I heard something about Capitol tours being suspended. My first thought was "Washington Monument Syndrome" or whatever the term is for putting vital functions front and center for cuts. Second notion was: can't tours be run by volunteer docents with minimal paid staff, combined with nominal visitor fees for breakeven, if they aren't already?
I think the syndrome is what most of this will be. Reducing public access, which is such a small amount of the budget that it's practically immeasurable. You won't see any cuts in entitlement programs, you'll mostly see the "hurt" in things that annoy and inconvenience people who actually pay taxes. My concern is stuff like screwing with defense to prove a point.
You and AZRedhawk will be happy to know that the air interdiction pilots here (the ones I previously mentioned who actually provide useful service, like catching kiddie smugglers) are not flying.
You and AZRedhawk will be happy to know that the air interdiction pilots here (the ones I previously mentioned who actually provide useful service, like catching kiddie smugglers) are not flying.We have more government than we can afford - for good and bad.
There's lots of waste in government, sure. But one does not cure cancer by taking a small chunk from each square inch of the body.When you're talking about government, poorly planned cuts are better than no cuts at all.
What sequestration is actually doing, is cutting the pay of hard working folks, while not actually decreasing the deficit. For every lazy GS15, there are many GS-5s or contractors who are going to be very, very hurt by a 20 percent pay cut, and who generally are hard working folks.Things are rough all over. I lost 12% of my pay back in 2008. Of course, I still had to come in every day. And pick up the slack of those of the team that were fired. And relatively speaking my benefits suck.
Just for clarity, because I'm not sure if you were kidding or not, I'm not in the AZ camp. Your concerns are my concerns.
We have more government than we can afford - for good and bad.When you're talking about government, poorly planned cuts are better than no cuts at all.
That said, as I understand it sequester wasn't ever really intended to take place. It was intended as a kind of threat to force lawmakers to come up with well-considered cuts. They chose not to, so ...
I fully expect this to result in Congress restoring funding to everyone and increased spending in the end. Government employees will cheer and we'll continue to build up debt - for as long as that will last.Things are rough all over. I lost 12% of my pay back in 2008. Of course, I still had to come in every day. And pick up the slack of those of the team that were fired. And relatively speaking my benefits suck.
I think cuts should be made more rationally, but no matter how they are made there are plenty of good, hardworking people that will lose their jobs or lose pay. That someone, somewhere's ox is getting gored isn't in and of itself a reason to not make cuts.
Yeah, my point though is, if we're going to hurt hardworking folks, we need to at least be making meaningful cuts.
Right now, we're hurting people financially who cannot afford it, foralmost noperceived political gain.
Yeah, my point though is, if we're going to hurt hardworking folks, we need to at least be making meaningful cuts.We agree there. But until the national credit card gets rejected there will never be meaningful cuts.
Right now, we're hurting people financially who cannot afford it, for almost no gain.Ill conceived though this may be, is this not still a reduction in the cost of government? Are we not saving money we'd otherwise have to borrow? It isn't going to save the country, but what would? If we were start cutting enough to realize some significant gain, I guarantee you that it would hurt a lot more people much more deeply than this sequester business ever will.
We agree there. But until the national credit card gets rejected there will never be meaningful cuts.
Ill conceived though this may be, is this not still a reduction in the cost of government? Are we not saving money we'd otherwise have to borrow? It isn't going to save the country, but what would? If we were start cutting enough to realize some significant gain, I guarantee you that it would hurt a lot more people much more deeply than this sequester business ever will.
Any significant cut in government will hurt good, honest people financially who cannot afford it. Every one of them considers their job (phony baloney or otherwise), program, welfare check, Social Security payout, grant, position, benefits, etc. to be necessary and important, and almost all rely heavily if not exclusively on the income. Even eliminating the most bloated, mismanaged unnecessary projects in government would hurt some hard-working folks on the bottom who can't afford to lose their jobs.
This isn't - to use your earlier analogy - like curing cancer. This is curing addiction, and withdrawal is never fun, even if it is necessary.
To your point, i don't believe sequester IS causing us to spend less money. I believe, first of all, that through the magic of baseline budgeting, we're simply INCREASING spending LESS.Yeah, I know that. That's how all government "cuts" and "savings" work. I'm not trying to defend baseline budgeting at all; I abhor the concept, but less increase is still better than more increase, n'est-ce pas? This is nowhere near enough, but still a tiny step in the right direction, isn't it?
Second, i wholeheartedly believe that the sequester will table, maybe indefinately, any talks of meaningful cuts. They'll reach a deal , start back up again, and no one will make any progress on meaningful cuts.Half right, anyway. You are correct insomuch as the (Obama encouraged) weeping and gnashing of teeth associated with the sequester will result in a setback when it comes to meaningful cuts. The other side is that it doesn't really matter where you make the cuts - the reaction by those who are cut will always be the same. Small cuts made, affected parties make the cuts as painful and publicized as they possibly can, weeping, gnashing of teeth, issue becomes toxic, politicians back off, etc.