Sequester Pain - why not the administration

[Craig234]

Your point is moot. If Gephardt's rule were still in force it wouldn't have changed a thing. We've had no budget etc.

Fern

You're wrong. As I understand it, Gephardt's Rule made debt ceiling increases automatic with APPROPRIATIONS bills, and we HAVE HAD appropriations bills.

Regardless, the topic is who is to blame for the sequestration and holding the economy hostage by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling.

This is quite relevant to answering that.

Democrats recognized the threat of politicizing votes on the debt ceiling and created that Gephardt rule to prevent it - he was a Democrat.

Republicans got control and removed it so they were politicized, and promptly threatened to not increase the debt ceiling if a list of their demand wasn't agreed to.

Democrats got control and put it back.

Republicans got control and removed it again - setting the stage for the debt ceiling hostage taking under Obama by a Republican House.

That says a lot about 'who's to blame' for the earlier period also.

 

[Fern]

So does Obama cutting tours mean he's grandstanding, or does Boehner "rearranging the budget" to not cut tours mean he is? All depends on how you look at it.

Strikes as a very odd way to look at it.

To compare one person who rearranges the budget to carry on business as much usual to one who cuts high profile programs makes no sense.

And I see them as wholly unnecessary and ridiculously expensive; and thus, not only something that very well should be among the first programs curtailed during budget cuts, but that I'd like to see axed permanently.

Really?

Spending ridiculous money on GSA employees to tour the globe on lavish vacation type trips, silly IRS videos, studies on why lesbians are overweight - well I could on and on - but then claim that WH tours should be the first thing cut is weird. WH tours are essentially a museum visit and about American history.

I can think of many more things that should be cut first.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern
[ ... ]
BTW: I've been curious exactly what those in the SS who are no longer working on WH tours are now doing?

Fern

I read that they've been reassigned to other areas to reduce overtime expenses and mitigate the impact of furloughs.

Well, this begs the question of what exactly those other assignments are that require overtime and are using SS that was assigned to WH tours. (Apologies in advance to grammar gurus. I never know when that phrase is used properly.)

Are they Michelle and Obama's trips? They've had three vacations already this year and were not even done with March yet.

What are those assignments?

The point being someone chose to continue those programs/events that were using overtime over and above continuing WH tours. I.e., it was discretionary to cut WH tours.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

I can think of many more things that should be cut first.

What should the SECRET SERVICE cut first? Recall the options they laid out.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Spending ridiculous money on GSA employees to tour the globe on lavish vacation type trips, silly IRS videos, studies on why lesbians are overweight - well I could on and on...

You could, but unless you can demonstrate that those things fall into the same budget area as the White House tours, I'm not sure it really matters.

I'm opposed to all wasted spending -- I even started a thread on that stupid IRS "training" video. But that's really neither here nor there.

Tours of the White House are entirely unnecessary. Why shouldn't they be among the first things cut?

 

[fskimospy]

You could, but unless you can demonstrate that those things fall into the same budget area as the White House tours, I'm not sure it really matters.

I'm opposed to all wasted spending -- I even started a thread on that stupid IRS "training" video. But that's really neither here nor there.

Tours of the White House are entirely unnecessary. Why shouldn't they be among the first things cut?

Fer realz. How horrible would it be to be forced to deny someone federal aid because we had to keep White House tours?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We visited my son last summer because he had a summer job in DC. We wanted to tour Congress and the White House.

Congress? No problem. Make reservations a bit in advance, go at the appropriate time, they have a whole apparatus set up to handle lots of people.

The White House? Sorry, you can only get in if you get a recommendation from your representative. And it takes months of advance notice even if you can get that.

That's not akin to a museum. It's basically a fancy perk for the well-connected. I'd be fine with cancelling them permanently.

 

[Fern]

You're wrong. As I understand it, Gephardt's Rule made debt ceiling increases automatic with APPROPRIATIONS bills, and we HAVE HAD appropriations bills.

Your post specifically said "budgets".

