Sequester Pain - why not the administration

[Craig234]

Yes, I certainly can think of better things to be cut.

As to the specific question regarding SS, I asked where those people had been reassigned. The answer was 'elsewhere' to cut overtime. I then asked what are those 'elsewheres'?

In short, you've materially misstated by remarks.

No, I haven't, but you just materially misstated mine.

You said YOU KNOW better cuts than the WH tours. Under the law those cuts can only come from other Secret Service spending.

Saying YOU KNOW other area to cut instead of the tours means, well, that you know other areas - not that you're ready to start asking 'well what other functions are there?'

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You guys are losing everyone with all the he said / she said back and forth.

Craig, I think what Fern is trying to say is that there could well be other areas that could be cut, but we don't have the details.

Fern, I think what Craig is criticizing is that you appear to be saying the WH tours being cut was unnecessary, but if you can't identify specific alternatives, you don't have any way of knowing if cutting the tours was reasonable or not.

 

[Fern]

You guys are losing everyone with all the he said / she said back and forth.

Craig, I think what Fern is trying to say is that there could well be other areas that could be cut, but we don't have the details.

Fern, I think what Craig is criticizing is that you appear to be saying the WH tours being cut was unnecessary, but if you can't identify specific alternatives, you don't have any way of knowing if cutting the tours was reasonable or not.

I have said that I can think of better cuts that those to WH tours and I gave examples.

My complaints is that Craig appears to be claiming that I said I know of better SS cuts than those to WH tours. I never said any such thing.

He is misstating my previous remarks.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

I have said that I can think of better cuts that those to WH tours and I gave examples.

My complaints is that Craig appears to be claiming that I said I know of better SS cuts than those to WH tours. I never said any such thing.

He is misstating my previous remarks.

Fern

As I said, the law requires the cuts to come from the secret service. You can't say 'I'd cut the park service instead of wh tours' because the law doesn't allow it.

I didn't misstate one thing you said. You said you know of cuts to make instead of those tours - and those have to come from the secret service.

If you meant other departments not knowing the law, just say so.

 

[Fern]

From the OMB link in Charles' post #51 above. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...tive_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf

The Secret Service is under the Dept of Homeland.

Cuts to the Secret Service in total must be $84 million. Specific cuts are not detailed. I.e., sequestration did not get down any granular level and there was great discretion. (See pdf page 40/83 or report appendix page 27/70 detailing the cuts.)

The Secret Service employs approximately 7,000 personnel and has a $1.6 billion. budget. http://www.secretservice.gov/depdirector.shtml

According to a former SS agent the SS has no authority in making decisions about WH tours.

former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who explained that the Secret Service has no decision-making authority in regard to tours of the White House, despite Barack Obama’s initial claim that the DHS agency had forced their cancellation due to a lack of funds. Bongino blasted Obama for passing the buck, calling it “an act of political cowardice”

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/...g-agents-under-the-bus-on-tour-cancellations/

The OMB section related to the office of the President/White House designates no cuts to SS etc. (See pdf pg 65/83, report pg 52/70.)

It's hard to imagine a few million $'s can't be found elsewhere in a budget of $1.6 trillion. And if the former SS agents claim is to be believed, Obama specifically ordered the WH tours stopped.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Yes, it was something to the effect of $1 trillion in immediate cuts and a committee to find an additional $3 trillion in cuts.

Link pls.

Never heard of it and I'm particularly interested in see what cuts Harry Reid and the Senate Dems would have agreed to. (The $1 trillion, the committee part sounds like more of the usual 'kicking the can down the road'.)

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Fern, isn't "It's hard to imagine a few million $'s can't be found elsewhere" rather different than "I can think of many more things that should be cut first"?

If you really can think of those things, then please tell us what they are. Otherwise, I'd say you are just speculating about what other things would be better to cut.

 

[Craig234]

I'm done repeating the same thing over and over and over and having it ignored. The cuts can't come from just anywhere in the 1.6t dollar budget.

No one said the SS had decision making authority over the WH tours. Obama said the SS gave him options, and he chose cutting the tours over more furloughs.

