 80's and 90's when the budget was far smaller and everything still managed to get taken care of. I call this fear tactic the continued "fleecing of America".

The Repubs want us to believe we will be helpless, defensless targets and the Dems want us to believe the sky will fall...neither is true and they are some serious scoundrels for pulling this crap.

Those of you who are older, think back 20 or 30 years...the Gov now takes in more money, spends more than it takes in and does a crappier job of taking care of their responsibilities...anyone else wonder why that is?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

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?

Well unless I was being misled by what MSM is stating for weeks now (don't answer that..lol):

Obama Orders Pay Raise for Biden, Members of Congress, Federal Workers

Obama Orders Pay Raise for Biden, Members of Congress, Federal Workers

President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Those of you who are older, think back 20 or 30 years...the Gov now takes in more money, spends more than it takes in and does a crappier job of taking care of their responsibilities...anyone else wonder why that is?

Agreed! It doesn't take an economist to see the numbers. Our revenue stream is in the trillions as is our outlays; but our outlays far out number that "revenue". If a country cannot perform its most basic duties, as prescribed to its Constitution, on $3.3 trillion dollars, then what do you expect?

Sooner or later everyone will realize that we have a major spending problem. We spend money on everything: Defense and "Social" programs eat up the bulk of that spending. We pay people to sit at home, we pay companies to do what they shouldn't, we pay other countries to sustain themselves, we pay and pay and pay.....all the while asking the citizenry to give more.

Yep, we just need to raise taxes and it will all fix itself....

reply to post by iwan2ski


And you are correct that this could have a trickle down affect on local economies. Economies dependent on government employees.

I believe that the heyday of GS jobs is coming to an end. The military will have to go back to doing those jobs themselves which means more overtime for them...unpaid overtime as they are salaried. I'm not saying all GS jobs will go away, but I bet GS7 command secretaries could be on the chopping block in the future, along with other low level positions.

Again, I am sorry that you folks are caught in the middle of a political battle. That said, Congress should vote to reduce their pay AND put a moratorium on future raises. I'm sure there are other ways to come up with 85 million in savings without taking from employees.

Originally posted by iwan2ski
Well unless I was being misled by what MSM is stating for weeks now (don't answer that..lol):

We are both half-correct. The Congress proposes an amendment (typically attached to a bill unrelated) that gives themselves a raise and it does have to be signed by the president. Though, given that, those raises are not tied to Executive level departments in which the president can direct.

Cost of Living adjustments are a tricky thing and part of the sophistry that our Government has engaged in for years. For instance, the Vice-President's salary falls under Executive control and can be raised arbitrarily under the guise of "cost of living". The same with any agency under the Executive branch. For Congress, they at least have to propose an amendment or a new bill that suggest such wages; typically and nearly always, approved by the President.

We are both right and both wrong. It is still messed up and I am with you on it.

Originally posted by Feltrick
I believe that the heyday of GS jobs is coming to an end. The military will have to go back to doing those jobs themselves which means more overtime for them...unpaid overtime as they are salaried. I'm not saying all GS jobs will go away, but I bet GS7 command secretaries could be on the chopping block in the future, along with other low level positions.

Military doesn't get overtime....where do you get that from? Only the contracted and civilian sectors they have created get such. Most duties can be easily put back onto the military to perform and we can save millions doing so. Chow halls, cleaning services, etc can all be put back into the ranks of military and we don't have to pay overtime; trust me....I worked many of 12 hour shifts for many months and never saw OT. We are technically on duty "24/7" and are not subjected to Department of Labor laws.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Sooner or later everyone will realize that we have a major spending problem.

One would think but they no longer call it spending- they call it "investing"!

And the current crowd in Washington says we need to do more of it.

We are doomed.

reply to post by Feltrick


Thanks for those sentiments, I agree with what you just said whole heartedly!

This really isn't about me or my fellow workers since most of us are happy to have a job, but like you said, why take from the real workers when there are so many other programs where the government just throws money out the window. The government is soooo wasteful you wouldn't believe it, so why not reduce the waste, instead of affecting the whole economy by salary reductions that may ultimately trickle down to everone else?

And like someone else mentioned, it's not like I will have less work to do, just less time to get it done! More stress with less pay.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I love a good compromise (lol) and do agree with all you have stated in this thread. You are very learned and full of knowlege of the subject at hand!

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Sooner or later everyone will realize that we have a major spending problem.

One would think but they no longer call it spending- they call it "investing"!

And the current crowd in Washington says we need to do more of it.

We are doomed.

I won't lie, the Government has invested in me. I provide a service to their monopoly (though I really wish they would let my services be contracted out) and I am a servant of the People. You have bought and paid for 10+ years of my life to maintain equipment in the safe travel of airliners. I do so, with that in mind and with my oath that I took as an officer of the United States of America (lessor officer as I wasn't appointed by the Senate, but under the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation). I take my oath damn serious and am chastised for it sadly and it makes me sick.

Originally posted by Hopechest

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!

Nice one!

I am lucky however, my girls are very appreciative as well as understanding!

I married my wife at the age of 20, she then became pregnant with our first daughter so I joined the USAF so that I could afford a life worth giving them. I was only an airmen making less then poverty level when I first started out. Two years later we had our second daughter, and though we didn't have much we had a roof over our head and we had each other. My daughters grew up knowing to appreciate what we had, and as I moved up in rank and later out into the Federal Civilain sector (though I'm still a dual status military member...Technician Guardsmen) I am able to give them much more then I used to. They at least never forget the hard times and are gratefull young teenagers...God bless them!

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That's what I said, unpaid overtime! I never said they'd be paid for it, just working more hours! Where did you read that I said the military gets paid overtime?