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
That's not akin to a museum. It's basically a fancy perk for the well-connected. I'd be fine with cancelling them permanently.

I've never been, never even tried. But unless news report wrong plenty of schools take kids through the WH tour.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What should the SECRET SERVICE cut first? Recall the options they laid out.

I've asked what those other overtime assignments were that absorbed the SS staff from WH tours. Until that is known I can't begin to answer. That's where I would look first. I do not recall any options being laid out.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

You're wrong. As I understand it, Gephardt's Rule made debt ceiling increases automatic with APPROPRIATIONS bills, and we HAVE HAD appropriations bills.

Regardless, the topic is who is to blame for the sequestration and holding the economy hostage by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling.

This is quite relevant to answering that.

Democrats recognized the threat of politicizing votes on the debt ceiling and created that Gephardt rule to prevent it - he was a Democrat.

Republicans got control and removed it so they were politicized, and promptly threatened to not increase the debt ceiling if a list of their demand wasn't agreed to.

Democrats got control and put it back.

Republicans got control and removed it again - setting the stage for the debt ceiling hostage taking under Obama by a Republican House.

That says a lot about 'who's to blame' for the earlier period also.

Democrats recognized the threat of politicizing votes on the debt ceiling and created that Gephardt rule to prevent it? Um, no. Democrats recognized the political danger of continually voting to raise the debt ceiling and created that Gephardt rule to avoid having to vote to raise it.

"Who, me? No way, I never voted to raise the debt ceiling! I'm for fiscal responsibility!"

Cross-reference automatic salary increases at this point.

 

[fskimospy]

Democrats recognized the threat of politicizing votes on the debt ceiling and created that Gephardt rule to prevent it? Um, no. Democrats recognized the political danger of continually voting to raise the debt ceiling and created that Gephardt rule to avoid having to vote to raise it.

"Who, me? No way, I never voted to raise the debt ceiling! I'm for fiscal responsibility!"

Cross-reference automatic salary increases at this point.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Lots of economists, former officials, ratings agencies, etc, all support abolishing the debt ceiling. It adds a lot of instability.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I've never been, never even tried. But unless news report wrong plenty of schools take kids through the WH tour.

If they let school groups in then I think that definitely has value.

As for the debt ceiling itself, it needs to go. It's an utterly pointless gesture that means nothing and causes nothing but problems.

The time to cut spending is when spending is being discussed -- not after it is already spent. The debt ceiling reminds me of overweight people who, rather than actually lose weight, refuse to buy larger clothes when the current ones no longer fit.

 

[werepossum]

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Lots of economists, former officials, ratings agencies, etc, all support abolishing the debt ceiling. It adds a lot of instability.

I agree they aren't mutually exclusive and that battles over the debt ceiling add some instability. I simply believe that having national debt in excess of GDP (with far greater unfunded liabilities) adds much more of a problem. A battle over raising the debt ceiling adds short-term instability while the battle is ongoing; debt we cannot possibly repay (at least within any reasonable time frame) and show no sign of even moderating adds long-term instability.

 

[highland145]

We visited my son last summer because he had a summer job in DC. We wanted to tour Congress and the White House.

Congress? No problem. Make reservations a bit in advance, go at the appropriate time, they have a whole apparatus set up to handle lots of people.

The White House? Sorry, you can only get in if you get a recommendation from your representative. And it takes months of advance notice even if you can get that.

That's not akin to a museum. It's basically a fancy perk for the well-connected. I'd be fine with cancelling them permanently.

My wife worked for a sitting congressman and we didn't get the tour because he skipped out of town a few days early.

 

[Craig234]

I've asked what those other overtime assignments were that absorbed the SS staff from WH tours. Until that is known I can't begin to answer. That's where I would look first. I do not recall any options being laid out.

Fern

So it's definitely your opinion there are better spending cuts for the Secret Servce, but you don't have the information to have any idea what they are to 'begin to answer'. Got it.

