Sequestration- Drama du Jour!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

So, what's your thoughts on the looming Sequestration crisis? A week is an eternity in politics. PStill plenty of time to deal. The question is, is anyone willing to deal?

Anyone know the Vegas odds on will we or won't we make a deal?

**Relapse**

Easy E wrote:
So, what's your thoughts on the looming Sequestration crisis? A week is an eternity in politics. PStill plenty of time to deal. The question is, is anyone willing to deal?

Anyone know the Vegas odds on will we or won't we make a deal?

I don't know about that, but I can give you odds on finger pointing by both sides if things fall through.

**Frazzled**

Why deal? Ladies its only a cut to GROWTH. The federal government will spend more in 2013 than 2012.

As the immortal bard once said: fire 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

**whembly**

Political drama...

The congressional-critters are probably more scared that if the sequestration does go through and no one notices it.

See this... are we really that screwed?

**daedalus**

I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:

- Budget is unsustainably out of control.
- Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years.
- Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.

Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Why deal? Ladies its only a cut to GROWTH. The federal government will spend more in 2013 than 2012.

As the immortal bard once said: fire 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

You know a lot of companies when they hit this point default to "everyone is fired until you give a good enough reason otherwise".

**Polonius**

The real problem is that the sequesteration doesn't actually affect the parts of spending that are growing uncontrollably, namely entitlements.

So, it affects the actual workings of government, not the transfers of cash to the retired/disabled/poor. So, crazy out of control medicare spending continues unabatted, but the National parks get less funding. Disability checks keep going out, but the process of determining disabilty (my little corner of the Federal government) will slow down.

It'd be great if this hit and the general public didn't suffer at all. I'm not looking forward to furlough days, but I guess it beats losing my job entirely. I think we're going to find that it's going to affect a lot of people, because once you even get into discretionary spending, you have to look at long term contracts (leases and such) that can't be avoided. Salaries for workers are going to be the low hanging fruit.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Political drama...

The congressional-critters are probably more scared that if the sequestration does go through and no one notices it.

See this... are we really that screwed?

OMG how we will survive?!? Surely the moon will now collide with the earth and the Seven Seals will open!
All the fearmongering is not far off from that. Now evidently terrorists and illegal immigrants will suddenl stream across our borders, in contrast to say, Tuesday when terrorists and illegal immigrants were streaming across our borders. SO far I've been told:
*Children will starve.
*Food will now be bad (wait I thought there wouldn't be any food).
*Planes will fall from the sky.
*The military will instantly collapse. The Bahamas will immediately invade us.
*Our borders wil be left unguarded.
*Children will not be educated. Suddenly there will be no police. Houses will burn (protip, thats all state money).
*Houses will not be built. People will be homeless.
*Roads will not be built or maintained and will now instantly collapse.

**whembly**

Spoiler:

Oh wait... what were you say?

**Tannhauser42**

I know that in the federal agency I work for, we'll have to account for about $120 million dollars. Notices have already been sent stating that we'll have to basically get unpaid time off for anywhere from 1 - 14 days by the end of the fiscal year. At least it won't be more than one day per pay period, and we'll even be able to choose the day, too.

In many ways, there's a lot of doom and gloom being thrown around by some agencies using scare tactics by saying how much government services will be impacted (like TSA lines being twice as long as the airports after the cuts). Some of it's true, but some money can be saved by not buying some new equipment this year (but you eventually have to replace old equipment, anyway), but you're still left trying to cut money where you can, and you can't cut it from contracts that have already been signed and committed to for the fiscal year, so that sometimes leaves the personnel account as the only way to save money.

**sebster**

daedalus wrote:
I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:

- Budget is unsustainably out of control.
- Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years.
- Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.

Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?.

Sort of. The actual situation is more like;

-Everyone says the budget is out of control, but it actually isn't. There's a short term budget deficit, but that's just due to the poor economic position (lower revenues and higher welfare payments), and will fix itself as the economy recovers. The structural deficit caused by the Bush tax cuts has been fixed (through savings cuts and the increase in taxes on the very wealthy). There's a long term budget deficit that is entirely due to rising healthcare costs.

-No-one is willing to even dare talk about the long term healthcare budget problem, let alone fix it. So instead they just try to look all serious and responsible by talking about the present deficit, entirely indifferent to the reality that the savings measures already put in place mean that the issue is already fixed.