 

[Fern]

Fern, isn't "It's hard to imagine a few million $'s can't be found elsewhere" rather different than "I can think of many more things that should be cut first"?

If you really can think of those things, then please tell us what they are. Otherwise, I'd say you are just speculating about what other things would be better to cut.

I already mentioned examples. My response there was to what appeared to be a general question. These question did not in any way specify what cuts to SS itself.

I was then asked what cuts to SS. My response to that specific question was that I would like to know where the WH tour agents were relocated before I answered that.

If people insist, I'm pretty sure I can find a detailed budget for the SS. As an accountant I'm pretty sure I can rather easily find $3 million in cuts in a budget of $1.6 trillion.

Part of the real point here is that the SS apparently had no discretion in where to nip and tuck for sequestration because Obama unilaterally cancelled the tours. (Again, if the agent is to be believed.)

The sequestration called for a 5% cut to the SS's budget. I find it odd, and objectionable, that WH tours got allocated a 100% cut. Several things seem more reasonable to me:

1. A partial cut of WH tours. I.e., scaling back hours or even a day. White House tours were available from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Tuesday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Fridays, and 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Saturdays.

2. I wouldn't have cut tours that were already scheduled. I'm particularly annoyed that the schools kids tours were cancelled. They spend all year fundraising, selling backed goods, washing cars etc and other stupid shizz to raise money for these trips. Now they're stuck.

I'd just cut down on as-yet unscheduled future tours for the above reason.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Several things seem more reasonable to me:

1. A partial cut of WH tours. I.e., scaling back hours or even a day. White House tours were available from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Tuesday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Fridays, and 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Saturdays.

2. I wouldn't have cut tours that were already scheduled. I'm particularly annoyed that the schools kids tours were cancelled. They spend all year fundraising, selling backed goods, washing cars etc and other stupid shizz to raise money for these trips. Now they're stuck.

I think these points make sense. But the criticism of the cut decisions made by the White House would be easier to take with specifics about what alternative, less-important programs could be cut instead.

 

[werepossum]

I already mentioned examples. My response there was to what appeared to be a general question. These question did not in any way specify what cuts to SS itself.

I was then asked what cuts to SS. My response to that specific question was that I would like to know where the WH tour agents were relocated before I answered that.

If people insist, I'm pretty sure I can find a detailed budget for the SS. As an accountant I'm pretty sure I can rather easily find $3 million in cuts in a budget of $1.6 trillion.

Part of the real point here is that the SS apparently had no discretion in where to nip and tuck for sequestration because Obama unilaterally cancelled the tours. (Again, if the agent is to be believed.)

The sequestration called for a 5% cut to the SS's budget. I find it odd, and objectionable, that WH tours got allocated a 100% cut. Several things seem more reasonable to me:

1. A partial cut of WH tours. I.e., scaling back hours or even a day. White House tours were available from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Tuesday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Fridays, and 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Saturdays.

2. I wouldn't have cut tours that were already scheduled. I'm particularly annoyed that the schools kids tours were cancelled. They spend all year fundraising, selling backed goods, washing cars etc and other stupid shizz to raise money for these trips. Now they're stuck.

I'd just cut down on as-yet unscheduled future tours for the above reason.

Fern

Already scheduled tours were cut because Obama wants to make the cuts as painful as possible for as many people as possible. We saw the same thing in Tennessee from a Republican governor who wanted a state income tax, in spite of the fact that our constitution forbids a state income tax. Therefore he closed the state's parks under the guise that we couldn't afford them with a state income tax when in fact the larger parks are national parks and closing them actually cost the state money because we lost all the federal money but a lot of the expenses remained.