"I can think of many more things that should be cut first."

What are they?

"Until that is known I can't begin to answer."

 

[Agent11]

Hooker fund?

Seriously though, there is always somewhere to tighten the belt.

 

[Craig234]

Hooker fund?

Seriously though, there is always somewhere to tighten the belt.

Actually, that's one of the biggest myths.

In a way there's a bit of truth to it, in a way it's not correct.

Since there's always somewhere, let's just cut 10% again. And then again. Again, again, again, again. Hey, are you saying you can't fing 10% to cut?There's always somewhere.

The public needs to get a bit of a clue that organizations aren't going to be perfect. It's very important to try not to waste money, but this idea that 'there's always waste to cut' is basically false and that acting on that view would pretty much always mean to cut again and again an again but that those cuts will cut 'the good stuff' in fact, however much you wanted them to 'cut that mythical 'waste''.

Waste is just a politician's bogeyman to actually cut programs.

So on the one hand, Al Gore led a commission that actually did try to find some 'waste' to cut and made a lot of cuts. Some would argue it was cover for defense cuts.

But on the other, a politician who wants to cut spending on feeding kids won't say that, he'll say 'there's waste in the program' and that's what he's cutting.

'Waste' is mostly a myth and cuts aimed at it generally don't find it, they cut the program.

Consider how much 'waste' there is in corporate spending. There's a lot. The point isn't that that justifies government 'waste' or that there isn't a different responsibility with tax dollars - despite there being a similar responsibility to shareholders for corporations - but rather to note that this so-called 'waste' is largely something you can't really get rid of beyond a point.

You need to understand that some 'waste' can be cut, but there's going to be some, and not let it be demagogued and that at a point trying to cut more will not cut 'waste', but program.

 

[Agent11]

You are correct, at some point the capacity to do their job would be compromised by continued cuts. This is the first significant cut they have had to deal with however.

 

[Craig234]

You are correct, at some point the capacity to do their job would be compromised by continued cuts. This is the first significant cut they have had to deal with however.

I used that to help illustrate the point.

But it can apply to the first 10% cut as well, depending how much 'waste' there is.

And I have no reason to assume there is 10% waste in the Secret Service, or even much of any waste that will be found to cut if the budget is cut.

Hence the cuts will affect something that matters more.

The agency told the President they'd be furloughing a lot of agents as the alternative.

The President said he was not in favor of 'cutting the income of agents by furloughing them'.

I think that's a sensible position. But some people - not saying you - just will always simplistically, ignorantly, blindly say 'ya, cut 10%, good bout time they get a cut of waste'.

So what I'm saying is, on the one hand, there's a bit of 'real issue' to waste. There absolutely is real and excessive 'waste' in any organization that there should be processes to find and reduce. But that also the issue is largely a myth and political device used for demagoguing and excusing cuts to good programs and should not have that sort of ignorant and blind support always in favor of cuts saying 'the govenment is filled with waste'. The sequestration is absolutely not about 'cutting waste'.

It's good to understand that there are some things a politician can get great public support for by demagoguing. And it's hard to think of one easier than demagoguing against 'waste'. Because he can ramble on in a speech about waste and the audience will cheer and love him, he'll demagogue it, real or not, for that reason. It's a bit like Joe McCarthy and communists in the government.

The people don't realize they're being demagogued, and anyone who tries to point out the guy is demagoguing is attacked as 'being in favor of waste' BOO!!!!!

Republicans need themes to get elected on, and 'waste' is about the best they have.

Now, they haven't been entirely responsible when in power about 'waste', and so their ability to milk the issue has lessened a bit lately, but in the past it's been a golden goose.

While I'd say there was some merit to that Al Gore commission I mentioned, I don't think Clinton didn't understand the politics that he'd get credit and take the issue from Republicans.

Thing is, a politician can want to screw you badly with his policies and not talk about them - so he can demagogue on 'waste' and get elected. So they do.

Whenever you hear a politician talk about waste, it's a red flag for BS. That's how the issue is actually used.

