WASHINGTON — Furlough notices began arriving at federal agencies on Friday as the government prepared to cope with automatic spending cuts required by the so-called sequester, which went into effect hours after President Obama and Republican leaders held another fruitless session at the White House.
The prospect of absorbing $85 billion in reductions caused waves of anxiety across the country, even though much of the sequester’s impact will not be felt for weeks — and will be felt in disproportionate ways — from classrooms to laboratories to military bases.
Comments
'(The President's message, with) “sequestration” ........ the skies will fall.
A 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.
Are these on the chopping block? No sir. It’s firemen first. That’s the phrase coined in 1976 by legendary Washington Monthly editor Charlie Peters to describe the way government functionaries beat back budget cuts. Dare suggest a nick in the city budget, and the mayor immediately shuts down the firehouse. The DMV back office, stacked with nepotistic incompetents, remains intact. Shrink it and no one would notice. Sell the firetruck — the people scream and the city council falls silent about any future cuts.'
From Charles Krauthammer
"ytfiws" lists an impressie and appropriate number of items that could be cut instead of "firemen". Only one small problem. Under the sequestration you don't have the option on what gets cut. Certain things are exempted by law. Therefore the cuts fall heavily on those departments not exempted. If I'm the head of an agency. I cannot reduce my built-in overhead costs so all that is left to me is personel and some trimming around the edges of training and chump change supplies. But the preponderance of my cost reduction has to be in employee's. It is nice to sit on the outside and say how easy it is, but it jsut isn't so regardless of how you might want it to be.
Both parties are at fault here. Neither party will tell the public thr truth so zealots on either side run off at the mouth and make statements that just aren't true. But they will say they are true simply because they want them to be. The only real losers here are the public and some federal and private workers. But that is always who pays for the public and the pols stupidity.
Attaturk: You said it yourself "certain things are exempted by law". Well golly gee whiz, isn't the purpose of Congress to pass laws? Do you think they could just maybe change those laws?
Krauthammers's point is a solid one. This kind of BS is exactly WHY the budget is damn bloated in the first place.
And no, both parties are not at fault here. Obama cut his tax increases, now it is time to cut spending.
Your example of being head of an agency is distorted, you talk about "overhead". Care to explain what "overhead" is in the government? If you are referring to buildings, cars, etc then obviously some of that might need to be reduced and some personnel. It is not just reduction in personnel as you and the hysterical fear mongering dems would have everyone believe.
And actually it is easy. Many of us have been doing exactly what the federal government needs to do for YEARS. But they have felt no need since they have an endless supply of money. Now they have a leader who thinks he ought to increase that supply some more. Baloney, it is time to turn the faucet back a bit.
Atttturk says "Under the sequestration you don't have the option on what gets cut. Certain things are exempted by law. "..Yes that is quite correct. HOWEVER, who MAKES the law? It's the House and Senate and Senate passing a bill, and the president SIGNING the bill...In the current situation, Republicans in both the House and Senate passed a bill that would ALLOW the president to decide what gets cut...But our President, Barck Obama announced that he would VETO such a bill. And Senate Democrats then DEFEATED the Republican bill....WHY? If Obama signed such a bill, the crisis would be over. ..He wants Americans to suffer so that he, and his friends in the media can blame Republicans...Just as the Globe is doing in this article.
Miker6, can you please identify what "bills" the House and Senate were passed that "allowed the presdident to decide what gets cut"?
People will be losing homes
People lose homes when they lose their jobs in the private sector too, don't they? Happens ALL the time. What? Are government employees special? Oh, wait, yes they are. They are part of the Royal Court.
Businesses have downsized, outsourced for years now with lose of jobs. Why should a gov employee think they have a gauranteed job? What a crock!
Welcome to the real world, Federal Employees.
People in the private sector will also lose their jobs to the sequestor. Again not recognizing the true impact of an action because it fits your particular viewpoint. In fact the last study I saw more private sector employees will lose their job than federal. You really don't understand the subject.
Both sides trade Blame, as the headline says. Buit which side has grossly ratched up the SCAREQUESTRATION? That would be the White House and Congressional Democrats. Maxine Waters said "170 MILLION jobs will be lost". Which is more jobs than exist in the US. And the Globe in this article is doing nothing but ratcheting up SCAREQUESTRATION....Also Globe says "Federal agencies expect to furlough up to 1 million employees for intermittent periods as a result of the budget cuts. At least 750,000 of those will be civilian Pentagon workers, 7,000 of whom hail from Massachusetts, according to the White House. ' Notice that the Globe NEVER tells you that Furloughed Federal employees are not treated in the same way as furloughed MA State employees. If you are a furloughed state employee, you are FURLOUGHED, you've lost that pay. For Federal employees, once the government gets a budget again, your entire pay is RESTORED. It's a free PAID VACATION! At taxpayer expends.....And of course the dishonest Globe refuses to tell you that Obama threatened to VETO a Republican bill that would allow the president to choose what cuts were made. Which could result in no furloughs or layoffs at all.