-Everyone is upset about being in this bizarre position where there's nothing short term to fix but everyone is absolutely committed to fixing it as soon as possible. Political stupidity ensues.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Yeah, it is unfortunate that the people who get hurt by all the sequestration cuts are not the d-bags who caused it in the first place.

The guys in my unit give til congress loses their aides, and other staffers and have to actually work for once for things to really get done.

So far, and most worrying for us military folks, it looks as though they are trying to not touch our pay, and cut just about everything else, things would end badly i suspect if our pay was actually axed for a while.

**whembly**

Nikki Haley is on fire here:

During President Barack Obama's meeting with U.S. governors at the White House Monday, the president dismissed members of the press to hold a private, hourlong discussion with the visiting state executives. Whatever was said after the cameras left the room especially incensed South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley.
Haley went across the street to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after the meeting, where she joined fellow Republican Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin in berating both Congress and the Obama administration for failing to agree to an alternative to the looming across-the-board federal budget cuts set to trigger March 1.
"I could not be more frustrated than I am right now," Haley told reporters after the meeting. She said that when she asked Obama if he would consider a last-minute plan to shave about 2 percent from the annual federal budget without increasing taxes, the answer was "no."
"My kids could go and find $83 billion out of a $4 trillion budget," Haley said. "This is not rocket science."
As part of a budget agreement passed in 2011, the federal budget will automatically be reduced on March 1 by about 2.4 percent if a deal isn't reached. Lawmakers had hoped to avoid the reductions by agreeing to more specific cuts from the budget, but talks between Republicans and Democrats have largely fallen apart due to a disagreement over whether tax increases should be part of the package.
Haley also made no effort to spare congressional Republicans, who took last week off with only a few days left before the sequestration process was set to begin.
"There is no leadership. There is no confidence. There is nothing that shows us that they actually care about what they're doing," Haley said. "What they're doing is playing games, and we as the taxpayers are having to cover for their games. We're not going to do it anymore."
Haley also noted that "no one should be going home. No one should be playing golf. No one should be taking vacations."
She later added, "There is something very wrong in this town."

It's a TRAP!!!

"There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are working today who will lose their jobs as a consequence of this Republican decision," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said during a conference call with reporters Sunday afternoon. "This is going to have a very real impact on people's lives and on communities."

The Obama administration has entered the full-court-press stage of its campaign to defeat a measure, known as sequestration, that would slow the rate of growth of federal spending. Its latest tactic is to release a state-by-state analysis claiming the cuts would hit hard in every corner of the country.

Louisiana, for example, would lose $15.8 million in education funds, putting 220 teachers' jobs at risk, according to the White House. Head Start would be eliminated for 1,400 children, and there would be many more cuts in military spending, law enforcement, job training, environmental and other programs.

Wisconsin, to take another example, would lose $8.5 million in education funds under this scenario, putting 120 teachers' jobs at risk, with Head Start eliminated for 900 children, as well as a variety of other cuts.

South Carolina would lose $12.5 million in education funds, the White House said, putting 170 teachers' jobs at risk, with Head Start eliminated for 900, and much, much more.

It just so happened that the Republican governors of Louisiana, Wisconsin and South Carolina were in Washington on Monday for a National Governors Association gathering, which included a session with the president. When reporters asked about that new state-by-state analysis of possible cuts -- which just happened to be released on the eve of the meeting -- the governors saw a White House political trap.

"You all got it in the media before we got those," said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. "So I think it's pretty clear that those were put out for political purposes ... If you were serious about having a discussion with the governors about the implications, you wouldn't give it to the press before you gave it to the governors."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal added that Obama seemed bound and determined to use the sequestration fight to win higher taxes, willing to hold out the prospect of painful cuts to accomplish his goal.

"I think the president is trying to force us into a false choice," Jindal said. "The reality is, there is no reason for these cuts to be made this way." Obama could instruct his Cabinet to emphasize cuts to spending on things like consultants, Jindal said, and not on things like Head Start. "It is the president's job as the chief executive to prioritize."

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said the governors asked Obama to come up with better cuts, or even to delay future spending, like the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, if the budget situation is as dire as the administration says. "The answer to everything we got was no," Haley said.

