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

[MtnMan]

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.

Really, are you that naive? This is theater, and they don't give a damn who suffers. They also know that since we are almost 2 years from the next election, they know that the sheeple in this country will have forgotten all about it.

 

[Elfear]

Or, gosh, that 20% less work will be done, because they'll be sitting home one day a week, NOT getting paid?? 🙄

The bottom line to this whole thing is that BOTH sides are at fault. The elected officials in DC are the most dysfunctional group this country has EVER seen, and might as well just go home, for all they're accomplishing! They don't CARE about the very people who have elected them, because they're wrapped up either in their own delusional idea of how the country should be run, or they're so beholden to special interests that their hands are tied......or BOTH!!

Meanwhile, the very people who work for them continue to suffer, while the politicians drag their feet, and do NOTHING. To add insult to injury, while the folks that keep government working from day to day have to put up with a 20% pre-tax drop in pay (probably a higher percentage in their take-home pay, depending on their deductions), the very people who have caused all of this will continue getting their full pay and benefits! Not only that, but the workers have found out that, due to the stupid LWOP (leave without pay) rules, after 5 pay periods of living with less money, they'll also get hit with a double-whammy gotcha, by not getting any vacation time accrued to that pay period! This can add a day or two MORE time they won't get paid, since they won't get that vacation time!! 😵

Meanwhile, Obama, the Congress and the Senate continue to fiddle, while Washington DC burns. I say fire the whole lot of them, and put some normal people back in those positions! 😡

Exactly.

I'm a federal employee and furloughs will definitely reduce productivity in my organization. I'm sick and tired of the stereotype that feds are lazy and unproductive. That has been the opposite of my experience as I work with some very hard-working individuals.

The sad thing is that DoD-wide there are ~800,000 employees who will be furloughed. The 20% reduction in pay will not only affect those individuals but also the local businesses and economies where they live. Depending on the state, many of those employees could draw unemployment, a further drain on the economy. It doesn't appear that actual savings will be anywhere close to $85B.

Do cuts need to be made? Absolutely. But across-the-board cuts is the stupid way of doing it. In fact the way cuts are coming down is by appropriation or "pot of money" which takes much larger chunks out of some programs than others. One program might take a 40% cut while another might take 15%. There is no analysis to see which program is effective and which could be trimmed back. So troop training might see almost half it's budget cut while the Army band might see 10%.

Both parties in Congress need to quit being whiny posturing babies and start working together. Appoint a panel of top military advisors who could help trim the fat effectively for DoD and do something similar in the other Departments.

 

[Zorkorist]

<-- Glad to see pissed off federal workers.

<-- Hoping there are pissed off Military people too.

Federal spending cuts... finally.

-John

 

[Generator]

Me to. This thread is the true face of welfare and bloated government. Most agree that the cuts are meagre, but that doesn't stop the gluttons from squabbling. People of intelligence or hell maybe just honesty know this government is broke. That is what happens when you make up wars, deliberately prolong them, and then lose said wars. Somewhere along the line those working for military industrial complex actually thought there jobs were of purpose. Its just the dole, it all the dole.

There is a real economy that has been suffering from a massive, festering tumor around the neck. Reality is a scarce thing these days. These sequesters are just a blip of that reality that should make any honest man smile.

 

[Zorkorist]

These sequesters are just a blip of that reality that should make any honest man smile.

🙂

-John

 

[cubby1223]

Or, gosh, that 20% less work will be done, because they'll be sitting home one day a week, NOT getting paid?? 🙄

Or government employees will work 20% faster because they now know keeping their job is not a guarantee. If you cannot produce, there are replacement workers already being interviewed.

Welcome to how the rest of us live.

 

[cubby1223]

Do cuts need to be made? Absolutely. But across-the-board cuts is the stupid way of doing it. In fact the way cuts are coming down is by appropriation or "pot of money" which takes much larger chunks out of some programs than others. One program might take a 40% cut while another might take 15%. There is no analysis to see which program is effective and which could be trimmed back. So troop training might see almost half it's budget cut while the Army band might see 10%.