Anyway, yes, the military can easily take over those jobs but it comes at a price. Right now the government has created a monster of a jobs program and if they cut those jobs, then more will be on unemployment. But, if they furlough those employees and use the military members to pick up the slack (i.e. every friday they'll use a YN to cover the desk of the Command Secretary), then the jobless rate doesn't go up...win/win...for some.

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

That's what I said, unpaid overtime! I never said they'd be paid for it, just working more hours! Where did you read that I said the military gets paid overtime?

Anyway, yes, the military can easily take over those jobs but it comes at a price. Right now the government has created a monster of a jobs program and if they cut those jobs, then more will be on unemployment. But, if they furlough those employees and use the military members to pick up the slack (i.e. every friday they'll use a YN to cover the desk of the Command Secretary), then the jobless rate doesn't go up...win/win...for some.

Misunderstood in regards to your use of "unpaid overtime" I suppose. It was never assumed as a member of the military that I would see any, so that is probably where that came from.

As far as the the services, they can fill those "jobs" with the lower ranking. Why pay some cleaning service when you have airmen or soldiers that can do it? Even if you dip into the members who are on administrative disciplinary actions? It always baffled me when the cleaning crew showed up; right after we got done doing the cleaning of our area. It was a waste of money and a waste of taxpayers' monies.

In terms of the military, privatizing certain areas was a "job bubble" and not to fill a need in my opinion. A bubble that will burst soon considering the above stated.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Agreed, but cutting cleaning contracts and GS positions will only make things worse economically. The politicians know that this will hurt their chances at staying in office so they will try and avoid those cuts. Unfortunately it's not about the people losing jobs, it's about politicians losing their jobs. That's why they're doing a furlough and not cutting those positions.

Again, I just hope Americans aren't buying into all the hype and scare tactics from the politicians.

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

That's what I said, unpaid overtime! I never said they'd be paid for it, just working more hours! Where did you read that I said the military gets paid overtime?

Anyway, yes, the military can easily take over those jobs but it comes at a price. Right now the government has created a monster of a jobs program and if they cut those jobs, then more will be on unemployment. But, if they furlough those employees and use the military members to pick up the slack (i.e. every friday they'll use a YN to cover the desk of the Command Secretary), then the jobless rate doesn't go up...win/win...for some.

While I agree with what you said, I hope most realise that it's more then just the Commanders Secretary taking off Fridays. It's also Aircraft mechanics (flying missions stop), Computer/Network Technicians (keeping our infrastructure safe and reliable), Finance Pay Technicans.... and much more! Basically in the guard, 85% of the fulltime weekday workers are dual status Federal Civilian DoD employees.

We are already low manned before this sequestration. I myself have 6 other alternate duties which active duty has individual manpower to work. Our motto is: We do more with less! So now I will have 1 less day a week to fullfill my main job as the only Aircraft Management Analyst in my unit as well as my alternate duties being the Security Manager, Information Assurance Manager, Chief of Records, Client Support Administrator (CSA) ....blah, blah, blah.

Most of us take on these extra jobs (we don't get paid for the extra work and we are not allowed overtime) because we can't afford to hire these positions. Now with a nice 20% deduction in our pay, how many of us are going to stick around when the civilian sector is offering us much more to work for them?

In fact, my squadron is currently seeing a mass exodus of personnel to the civilian sector in last 3 months. I'm one of a few that's been sticking it out, but I have my resume ready and will probably not stick around for much longer!

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Sooner or later everyone will realize that we have a major spending problem.

One would think but they no longer call it spending- they call it "investing"!

And the current crowd in Washington says we need to do more of it.

We are doomed.

Yes, according to our president, "We don't have a spending problem".
It's all a word game.....'investing' is what it's called now.
Yeah right.........

As long as they all keep that mentality up, we will never get out of this mess we're in.
They simply don't care............it's the 'HAVES' against the 'HAVE NOTS'
And we, the common folk, are in the 'HAVE NOT' category.

reply to post by iwan2ski


Absolutely agree with your statements and only used the command secretary as an example. From what I've seen over the past few years is that military members have been retiring into GS positions. In fact a few have had their military position changed to a GS position and then retired directly into it! Overall, the GS position is less expensive than having a military member fill it (i.e. not having to pay PCS entitlements every 3-4 years). I thought it was a bad idea for DOD to go to a DFAS pay system, the CG still uses military pay technicians but they're looking into the DFAS system as well. Military members can be used for more than what's listed on their description of duties.

I haven't seen many leave to go into the private sector, mainly because the private sector hasn't been hiring too many folks. It might be a good idea to get your resume out there.

reply to post by Feltrick


Actually the civilian sector has been gobbling us up since most of us have Security Clearances, constantly tested to be drug-free and many years of military and highly skilled training/experience in a fast paced high demand work enviroment. So far 3 of my friends recently left to go into the civilian sector with a huge bonus and the ability for overtime and upward movement.

Originally posted by Hopechest
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.

Then you didn't consider the excerpts of the Act that I quoted:

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.

As is almost always the case, the legislative estimates are "fact-checked" by the Executive's own auditors.
As of today, I haven't heard any OMB complaints despite what their boss is saying on his campaign trips.

jw

"Cuts" are a joke in Washington DC. They aren't cutting anything, in fact every program and department except the DOD will not receive a penny less than they did last year. Congress appropriates progressive spending. Meaning if they budget in a 100 million increase in a department that the previous year was appropriated 50 million, then "cut" that increase to only 75 million they will call it a "25% spending cut!!!!!".

*drinks Kool-Aid*

But what REALLY happened was they INCREASED funding from the previous year by 50%!!!


They're all liars.