As the governors spoke, there was a real question of how much flexibility the president has to shape the cuts that are contained in the sequestration measure, which he proposed and signed into law with bipartisan support in 2011. Does Obama have the authority to move money around so government consultants would take more of a hit than Head Start?

Jindal believes so. "Everybody has known that this was coming," he said. "When did [Obama] go to his Cabinet heads and say, 'If you had to make these reductions, what would be the least painful way to do it?' "

There's no indication Obama has done anything to make the cuts easier on the public. To the contrary, it is in his political interest to make the cuts as painful as possible and then blame them on Republicans.

Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear how much leeway Obama has, given that the law orders across-the-board cuts applied to all "programs, projects, and activities" that are not specifically exempted, like entitlement programs and active-duty military staffing. The governors conceded that Obama might need some help from Congress in making the cuts more palatable -- not that the president would ever want to do that.

At one point, Haley called the whole situation "frustrating" and "bothersome." And in the end, the governors sounded like people who had not only had it with Obama but were also unwilling to defend their party's leaders in the House and Senate. "We're not here speaking on behalf of Republicans on the Hill," Walker said. "We're speaking on behalf of Republican governors. And the contrast is, we're providing leadership, balancing budgets, and doing it without raising taxes."

**Rented Tritium**

sebster wrote:
daedalus wrote:
I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:

- Budget is unsustainably out of control.
- Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years.
- Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.

Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?.

Sort of. The actual situation is more like;

-Everyone says the budget is out of control, but it actually isn't. There's a short term budget deficit, but that's just due to the poor economic position (lower revenues and higher welfare payments), and will fix itself as the economy recovers. The structural deficit caused by the Bush tax cuts has been fixed (through savings cuts and the increase in taxes on the very wealthy). There's a long term budget deficit that is entirely due to rising healthcare costs.

-No-one is willing to even dare talk about the long term healthcare budget problem, let alone fix it. So instead they just try to look all serious and responsible by talking about the present deficit, entirely indifferent to the reality that the savings measures already put in place mean that the issue is already fixed.

-Everyone is upset about being in this bizarre position where there's nothing short term to fix but everyone is absolutely committed to fixing it as soon as possible. Political stupidity ensues.

This is pretty accurate.

Generally, when there are a bunch of narratives for a political event in the US, the one that is kind of boring and sounds like an econ lecture is usually the real one.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:
sebster wrote:
daedalus wrote:
I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:

- Budget is unsustainably out of control.
- Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years.
- Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.

Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?.

Sort of. The actual situation is more like;

-Everyone says the budget is out of control, but it actually isn't. There's a short term budget deficit, but that's just due to the poor economic position (lower revenues and higher welfare payments), and will fix itself as the economy recovers. The structural deficit caused by the Bush tax cuts has been fixed (through savings cuts and the increase in taxes on the very wealthy). There's a long term budget deficit that is entirely due to rising healthcare costs.

-No-one is willing to even dare talk about the long term healthcare budget problem, let alone fix it. So instead they just try to look all serious and responsible by talking about the present deficit, entirely indifferent to the reality that the savings measures already put in place mean that the issue is already fixed.

-Everyone is upset about being in this bizarre position where there's nothing short term to fix but everyone is absolutely committed to fixing it as soon as possible. Political stupidity ensues.

This is pretty accurate.

Generally, when there are a bunch of narratives for a political event in the US, the one that is kind of boring and sounds like an econ lecture is usually the real one.

Its accurate, oh wait its not.
-Its not a short term deficit problem. Under the El Jeff'e's own forecasts its $1Bn + deficits annually FOREVER. Care to see what the interest payment looks like in 2020?
-You're forgetting that issue about a downgrade and another threatened by end of year.
-Healthcare is separate but yes its an issue. Obamacare is going to add $8Trillion to the debt. Who's it helping again? My rates are jumping.

**whembly**

Look at it like this...

1. Sequestration cuts of $85 billion are impossibly painful, the equivalent of asking Uncle Sam to perform an appendectomy on himself with a nail file, but
2. ObamaCare adding $6.2 trillion to the deficit - nearly 75 times the size of the sequester - is no big deal...

See what I mean?

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Its accurate, oh wait its not.
-Its not a short term deficit problem. Under the El Jeff'e's own forecasts its $1Bn + deficits annually FOREVER. Care to see what the interest payment looks like in 2020?