I can pretty much guarantee the heads of every department when approached by higher-ups for ways to cut out waste, fraud, and excess, the heads stalled knowing that congress always caves in to spending increases.

You know that scenario The Prisoners' Dilemma? Where the prisoners know if they all keep their mouths shut they all go free. But the first person to rat out the others also goes free while the others are locked up.

Well, this is similar except the first department head who concedes he has too much money, loses. Say nothing and you always win. Government is too large to reduce spending with a "scalpel".

 

[blackangst1]

Scalpel, axe, or chainsaw, any cuts anywhere will mean people are out of work. On the macro level, it sucks for them. It really does. However, in the big picture, its best for the country.

 

[PokerGuy]

Both parties in Congress need to quit being whiny posturing babies and start working together. Appoint a panel of top military advisors who could help trim the fat effectively for DoD and do something similar in the other Departments.

How do you even start that process when the party in power doesn't believe that you should even slow down the rate of increase in spending by a tiny amount?? How can you have rational discussions about effective cuts in spending when they go crazy over a tiny reduction in the spending increases?

 

[PokerGuy]

No matter what congress does, there's always there are "families and faces" impacted. There are families and faces impacted by the deficit, the waste and the large tax bills as well. Nobody's talking about those. Instead, the idiots are pointing to a tiny reduction in the spending increases as the end of the world as we know it.

 

[RearAdmiral]

Or government employees will work 20% faster because they now know keeping their job is not a guarantee. If you cannot produce, there are replacement workers already being interviewed.

Welcome to how the rest of us live.

Hiring freeze is in effect. Those replacement workers would currently be contractors that cost the govt. about 3x as much as a federal employee.

 

[Atreus21]

Sorry, that's pure greed talking.

Being annoyed that you don't keep money that you rightly earn is not greed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Being annoyed that you don't keep money that you rightly earn is not greed.

That's be baffling part, libs seem to have this notion that you keeping money that you earned is being greedy, but government spending more and more is perfectly fine.

 

[Bowfinger]

Being annoyed that you don't keep money that you rightly earn is not greed.

I've already addressed this misdirection, but let's try it another way. Prove to me that YOU "rightly earn[ed]" the money. The fact that a number is printed on a pay stub doesn't mean YOU earned all of it. Some portion of it is certainly due to your hard work and abilities, but some is simply due to circumstance. You're lucky enough to work in a country that presents amazing opportunities thanks to centuries of building some of the world's best physical, financial, and educational infrastructure. If we put you in Guatemala, with the same work ethic, you'll "earn" a tiny fraction of that number on your pay stub.

Or to offer another example, let's say you're Justin Timberlake. You just held a concert in a stadium with 80,000 people, at an average cost of $50 per ticket. Does that mean YOU just "earned" $4 million? Hardly. You have to pay for the people and facilities that enabled you to perform. If you are "annoyed" that you have to pay those costs, you are being greedy. YOU (Timberlake) wouldn't be nearly so successful without them.

It is the same with taxes. They are a cost of being in a position to be successful. Rather than constantly whining that your glass is half empty, the healthy attitude is to cheer that your 64 oz drink is half full. For most people, that's so much better than the guy in Guatemala whose shot glass is completely full.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Appoint a panel of top military advisors who could help trim the fat effectively for DoD and do something similar in the other Departments.

The military should be doing everything they can to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse on a daily basis. However, we all know that the powers to be in the military will never return monies that have been allotted as it may affect financial allocations in the future.

 

[nehalem256]

Or to offer another example, let's say you're Justin Timberlake. You just held a concert in a stadium with 80,000 people, at an average cost of $50 per ticket. Does that mean YOU just "earned" $4 million? Hardly. You have to pay for the people and facilities that enabled you to perform. If you are "annoyed" that you have to pay those costs, you are being greedy. YOU (Timberlake) wouldn't be nearly so successful without them.

Except that to continue the analogy to taxes you also have to pay for people that are not contributing to your concert.