Most Americans think a balanced approach-- some cuts and some removal of tax loopholes-- are the way to go. Only House and Senate Republicans are insisting that no tax loopholes should be closed to reduce the deficit. Their plans to bankrupt America are on track.
"Miker^" makes a great political statement. But let us look at the reality. Why do the Republicans want to give the President the power to "decide" what gets cut, when in fact it is the House's obligation to make these determinations. The Republican's simply want the President to take the heat for cuts that are injurious to the public. But let us put that aside for the moment. Why don't the Republican's say what they want to cut. Because it is politically dangerous for them to do so.
Everyone including "Miker6" wants to make cuts. However, no one wants to run their next campaign based on I made cuts to this program or that program that cost you the voter "x" amount of dollars. Even the public says it wants cuts, but they won't vote for the guy who just cut whatever their favorite program is.
You ask the President to choose because you don't want to be accountable for the choices. He asks the House to choose because he don't want to be responsible for the choices. Both should be making the choice but at this point everyone would rather play politics than play grownup. Including those in the public like "Miker6" who enable these folks or by the "lefty" who enable these folks. Until you quit playing lefty-righty or I hate Obama not much is going to get done.
"doesn't"
You are wrong Turk. Something is getting done as long as both sides cannot reach an agreement. Frankly, I hope they NEVER reach an agreement on this unless it is to do spending cuts that are MORE than the sequester.
Remember, these "cuts" are only reductions to increases. Not cuts.
If this goes on long enough, the molasses that is the Fed Gov will eventually flow into the right corners of the mold where money needs to be spent.
After reading the NY Times article on the budget crisis I felt informed and of course a little disgusted with the politicians in Washington, as usual. However, when reading the Globe artcle I felt a rush of panic, kind of thinking the world was ending. I had to go back to other articles to get my bearings. Why? because as they say your "health is everything" and the Globe focused primarily on cuts in medical research. Ah, yes I realize a true scare tactic as the Deomcrats wanted. I have never voted Repulican but am thinking of it! What has gotton me thinking that way? Alexander Flemming who invented penicillin, a miracle drug proabably did not have tons of funding from the goverment. Edison who invented the lightbulb, yeah that was big. Did he get federal funding? I'm not sure. But one thing I know is yes funding is important but an idea is an idea, hard work gets you everywhere. Steve Jobs I believe started in his garage. Forgive me if my facts are not 100%. The world will not end.
The Globe, a Boston newspaper, appropriately takes a look at what will have an impact in Massachusetts.
As for your belief that 19th century methods of financing scientific discovery apply in the 21st century-- this is extremely naive. The reason the progress in the 20th century and 21st century has been so rapid is that governments recognize the benefits to the public that arise when scientific discovery is open to all and shared by all.
Did you know that thousands of lives could have been saved if special childbirth forceps invented by a French family of doctors had been shared? But they were not. The family kept them secret for decades in order to increase their profits, allowing women to suffer and die in childbirth and failing to prevent untold numbers of stillbirths.
We need public financing of science in order to make the benefits of science open to all, including entrepreneurs who will bring the ideas to market.
Kate: if the gov is so open with research is that why Swarz hung himself after all the threats by the prosecutor for hacking into MIT? Those docs were all funded by gov research. But they were not open to all, as you like to think.
You are more than a bit naive yourself.
The Republicans will do anything on earth to thwart Obama, whom they hate with a fury that trumps everything else. They will do this even if it brings the country down in flames, themselves with it.
Produce a budget
Obama hates the Republican party with such a passion that he is willing to risk the well being of Americans.
He is doing everything he can to accomplish their downfall. He is busier trying to be president of the democratic party than he is being president of the U.S.
He will tear the country apart to further his nonsensical ideas.
The story of obstetrical forceps should be noted by all when they consider public financing of science.
Did you know that thousands of lives could have been saved if obstetrical forceps invented by a French family of doctors had been shared? But they were not. The family kept them secret for decades in order to increase their profits, allowing women to suffer and die in childbirth and failing to prevent untold numbers of stillbirths.
We need public financing of science in order to make the benefits of science open to all, including entrepreneurs who will bring the ideas to market.