I won't just see what the payments are, I'll show you the 30 year trend;

My God! If we do nothing then payments will be slightly less than they were in 1990! Remember how that was resolved through a series of reforms and policy adjustments... well we'll have to do slightly less of that!

-You're forgetting that issue about a downgrade and another threatened by end of year.

Which is a serious and important issue to people who read newspaper headlines but have never actually looked at any numbers in their lives. After the last downgrade... US borrowing rates decreased.

-Healthcare is separate but yes its an issue. Obamacare is going to add $8Trillion to the debt. Who's it helping again? My rates are jumping.

Healthcare isn't an issue, it's the issue. Sequestration is an effort to demand cuts gets made to small parts of the budget that simply aren't a part of the long term deficit problem. It's political theatre.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Look at it like this...

1. Sequestration cuts of $85 billion are impossibly painful, the equivalent of asking Uncle Sam to perform an appendectomy on himself with a nail file, but
2. ObamaCare adding $6.2 trillion to the deficit - nearly 75 times the size of the sequester - is no big deal...

See what I mean?

Look at it like this - in 1980 Reagan cut taxes. He even said that through the magic of the Laffer Curve revenue wouldn't drop (no-one believed that, not even him I expect but anyway...)

From there you've got fifteen years of steady deficit growth, and while lots of prominent people make lots of noise and fuss about it, no-one quite ever thinks about saying maybe that taxes ought to go back to what they were when the debt was under control.

Clinton comes to office, and now all of a sudden there's all kinds of fuss and bother about the deficit. Clinton cuts a deal with the Republicans, spending is cut and the social safety net is reduced, you see surpluses and a decrease in total debt.

Then Bush comes to office, and well if cutting taxes was what Reagan did then Bush is gonna do it to (I think there was even talk about the Laffer Curve again). Oh look, now there's deficits again. Oh well, people made noise about it a little, but not enough to stop two wars and a massive expansion of healthcare through the pharmaceuticals bill.

The Obama comes to office, in the wake of the GFC. Now without even doing anything the deficit has gotten even worse than under Bush (massive drops in tax revenues and increases in social payments will do that). Never mind that the single dumbest thing you can do in recession is cut government spending, now all of a sudden the deficit is the big concern again... and the savings must all be found through spending. There was one compromised deal that made up soem ground through a part repeal of Bush's tax cut and some savings cuts... and now there's another demand that it must be done again.

It doesn't matter that structurally, once we account for a return to full economic activity, the short term structural deficit is gone. It doesn't matter that the driver behind the long term deficit projections are all through the unsustainable health care costs... but what is demanded is yet another cut to welfare spending.

If the 30 year political strategy isn't clear by now, I don't know how much more obvious the Republicans can make it. They even talk about the plan, and even gave it a catchy little name. It's called 'starve the beast'.

In fact if you don't believe me, and you're up for another bet I've got a good one for you - next Republican to win the presidency will have as part of his platform a significant cut to taxes. It may not come in his first term, as the economy won't be healthy enough for that to fly, but it will come. And from there we'll see deficits again, and all of a sudden Republicans will demand the budget be brought back under control, and they will insist this happens through cuts to spending.

**d-usa**

I just find the switch in the GOP talking points pretty interesting over the last week. They are really turning from the "these cuts will be a thread to everyone, people will get fired, this will be bad" message and trying to present a unified "it's small, it's good, we will manage just fine".

Which is understandable. If "cutting government" ends up bad for people then the "cutting government" party will probably not look so good during the next elections.

**whembly**

Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
I just find the switch in the GOP talking points pretty interesting over the last week. They are really turning from the "these cuts will be a thread to everyone, people will get fired, this will be bad" message and trying to present a unified "it's small, it's good, we will manage just fine".

Which is understandable. If "cutting government" ends up bad for people then the "cutting government" party will probably not look so good during the next elections.

The hysteria is just the same flip flop that the (D) went through when it was proposed/voted on...

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.

There are some serious problems with Hillary as a candidate, not the least of which is her age - she'd be the second-oldest president elected.

Besides, my bet is, unless Obama does some totally incredible last minute action, that a Repuiblican will be elected. I think after 8 years of a president of any party, there is a very real fatigue that is likely to set in. Of course, it's still possible that Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as is their wont, but I sure wouldn't bet on it, not in 2013.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.