 

[monovillage]

......Prove to me that YOU "rightly earn[ed]" the money. The fact that a number is printed on a pay stub doesn't mean YOU earned all of it. Some portion of it is certainly due to your hard work and abilities, but some is simply due to circumstance. .........

It is the same with taxes. They are a cost of being in a position to be successful. Rather than constantly whining that your glass is half empty, the healthy attitude is to cheer that your 64 oz drink is half full.

Thank you for doubling down on stupid. Thank you for parroting the whole "You didn't build that" Obama meme. Thank you for expanding it to the "you didn't earn that" and the ever popular Democrat philosophy of "you don't own that".

Like most on the left you seem to think that the government actually owns/builds/earns everything and only through their kindly benevolence do they allow their citizens to actually keep a small fraction of what they produce.

 

[FerrelGeek]

That's be baffling part, libs seem to have this notion that you keeping money that you earned is being greedy, but government spending more and more is perfectly fine.

The powers that be in DC think it should all be their money with them deciding what you deserve to keep. Just one of the many ways our .gov is FUBARed.

The executive branch has had 15 months or so to prepare for this. If Obama, et al, were truly interested in governing, they'd have prepared for the reduction in increase in a rational fashion. Instead they choose to take the 'screw you' stance - 'you won't give us our money, well we'll show YOU!' Politicians at all levels do this. They're in the business of preserving their power and their way of life. Anyone who thinks the people running the show care about the 'faces' is an idiot.

Another problem is that the people that tend to rise in politics aren't business people, i.e., they typically don't have practical management experience. Obama has never held a real world job of any consequence. He's a good speaker, a good motivator of the weak-minded, but he's not a manager. If any real thought and planning would've been applied over the last 15 months, I guarantee you, there wouldn't be as many 'faces' affected by the sequester. Get it through your heads, the clowns running the show doin't care about you. You're a pawn in their power game.

 

[Bowfinger]

Thank you for doubling down on stupid. Thank you for parroting the whole "You didn't build that" Obama meme. Thank you for expanding it to the "you didn't earn that" and the ever popular Democrat philosophy of "you don't own that".

Like most on the left you seem to think that the government actually owns/builds/earns everything and only through their kindly benevolence do they allow their citizens to actually keep a small fraction of what they produce.

In other words, you can't address a single thing I said, but that won't keep you from shooting off your mouth like a fapping blowhard. Kindly crawl back into your nutter bubble; you have, as usual, added nothing to the thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

The powers that be in DC think it should all be their money with them deciding what you deserve to keep. Just one of the many ways our .gov is FUBARed.

The executive branch has had 15 months or so to prepare for this. If Obama, et al, were truly interested in governing, they'd have prepared for the reduction in increase in a rational fashion. Instead they choose to take the 'screw you' stance - 'you won't give us our money, well we'll show YOU!' Politicians at all levels do this. They're in the business of preserving their power and their way of life. Anyone who thinks the people running the show care about the 'faces' is an idiot.

Another problem is that the people that tend to rise in politics aren't business people, i.e., they typically don't have practical management experience. Obama has never held a real world job of any consequence. He's a good speaker, a good motivator of the weak-minded, but he's not a manager. If any real thought and planning would've been applied over the last 15 months, I guarantee you, there wouldn't be as many 'faces' affected by the sequester. Get it through your heads, the clowns running the show doin't care about you. You're a pawn in their power game.

Funny that you single out Obama when it is Congress that passes spending bills. Yes, Congress has been grossly irresponsible in falling back to across-the-board cuts instead of making hard decisions.

I'd also point out that as much as many on the right like to insist otherwise, business and government are not the same thing. Experience in one is not necessarily directly applicable to working in the other. The goals are fundamentally different, and the techniques for achieving those goals are often different. For example, a CEO doesn't have to get 60% of his VPs to agree with him before he can proceed. (Or perhaps even more accurately, a CEO doesn't have to get 60% of VPs -- many of whom work for a direct competitor -- to agree with him before he can proceed.) Government and business are inherently different animals.

