On Sequester cuts: "They forget it's faces and families"

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-sequester-cuts-start-today-article-1.1276854

Forget the fools in Washington, meet the Americans who will be hurt by ‘sequester’ cuts that start today

KITTERY, Maine — They don't care which side caused Washington's latest crisis.

Five hundred miles from Capitol Hill, the men and women of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard are worrying about paying rent, searching for new jobs and caring for sick loved ones.

Almost the entire workforce, a community of more than 5,000 along the Maine and New Hampshire seacoast, is preparing to lose the equivalent of a month's pay because of Congress' inability to resolve another budget stalemate.

Orsom "Butch" Huntley, 63, a shipyard employee for three decades, is already living paycheck to paycheck while caring for his terminally ill wife.

"Congress doesn't look at the individual. They just look at the bottom line. And it just really makes it tough to think we're just a number to them," Huntley, a computer engineer, said this week in a restaurant outside the shipyard gate. "It's going to be totally devastating."

The fear is consuming military communities as the nation braces for budget cuts designed to be so painful they would compel Congress to find better ways to cut the federal deficit. President Barack Obama and governors from across the nation have intensified calls for compromise in recent days to meet Friday's deadline.

Defense officials warn of diminished military readiness as the cuts begin to bite. Economists warn of damage to a delicate economic recovery. And federal officials warn of travel delays, slashed preschool access and closed national parks.

But in small towns whose economies are deeply tied to the military, there is a human impact that breeds anger and fear.

Across the table from Huntley, facilities engineer Kevin Do explains that he and his wife — also a shipyard employee — have already delayed plans to buy their first home because of uncertainty created by Washington. With a 4-year-old son in daycare, he's now looking for part-time construction work to help pay the bills, even if it means working seven days a week.

"We basically put the American dream on hold," Do said.

Preparing for a worst-case scenario, Navy officials have plans to force mandatory furloughs on roughly 186,000 civilian employees across the country. People like Huntley and Do would lose 22 paid days between April and October, or roughly 20 percent of their pay. Shipyards from coast to coast have outlined cost-cutting plans to delay huge maintenance contracts on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

Polling suggests that some Americans are still unaware of the looming cuts, known in Washington speak as a "sequester," but the debate is well known to federal employees and the huge network of businesses, contractors and communities that serve Navy shipyards and military bases. Virtually every nearby restaurant, grocery store or car dealer is aware of the looming cuts.

Some states are facing more pain than others. Oklahoma has five military installations. Chris Spiwak, owner of Chequers Restaurant and Pub outside Tinker Air Force Base in Midwest City, said he's afraid he might have to lay off an employee or two.

"We have customers telling us that if they're furloughed, they won't be coming in as much," Spiwak said. "That's their expendable income. They'll be eating at home or bringing their lunches."

And there is widespread uncertainty in Virginia, where many of the 21,000 workers at Newport News Shipbuilding are bracing for the worst. Obama addressed shipyard workers this week about the dangers of the spending cuts.

"Everybody's nervous, worried about what's going to happen," Ronnie Hall, a 27-year-old fleet support apprentice, said before the president spoke.

The president, who has pushed for a compromise deficit package of spending cuts and new tax revenue, seems to have the upper hand among the public over the standoff. A Pew/USA Today poll this week found 49 percent of Americans would blame Republicans in Congress if Obama and Congress couldn't strike a deal. Thirty-one percent would blame Obama, 11 percent would blame both of them and 8 percent were unsure.

On federal spending in general, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday found significantly more Americans in favor of Obama's handling of federal spending than Republicans in Congress, although neither side earned high marks. Half of the country disapproved of Obama's handling of the issue, while two-thirds disapproved of congressional Republicans.

The political stakes meant little to the workers gathered outside the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard this week during their lunch break.

"Both sides put us here," said Huntley, who had already lost his house because of his wife's medical bills. "At my age I should be in my golden years. But those things are gone. As the guys around me say, the golden years have taken the gold and just left me the years."

Next up for Congress and the White House is how to avoid Washington's coming crisis, which threatens a government shutdown after March 27, when a six-month spending bill enacted last year expires.

In Kittery, Do offered elected leaders a reminder: "They forget it's faces and families," he said. "There's a cloud over a lot of people."

As a government worker, although unaffected by the sequestration, I'm disappointed it has come to this. Indiscriminate, across-the-board budget cuts is neither smart nor practical. A scalpel would be better than an axe.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
As a government worker, although unaffected by the sequestration, I'm disappointed it has come to this. Indiscriminate, across-the-board budget cuts is neither smart nor practical. A scalpel would be better than an axe.

Don't delude yourself, there will never be a "scalpel".

There just as easily could be an article written towards those on the government dime titled "They forget it's faces and families paying taxes"
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Given that the biggest item cut is the military, which is typically considered something Republicans wouldn't want to cut.

You would think it would have been easy for Obama/Democrats to point out an equal amount of cuts they would like that were more "correctly" applied. But they didn't do this, because they don't want the cuts at all.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Given that the biggest item cut is the military, which is typically considered something Republicans wouldn't want to cut.

You would think it would have been easy for Obama/Democrats to point out an equal amount of cuts they would like that were more "correctly" applied. But they didn't do this, because they don't want the cuts at all.