Politicians are not often honest people, largely because that's not what we reward in our politicians. Those who are honest are either defeated or bend to what we reward. Obama is no exception. He is merely trying to hurt us until he gets his way. I can't really fault him for his choice because cancelling the tours doesn't decrease anyone's safety; he chose a fairly plausible target, so even though everyone knows what he's doing, it's difficult for the Pubbies to attack him for it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Welcome to a tiny bit of what the private sector experiences every day. When our taxes are raised or our costs increase, we inevitably have to learn to do more with less. I regularly work an average of several hundred hours each year of unpaid overtime, about a thousand this past year, and there have been plenty of times when as one of the owners, I did not get paid for weeks. Our budget is not automatically raised each year to adjust for additional needs and inflation, as we can neither print money nor borrow without the ability or intention to ever pay it back. The tools I use for diagnosing and re-terminating network cables I purchased (note that this is not my job, but it has to be done) and the laser tape I use came out of my pocket. My insurance is crap (and thanks to Obamacare just got markedly worse) and I venture to say I make a lot less than do you. We all (except for the lowest paid and the newest employees) took a 10% pay cut in 2007 to avoid laying off anyone - not a cut in overtime pay, but a cut in salary, for the same hours - and although our employees have been brought up to 2007 levels, the owners still have not.

404 error: Sympathy not found.

I was an IT project manager for more then a decade, and was IT support before that for several major oil companies. I know how to do more with less, I understand about working huge amount of unpaid hours just to compete with the guy down the hall. What I'm telling you is our budget has been cut past the point of doing more with less.

Remember we are not a profit seeking group, we won't go out of business if we don't accomplish our mission. If we fail taxpayers simply don't get the services they have paid for and we keep trying to do what little we can, even if we are completely ineffective.

 

[Craig234]

I was an IT project manager for more then a decade, and was IT support before that for several major oil companies. I know how to do more with less, I understand about working huge amount of unpaid hours just to compete with the guy down the hall. What I'm telling you is our budget has been cut past the point of doing more with less.

Remember we are not a profit seeking group, we won't go out of business if we don't accomplish our mission. If we fail taxpayers simply don't get the services they have paid for and we keep trying to do what little we can, even if we are completely ineffective.

Again well said. Unfortunately some people have an irrational hatred for the government with no idea how to have it be effective, letting their hatred destroy it if they could.

We need all kinds of things in place to keep the government from overspending, from wasteful spending, but we should support the government and employees doing good.

 

[Fern]

I've been questioning the $74k per week amount because it sounds a bit steep.

I found an explanation:

During tours, 37 Secret Service officers typically are stationed along the route, each getting paid $50 an hour for 40 hours each week, agency spokesman Edwin Donovan told POLITICO. That works out to $74,000 a week.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...rs-cost-a-week-for-secret-service-158762.html

Edit: The rest of the post questioned whether the cost savings is actually $74k. It seems every time I think about this I arrive at a different answer. So, not being comfortable with my calc I'm going to remove it so I don't mislead anyone.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

I haven't seen any clear information on the various options for the SS. When Obama said the alternative was to furlough other SS agents a day a week, how would that be filled? Do they just not have SS do things that day a week? It's unclear how the ending of the tours saves money unless they lay off those agents. So there are questions for people who want to get into the details of the issue, which I think is tiny not worth it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If those lower numbers are correct, that's $5,000 a day. If they're taking one school group through there per day, sorry, that's a bit rich for my blood.

Just get rid of them entirely, IMO. There's no need for a handful of schools to get this special, overpriced perk.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I haven't seen any clear information on the various options for the SS. When Obama said the alternative was to furlough other SS agents a day a week, how would that be filled?
Do they just not have SS do things that day a week?

It does not get filled, those tasks just go undone for that day. If they can they will reassign someone doing a low priority task to a higher priority task, but then that low priority task just goes undone.

It's unclear how the ending of the tours saves money unless they lay off those agents. So there are questions for people who want to get into the details of the issue, which I think is tiny not worth it.

It saves money right now by not paying those people during the furlough period. It might be that some of those tasks will have to be done by someone later, essentially eating up that savings. But for a large part it is likely that all it is really doing is pushing the costs down the road.

 

[Fern]

I haven't seen any clear information on the various options for the SS. When Obama said the alternative was to furlough other SS agents a day a week, how would that be filled? Do they just not have SS do things that day a week? It's unclear how the ending of the tours saves money unless they lay off those agents. So there are questions for people who want to get into the details of the issue, which I think is tiny not worth it.