 

[NoCreativity]

I can pretty much guarantee the heads of every department when approached by higher-ups for ways to cut out waste, fraud, and excess, the heads stalled knowing that congress always caves in to spending increases.

You know that scenario The Prisoners' Dilemma? Where the prisoners know if they all keep their mouths shut they all go free. But the first person to rat out the others also goes free while the others are locked up.

Well, this is similar except the first department head who concedes he has too much money, loses. Say nothing and you always win. Government is too large to reduce spending with a "scalpel".

At least where I am, the departments have gone through the budget cut drill and found ways to make the cuts with minimal impact to people and programs. But our hands are tied and we can't make the decision ourselves.

The morons in power are using this for political maneuvering and IMO making sure the cuts have the most visible impact so they can "win" or make the other side look bad.

 

[Matt1970]

Funny that you single out Obama when it is Congress that passes spending bills. Yes, Congress has been grossly irresponsible in falling back to across-the-board cuts instead of making hard decisions.

I'd also point out that as much as many on the right like to insist otherwise, business and government are not the same thing. Experience in one is not necessarily directly applicable to working in the other. The goals are fundamentally different, and the techniques for achieving those goals are often different. For example, a CEO doesn't have to get 60% of his VPs to agree with him before he can proceed. (Or perhaps even more accurately, a CEO doesn't have to get 60% of VPs -- many of whom work for a direct competitor -- to agree with him before he can proceed.) Government and business are inherently different animals.

Congress has to pass spending bills because Obama can't seem to put a budget together that can even seem to muster a Democrat vote, much less pass. Now we just pass bills that continue spending at 2009 emergency levels and the last time we tried to cut a measly $66 billion from one of those budgets it led to the bickering that got our credit downgraded.

 

[Bowfinger]

Except that to continue the analogy to taxes you also have to pay for people that are not contributing to your concert.

Stretching an analogy too far can make it meaningless, but I will point out that even in my example, Timberlake pays for many things that do not directly support his concert. For example, the cost of the stadium includes all sorts of overhead and ongoing expenses not related directly to the concert, but part of ensuring the venue prospers. This would include management and marketing expenses, employee benefits, financial management, ongoing maintenance, franchise fees and taxes, etc. These are not optional charges, but simply part of the overall cost of building and operating the facility.

Similarly, taxes are simply part of the overall cost of building and operating America. We all pay for things we don't personally use, at least not directly. Similarly, others help pay for services we use, even if they do not. That's how civilization works.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Funny that you single out Obama when it is Congress that passes spending bills. Yes, Congress has been grossly irresponsible in falling back to across-the-board cuts instead of making hard decisions.

I agree that congress needs to share blame. However, the executive branch does have some latitude in how money is allocated. The exec branch could have prepared better for the sequester.

I'd also point out that as much as many on the right like to insist otherwise, business and government are not the same thing. Experience in one is not necessarily directly applicable to working in the other. The goals are fundamentally different, and the techniques for achieving those goals are often different. For example, a CEO doesn't have to get 60% of his VPs to agree with him before he can proceed. (Or perhaps even more accurately, a CEO doesn't have to get 60% of VPs -- many of whom work for a direct competitor -- to agree with him before he can proceed.) Government and business are inherently different animals.

I was mainly referring to executive branch people hare: from the president on down to lower level department managers. They do have authority to make decisions on how their departments are run, just like in the private sector. An assistant deputy under-secretary, CAN cause change within the scope of what they manage. It seems as though innovation and proactivity has been bred out of our government.

 

[Matt1970]

I agree that congress needs to share blame. However, the executive branch does have some latitude in how money is allocated. The exec branch could have prepared better for the sequester.

Do they? When congress tries to cut a infinitesimal $66 Billion form a $4 Trillion budget, it led to the bickering that got our credit downgraded. Now when an $85 Billion cut from a $3.8 Trillion buget happens everyone is running around crying like it is the end of the world.