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forceps_in_childbirth
Snippet "The success of this dynasty of obstetricians with the Royal family and high nobles was related in part to the use of this "secret" instrument allowing release of live child in difficult cases. In fact, the instrument was kept secret for 150 years by the Chamberlen family,"
If it publicly funded, then we need to quit prosecuting so called "hackers".
this is such grea t news finally . a mere 2percent is causing all that's scare tactics!..? let's start with furloughs for congress and their bloated staffs first. then all the overhead. so much waste. stop borrowing money and printing money and bailing out big banks and sending money to Egypt and now Syria...it's endless
the cut is equal to 2 1/2 french fries out of a Big Mac Extra Value Meal
Well, that is NOT true, VNG. You see, MickyD's controls their portion sizes, they do not just keep making them bigger and bigger every year.
But, since the Federal Gov is like a pig at the trough, they just want more slop thrown in. They already weigh in at over 2 tons and are shooting for 3 tons.
correction: they weigh in at almost 17 trillion tons, and would like to go for 20 trillion tons.
"History" All I am seeing in what you write is politics, not reality. What is overhead to govt.? It is the same as it is for any business. Electricity, building rental, heat any number of expenses that cannot be reduced or cut. You and "Miker" supposedly hate the Pres. as much as he supposedly hates the Republican. Both are silly statements. At least I hope you hating the President is a silly statement. "Miker6" and you make contradictory argumets. The House has the power of the purse string, the President does not. Yet you would hold the President responsible for what the House chooses to do.
You state that these "cuts" are merely reductions in increases. A statement which shows you really don't understand the sequestration or how it works or how in fact the federal budget works. Back in the day I have participated in meat axe cuts and it is not as you present it. The problem we have here between you and I is you are seeking someone to blame. I'm not.
I have said many times I am quite open to cuts in federal benefits, even those that I receive, however, regardless of how much you rant, the public is not. These particular cuts are not advisable nor do they change the long range problem. The "long term" debt which this has very little impact on is wrapped up in revenues and entitlements and defense dept reform. Even as we write Republicans are trying to mitigate the cuts in defense. So how does that fit into your honest debate? It doesn't.
You and "Miker6" seemingly have only one item on your agenda. A dislike for Obama, period. I'm not even sure policy is anything except a means to express it. Now I don't know why and I don't particularly care. I find what you write interesting and even at times when you drop the "I hate Obama" mode some good ideas. But when we stoop down to the blame game and ignore reality game we get reduced to nonsensical statements.
The government isn't McD's and things one does in govt. has a tremendous impact on real live human beings, even if they don't effect you. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" or even political to ask the question does the particular policy that is being pursued cost effective and the answer in this particular instance is, No.
"History" Just to clarify. These "cuts" are made on the budget established for 10/01/12 thru 09/30/2013. This means agencies have been under this budget for the past six months and have operated under its assumptions. Therefore the 85 billion comes out of the final six months of the year and is indeed a cut. It takes a bit of logical twisting to say well it's higher than last year. How about I whack your income for the balance of the year after you've already budgeted on the higher level.
It will hurt, but perhaps you don't care and you are certainly entitled not to give a flip about those that do get hurt.
Attaturk: I am calling BS on your statements.
We are talking LESS than 3% here. In another response, you stated that cuts in junkets, etc would not make a difference. Yea, right, as they say in DC, a million here, a million there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.
You keep trying to say you are not partisan. I am calling BS on that too.
Why should I give a flip about those in the gov who get hurt? All the rest of us fly without a safety net, they are breaking my heart.
You have obviously sucked in for the whole "terrorizing" being done by the prez's campaign team.
85 billion is small potatoes in a huge federal budget: this cut will not cause widespread hardshp. Entitlements are largely excluded from the sequester. Defense takes a disproportionate hit. It was Barack Obama who proposed a sequester in the first place but now he demagogues the House GOP. What a sad state of affairs.
The hypocrisy of our President and the Democratic Party in this sequester debate is overwhelming, as evidenced by three facts.
First, the sequester idea itself came from the Obama White House. Bob Woodward is the culprit who in his latest book (The Price of Politics) has outed Obama as sequester's daddy. According to this book, Obama personally approved of the plan for the White House Chief of Staff (Jack Lew) and White House congressional-relations chief (Rob Nabors) to propose the sequester idea to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The President’s Press Secreatry (Jay Carney) on 2/12/12 confirmed the sequester idea was initiated by the Obama Whiter House. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/12/
jay_carney_admits_sequester _was_the_presidents_idea.html.