That's why I said 'next Republican to win'. Which may not be 2016 (though Clinton is no certainty to run, and no certainty to win). Point being that sooner or later a Republican will win, and when they do I am betting a major tax cut will be one of the key elements of their platform, and once it is in place we will predictably see rising deficits, and some time after that (likely once a Democrat retakes the presidency) we will see a sudden concern over the deficit once again.

Did you read the rest of my answer? Did it put any kind of perspective on this, and why the 'OMG deficit is out of control' and we have to cut 2% right now is really just a load of nonsense?

**KalashnikovMarine**

I'm mostly upset we aren't cutting more honestly, and that these clowns in congress voted themselves a pay raise when they're clearly too incompetent to do their jobs.

I solved the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vm1trlk0

Can you?

I didn't even have to gut the military or medicare/social security too badly. The important stuff on the military side (blue forces, Navy/Airforce) keep up at proper levels (hard to build ships in a hurry if the excrement hits the high speed impeller), etc

**sebster**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm mostly upset we aren't cutting more honestly, and that these clowns in congress voted themselves a pay raise when they're clearly too incompetent to do their jobs.

No, seriously, read what I posted please. This idea of the US needing massive cuts is just political nonsense.

I solved the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vm1trlk0

Can you?

Everyone can. The problem being that no one person is King of Budget, free to pick and choose what he personally wants. Instead any specific cut not only needs majority approval, but to overcome the vested interests of those who benefit most. Classic example is farm subsidies - they benefit very few and so most are happy to cut them, but good luck pushing that through with the support of rural based representatives.

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
I just find the switch in the GOP talking points pretty interesting over the last week. They are really turning from the "these cuts will be a thread to everyone, people will get fired, this will be bad" message and trying to present a unified "it's small, it's good, we will manage just fine".

Which is understandable. If "cutting government" ends up bad for people then the "cutting government" party will probably not look so good during the next elections.

The hysteria is just the same flip flop that the (D) went through when it was proposed/voted on...

Correct. They both flip flopped and they were both wrong for it. Let's not throw around "no u"s here.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.

That's why I said 'next Republican to win'. Which may not be 2016 (though Clinton is no certainty to run, and no certainty to win). Point being that sooner or later a Republican will win, and when they do I am betting a major tax cut will be one of the key elements of their platform, and once it is in place we will predictably see rising deficits, and some time after that (likely once a Democrat retakes the presidency) we will see a sudden concern over the deficit once again.

Did you read the rest of my answer? Did it put any kind of perspective on this, and why the 'OMG deficit is out of control' and we have to cut 2% right now is really just a load of nonsense?

Of course I read it as it was all kinds of awesome. Nothing to add really... but, you're taking a realistic view (accounting/business background will do that to you).

But, that's NOT what we're dealing with... putting it succinctly, we're dealing with the "gimmie-dat" generation. I firmly believe things need to be MUCH worse for any real change/fix. The first change would likely be in the HealthCare arena.

**Polonius**

by gimme dat generation, I assume you mean the Baby Boomers and seniors? that's where the money is going right now.

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:
by gimme dat generation, I assume you mean the Baby Boomers and seniors? that's where the money is going right now.

Partly them too...

But, to me "gimmie dat generation" are the voters. But, then again... nothing really changed so the current voters need a new name.

It's all roar, but no bite.

Just look at the sequestation hysteria... even the GOP Governors are crying about the cuts, when they RAN on lower spending.

They're all hypocrites.

**Easy E**

whembly wrote:

even the GOP Governors are crying about the cuts, when they RAN on lower spending.

Yeah, but that was suppose to impact someone else not them!

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
whembly wrote:

even the GOP Governors are crying about the cuts, when they RAN on lower spending.

Yeah, but that was suppose to impact someone else not them!

See what I mean?

But hey, what do you expect from politicians? This is what they do! (bring home da bacon!)

**Ouze**

Polonius wrote:
by gimme dat generation, I assume you mean the Baby Boomers and seniors? that's where the money is going right now.

That certainly would be the most reasonable interpretation. I'd also accept the "I-got-mine generation" as an acceptable alternative.

Personally, I think the best part of this stupid nonsense is everyone pretending it's the other guys fault when the law implementing it was passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President. I mean, our politics has ever been a bunch of children covered in poop calling each other stinky, but this case is especially absurd in how overt the hypocrisy is.

**Frazzled**

Yep