Defense is a bad example, because there actually is so much 'waste'. The actual programs include all kinds of waste. I'm not referring to programs for the troops, but weapons and contractors.

In addition to the waste we have today, every war has had big examples of profiteering - disgusting cases of people ripping off the government. I've read the history where in the civil war companies would sell horrible boots that hurt the troops for high prices and similar things to make a buck. Truman's claim to fame in the Senate was the Senate commission on huge WWII profiteering.

But let's say there's a case where a president does want to cut defense that's not legitimate waste and it'll be politically unpopular - a likely way for him to do it is to claim 'waste' as the justification.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I work for a federal agency. My job does not interface with the public, what I do supports a groups that does interface with the public, but I would say that every job in the government either interfaces with the public directly or is support for a group that does. (For every White House tour leader there has to be a group that does security, one that does payroll, one that manages benefits, ect...)

I am most definitely feeling the effects of sequestration. My hours have been cut back. My department as of now has NO supply budget. That means if I need a new pen I have to go buy one myself. Now this might not sounds like much, but try doing your job when you can't get basic supplies to do it with.

My job is very technical and deals with federal regulations that change every year, and are also affected by court rulings. It takes a lot of training to keep my staff up to date on the current rules that we are charged with enforcing. This year we will be doing less then half the training we have done in the past. And really, our training was insufficient to start with.

 

[fskimospy]

There is in fact surprisingly little waste in federal budgets that is easily addressable through legislation, and the reason for that is really clear. Every lawmaker wants to fund some pet projects, but getting people to agree to new appropriations is hard. If you can just find enough waste to cover the outlay, now your program is free! So politicians have good motivations to find waste that is easy to legislate against.

 

[Craig234]

I work for a federal agency. My job does not interface with the public, what I do supports a groups that does interface with the public, but I would say that every job in the government either interfaces with the public directly or is support for a group that does. (For every White House tour leader there has to be a group that does security, one that does payroll, one that manages benefits, ect...)

I am most definitely feeling the effects of sequestration. My hours have been cut back. My department as of now has NO supply budget. That means if I need a new pen I have to go buy one myself. Now this might not sounds like much, but try doing your job when you can't get basic supplies to do it with.

My job is very technical and deals with federal regulations that change every year, and are also affected by court rulings. It takes a lot of training to keep my staff up to date on the current rules that we are charged with enforcing. This year we will be doing less then half the training we have done in the past. And really, our training was insufficient to start with.

You're absolutely right, and it's sad that some citizens act like little tyrants and like to try to abuse government workers.

That mentality leads to a 'who wants to work for the government' vicious cycle making government less effective leading people to dislike it more and treat it worse leading to...

They're like little children IMO. People need to have some appreciation of government and understand it has to be competitive in hiring.

 

[Fern]

So it's definitely your opinion there are better spending cuts for the Secret Servce, but you don't have the information to have any idea what they are to 'begin to answer'. Got it.

"I can think of many more things that should be cut first."

What are they?

"Until that is known I can't begin to answer."

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.

The very fact that those SS assigned were reassigned demonstrates flexibility with regard to sequestration and the SS budget. It's a very reasonable question to ask where, and for what purposes, those reassignments went.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I work for a federal agency. My job does not interface with the public, what I do supports a groups that does interface with the public, but I would say that every job in the government either interfaces with the public directly or is support for a group that does. (For every White House tour leader there has to be a group that does security, one that does payroll, one that manages benefits, ect...)

I am most definitely feeling the effects of sequestration. My hours have been cut back. My department as of now has NO supply budget. That means if I need a new pen I have to go buy one myself. Now this might not sounds like much, but try doing your job when you can't get basic supplies to do it with.

My job is very technical and deals with federal regulations that change every year, and are also affected by court rulings. It takes a lot of training to keep my staff up to date on the current rules that we are charged with enforcing. This year we will be doing less then half the training we have done in the past. And really, our training was insufficient to start with.

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.