This. And am I the only one who realizes that if the government can get by on a 20% furlow, that they are probably overstaffed by a similar amount?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Correct me if I am wrong but outside of military cuts the rest is "discretionary" which means someone (possibly the president) chooses where those cuts are made. If thats the case then those who do lose their jobs know who to look at.
 

nanette1985

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2005
4,209
2
0
Certainly sorry for anyone who gets cut. But hey, these folks have jobs and health insurance. Welcome to the real world. This is what a huge number of average citizens have been going through for a long time.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
This. And am I the only one who realizes that if the government can get by on a 20% furlow, that they are probably overstaffed by a similar amount?

You have no idea. I know plenty of people that survived the 10% state level cuts around here and a lot of them still have nothing to do.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-sequester-cuts-start-today-article-1.1276854



As a government worker, although unaffected by the sequestration, I'm disappointed it has come to this. Indiscriminate, across-the-board budget cuts is neither smart nor practical. A scalpel would be better than an axe.
It's not just Congress that forgets that real human beings are affected. It's all of the dittoheads who drone endlessly about the evils of government spending. They act as if tax dollars are being poured into a shredder. It's an ignorant, even idiotic point of view. The overwhelming majority of tax dollars go right back into the economy, either directly via government employees and beneficiaries, or indirectly into private sector contracts. That doesn't mean spending cuts aren't sometimes necessary, but let's not pretend such cuts don't hurt real people.

Based on my own past government experience, I also agree that across-the-board budget cuts are the least efficient way to cut spending. They are easy and brainless for the politicians, but they are also irresponsible. They invariably result in far more meat being cut than fat because most fat is entrenched within the system. Cutting it requires focus and planning, something you don't get in "Cut x%!!!" fire drills.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
$16.6 Trillion, 315 Million Americans, $52,698 debt owed by each Us Citizen.
Also considering there are really only 150 million people (faces) in the workforce that means each one of them has to come up with over $110,000

*EDIT* BTW, each one of those "faces" has to come up with $1500 a year just in interest on the national debt.
 
Last edited:

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
$16.6 Trillion, 315 Million Americans, $52,698 debt owed by each Us Citizen.
Also considering there are really only 150 million people in the workforce that means each one of them has to come up with over $110,000

Not all working people are taxed. For some, it's the other way around.

I would probably double your dollar amount to account for EITC and $0 taxpayers.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
This. And am I the only one who realizes that if the government can get by on a 20% furlow, that they are probably overstaffed by a similar amount?
No, you're not. There are many people who hold that delusion. You'd have a point if the government accomplished exactly as much, and did it exactly as well with a 20% cut, but it won't. Some services will NOT be delivered. Some payments will NOT be made. Some oversight, inspections, investigations, etc., will NOT occur. Somalia gets by with a much smaller government than ours ... but that doesn't mean it's desirable.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Don't delude yourself, there will never be a "scalpel".

There just as easily could be an article written towards those on the government dime titled "They forget it's faces and families paying taxes"
Sorry, that's pure greed talking. America's taxes today are low, both in historical terms and compared to other first-world countries. That's part of the reason our national debt is so high, because the party that trumpets its "fiscal responsibility" has been anything but responsible for the last 30 years. They've instead focused on pandering to the greedy, teaching them they're entitled to receive all the benefits of America without paying for them.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
if 85 billion[less of an increase] out of a 3trillion budget is an axe, I'm afraid to ask how small the scalpel would be.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Sorry, that's pure greed talking. America's taxes today are low, both in historical terms and compared to other first-world countries. That's part of the reason our national debt is so high, because the party that trumpets its "fiscal responsibility" has been anything but responsible for the last 30 years. They've instead focused on pandering to the greedy, teaching them they're entitled to receive all the benefits of America without paying for them.



In a time where middle class income and earning power continue its free-fall threads like this are evidence more people have been duped into fighting other middle class workers while protecting the super rich and the lobbying mega corporations that pay lower tax rates than the middle class does.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Good, it's about time the government starts cutting, should have been more the 85 billion.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
No, you're not. There are many people who hold that delusion. You'd have a point if the government accomplished exactly as much, and did it exactly as well with a 20% cut, but it won't. Some services will NOT be delivered. Some payments will NOT be made. Some oversight, inspections, investigations, etc., will NOT occur. Somalia gets by with a much smaller government than ours ... but that doesn't mean it's desirable.

I didn't say 1:1. Is it your honest position that every government worker is essential and fully utilized?

Which one of us is delusional?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I didn't say 1:1. Is it your honest position that every government worker is essential and fully utilized?

Which one of us is delusional?
Nice straw man, but I didn't suggest that at all. You, on the other hand, are being willfully dishonest, because it is what you suggested: "they are probably overstaffed by a similar amount." If you now recognize your comment was nonsense, man up and say so.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,683
11,270
136
Sorry, that's pure greed talking. America's taxes today are low, both in historical terms and compared to other first-world countries. That's part of the reason our national debt is so high, because the party that trumpets its "fiscal responsibility" has been anything but responsible for the last 30 years. They've instead focused on pandering to the greedy, teaching them they're entitled to receive all the benefits of America without paying for them.

:thumbsup: +
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Nice straw man, but I didn't suggest that at all. You, on the other hand, are being willfully dishonest, because it is what you suggested: "they are probably overstaffed by a similar amount." If you now recognize your comment was nonsense, man up and say so.

No, it's not nonsense. A similar amount is not 1:1.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
By not golfing with Tiger Woods... obama cold have saved enough to keep 350 jobs. Also, tfeds give out $175 billion per year in grants for people to goto college... even as results are dismal. Cut that amount in half and the immediate problem is solved.

Of course there are more political points gained from cutting pay and personnel, letting captured illegals out, delaying flights, etc etc.