They are going to save money by having the WH tour agents take some other duties and to the those duties were staffed by agents on overtime, you'll save the overtime because the (former) WH tour agents will be on 'regular time'. I.e., you're swapping a %50 per hr employee for a $75 per hr employee saving $25 per hr. (All things being equal. I was also surprised to see a base pay of $50 per hr for a govt employee, even if they are SS. I'm sure senior managers in the SS make good money, but your average agent?)

Yeah, agree, not really worth it. I also suspect no one would really be able to find sufficient detail because i doubt the SS discloses much of its detail for obvious security purposes.

Fern

 

[Fern]

If those lower numbers are correct, that's $5,000 a day. If they're taking one school group through there per day, sorry, that's a bit rich for my blood.

Just get rid of them entirely, IMO. There's no need for a handful of schools to get this special, overpriced perk.

I'm seeing the number of tours at 1.25 million people per year, with many more unable to get in. That was back in 1995. I have not found any current data. Info from the 1980's says as many as 6,000 per day. (So, forget about my estimate of an hr to compare sign-ins with sign-outs. I never imagined so many people went through there.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Visitors_Office#Tickets_and_methods

That's far less costly per person than I expected. It's only about $2-3 per person for a tour. (There are tickets, but they're free, so no costs recovered.)

If I was a Washington DC business person, with a restaurant, a vending cart, a hotel or a taxi etc, I'd be pretty unhappy about the potential loss of over a million customer. Although I imagine most would still come to DC because there are many things there to see.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Holy cow, you're right. I looked it up and found a limit of something like 4,500 people per day. That is multiples more than I expected, and in that context, the cost is reasonable.

This should be treated in the same general category as the national parks or other similar services provided to the public.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
This should be treated in the same general category as the national parks or other similar services provided to the public.

Given how many people tour that's an excellent way to view it: A national park.

(I'm still stunned there are that many people.)

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I was an IT project manager for more then a decade, and was IT support before that for several major oil companies. I know how to do more with less, I understand about working huge amount of unpaid hours just to compete with the guy down the hall. What I'm telling you is our budget has been cut past the point of doing more with less.

Remember we are not a profit seeking group, we won't go out of business if we don't accomplish our mission. If we fail taxpayers simply don't get the services they have paid for and we keep trying to do what little we can, even if we are completely ineffective.

Sorry if I'm wronging you, but like a great many private sector workers I have a very, very difficult time believing that any federal department has truly had its budget "cut past the point of doing more with less." Generally speaking, that cry is raised at every cut, and generally speaking those "cuts" are simply reductions in growth.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry if I'm wronging you, but like a great many private sector workers I have a very, very difficult time believing that any federal department has truly had its budget "cut past the point of doing more with less." Generally speaking, that cry is raised at every cut, and generally speaking those "cuts" are simply reductions in growth.

Do you have any actual experience working in a federal position or do you have any significant insight into it? You realize that overall budget increases are for services, not necessarily for administration, right?

What is your basis for disputing his account other than what you feel in your gut? Seems pretty weak to me.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Okay, I just wanted to say that every time I see this thread title in the forum list, for a second I think it says "Sequester Palin" and I chuckle a bit.

 

[werepossum]

Do you have any actual experience working in a federal position or do you have any significant insight into it? You realize that overall budget increases are for services, not necessarily for administration, right?

What is your basis for disputing his account other than what you feel in your gut? Seems pretty weak to me.

Nope, gut only. But to believe otherwise is to accept that the federal government's continuous growth has been not only essential, but at the bare minimum of what is really necessary.

Consider that we are borrowing more than a third of what we spend federally and are on a fairly continuous upward acceleration marked only by small and brief dips. Therefore, if it is true that the federal government's continuous growth has been not only essential, but at the bare minimum of what is really necessary, then we are all doomed in any case. Eventually the federal government will be consuming all our resources and still starving, unable to actually function properly.

Also, given that the federal government's share MUST come from the private sector, even if we can delay paying for today's spending, then if it is true that the federal government's continuous growth has been not only essential, but at the bare minimum of what is really necessary, the federal government must be the only such entity in our country. Perhaps it's better that it crash now, when it's a fourth of our GDP, than in two or three decades when it's more than half our GDP.