Second, I remember the papers reporting in early January that both sides would agree to an immediate tax rate increase for those earning $400k or more (Republicans compromised here, yielding on its "no tax increase" position), and all agreed they would separately address the issue of sequester. That’s why Bob Woodward says that Obama, by now re-tying revenue raisers to the sequester debate, is moving the goal posts.
Third, on 2/28/13 Republicans in the Democratc-controlled Senate proposed to allow the President to identify what federal budget cuts would take place starting 3/1/13, as long as the total budget cuts would equal what the indiscriminate sequester cuts would produce. The Democrats in the Senate shot down the Republican proposal, stating that tax increases should accompany Presidential authority to make the budget cuts.
Now, given these three indisputable facts, how can anyone say that both sides are to blame? The blame clearly is with our President and the Democratic Party. Watch for fiscally responsible Democrats to switch their their voter registration to Independent, and then they'll apologize to their parents and vote Republican!
Easy if you are objective and without a political agenda.
1. Woodward has already been discredited, much to my regret because I like him.
However we now know Boehner wanted the grand deal but Kantor talked him out of it leading to Boehner and Obama agreeing to the sequester. Did you forget Boehner's "I got 98 percent of what I wanted."
2. You remembering readinf reports of both sides agreeing to an immediate rate increase is a matter of faulty memory. Do you recall it. The Senate voted it forcing a vote in the House with a majority of Dems. carrying the vote, not Rejpublicans.
3. Republicans moved this legislation to avoid taking responsibility for the cuts.
If the cuts are such a great idea why doesn't anyone take credit. People comment, "Great we got cuts. Don't blame us. Blame Obama." Do you hear what you are saying? What they are saying?
We want these cuts.
But these cuts aren't our fault.
Weird way to think isn't it?
Instead of sucking up to Obama like other liberal journalists, Woodward is mildly critical. So, in your mind, he hs been discredited. Go figure.
Lets see if I understand this correctly. $85b cut ths year represents roughly a 2.8% cut in spending and the world will end. I receive 2% less in my weekly check due to the increase in the payroll tax and I'm told to live with it
well put
On a personal note, I would like to thank 'attaturk' for trying valiantly to interject "reason" into the debate over sequestration. It is indeed a pity there are not more like him in Washington at the moment. The government budget debate might move productively forward if there were.
Let's hope not. We do not need more taxes.
Really "History" you pay that much in taxes. Somehow I doubt you pay more than me and mine are down from previous years. That arguement regarding taxes is not supported by the facts, unless you have a problem with local taxes. However, in that case I'd take it up with the State or locality. Of course if we cut the federal budget local taxes will indeed go up. But then that is probably another reality you would call bs on.
In todays's Globe you canalso read about the 50,000 American troops in Japan. Why are they there? I wonder if we 'SEQUESTERED'
military installation in Japan and in other nations around the world, we could use thqt money to avoid the SEQUESTER of
needed grants and funds for entitlements.
I can't seem to avoid typos.
George Will said it well today in his column:
Progressives are remarkably uninterested in progress. Social Security is 78 years old, and myriad social improvements have added 17 years to life expectancy since 1935, yet progressives insist the program remain frozen, like a fly in amber. Medicare is 48 years old, and the competence and role of medicine have been transformed since 1965, yet progressives cling to Medicare “as we know it.” And they say that the Voting Rights Act, another 48-year-o
"History" You can call bs on anything you want. You can call bs on the fact 2 plus 2 equals four, but it doesn't change the facts. You say you don't care about those in govt. that get hurt. That's fine. What about those outside of govt. that get hurt. Beyond that I'll call bs on you.
You like the sequester? Then say thank you Mr. President. You can't say it is his fault, bad man that he is, because the sequester is great. It is either great or it is bad. He either did a good thing or a bad thing or he didn't do it.
You say I'm not objective. I say the sequester is bad and that Obama and the House Republicans are at fault. You say it is only the President. You say it is only a 3 percent cut. But it is more than a 3 percent cut to the agencies involved. Why because it is not across the board. I call bs that you don't understand that, because I know you're smarter than that.
Just because you don't want to believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. Now you can either consder the viewpoints of others or disregard them out of hand. In all honestly I would never call bs on you. I'd disagree. As I have said quite often you have good suggestions, but only when you don't have your, "agenda" hat on.
How to efficiently cut a budget isn't a "liberal" or a "conservative" question it is a budgetary function. For all the ranting you have not in one instant rebutted anything I have said regarding how the sequester impacts govt. nor have you rebutted the fact that it is a bi-partisan FUBAR. And I know as a vet you know what FUBAR means.