# Did anyone else survive the sequester? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769 "2013-04-03T20:48:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/61 "2013-04-04T18:08:00Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > Keep on repeating those GOP talking points. Who do you think would carry more of the blame: a president who offered the concession of using chained CPI, even with opposition from his own party ([Link](http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/287691-senate-dems-challenge-obama-on-chained-cpi-in-social-security)), or a GOP who absolutely, positively, stubbornly refuses to even consider any possible option that would increase revenue, in any way? > > This anti-tax paranoia is the problem. Does anybody seriously think we can cut our way out of this deficit without somehow increasing revenue? If you’re not going to even entertain the notion, I say you can’t blame the other guy for not compromising with you. I will await calmly, for forty days and forty nights, for your cite showing me the serious proposals that were put forth. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/62 "2013-04-04T18:09:16Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Four month “trend”. The myopia of statist analysis should never be underestimated. > > There has been unprecedented growth in the government over the last decade or so. This was accompanied by no increase in breadwinner jobs over that same period. For some reason bucking a four month trend is not one of my concerns. Because people in government jobs never buy bread? For the record, Will, the term [“breadwinner” job](http://blog.ourfuture.org/20110118/where_are_the_breadwinning_jobs) does not seem to make a distinction between jobs in which an un-unionized strong-chinned American workingman shovels ore in a steel mill free from government influence and jobs in which flabby government bureaucrats impose their will on the proletariat. “Breadwinner” jobs are simply jobs that pay enough to put bread on the table for a family. So government jobs fit the definition, if they pay enough. Service jobs stacking shelves at Walmart do not. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/63 "2013-04-04T18:22:54Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > Keep on repeating those GOP talking points. Who do you think would carry more of the blame: a president who offered the concession of using chained CPI, even with opposition from his own party ([Link](http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/287691-senate-dems-challenge-obama-on-chained-cpi-in-social-security)), or a GOP who absolutely, positively, stubbornly refuses to even consider any possible option that would increase revenue, in any way? > > This anti-tax paranoia is the problem. Does anybody seriously think we can cut our way out of this deficit without somehow increasing revenue? If you’re not going to even entertain the notion, I say you can’t blame the other guy for not compromising with you. I forgot to mention that you DID get an increase in revenue. In fact, it was that very thing which led to the sequestration. GOP talking points more? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/64 "2013-04-04T19:13:13Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Wow, this is full of ignorance. First of all, we have been shedding government jobs over the last four years. > > Secondly: > > [First-time unemployment claims soar to 385,000, possibly reflecting early impact from the sequester](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/04/1199133/-First-time-unemployment-claims-soar-to-385-000-possibly-reflecting-early-impact-from-the-sequester?detail=hide) > > So, not only is this a dramatic increase, but it also is the third week of increases in a row. When the trend is downward for months and you start seeing marked surges in the other direction, shrugging it off is just stupid, and yes, myopic. Ok bud. When the cuts initially set in of course there is going to be an increase in unemployment. There has to be a period of transition so that these resources can be put to use in more productive outlets. Government intervention into the market in the form of unemployment benefits will delay this. So will higher taxes on capital. I’m obviously talking about how the sequester will effect long term trends, which you are loathe to address. Firstly, do you deny government spending has increased astronomically over the last decade? Secondly, do you deny that breadwinner jobs have not been created over this period? If you deny either of these we will have a debate. If you don’t deny them, why, besides partisan bickering, are you worried about what has happened over this short period? I would guess because it more closely aligns with your economic dogmatism. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/65 "2013-04-04T19:18:24Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Because people in government jobs never buy bread? > > For the record, Will, the term [“breadwinner” job](http://blog.ourfuture.org/20110118/where_are_the_breadwinning_jobs) does not seem to make a distinction between jobs in which an un-unionized strong-chinned American workingman shovels ore in a steel mill free from government influence and jobs in which flabby government bureaucrats impose their will on the proletariat. “Breadwinner” jobs are simply jobs that pay enough to put bread on the table for a family. So government jobs fit the definition, if they pay enough. Service jobs stacking shelves at Walmart do not. I’m glad we have a consensus on the meaning of “breadwinner jobs”, but I’m confused as to why you thought I wasn’t aware that government bureaucrats were among these. In fact those are the ones I’d wager win the most bread of all. Lets call them Blue [Ribbon](http://www.schmidtbaking.com/) for cheekiness. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/66 "2013-04-04T19:44:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So the sequester did not force the tower closings. It’s something that government bureaucrats chose to do. Yes, you are quite right. [The FAA is self funded](http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is funded primarily by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (Trust Fund or AATF) which receives revenues from a series of excise taxes paid by users of the national airspace system — and by the General Fund. The Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970 created the Trust Fund to provide a dedicated source of funding for the aviation system independent of the General Fund. Trust Fund revenues are derived from excise taxes on: ``` Domestic airline passenger tickets Domestic airline passenger flight segments International passenger arrivals and departures Air cargo waybills Aviation fuels Amounts paid for the right to provide mileage awards ``` Current Status At the beginning of FY 2012 the Trust Fund had a cash balance of $10.3 billion. If you drill down to the monthly receipts you see this little gem: Congress has the authority to appropriate amounts in excess of currently available trust fund assets. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/67 "2013-04-04T19:51:26Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Ok bud. … so that these resources can be put to use in more productive outlets. > Firstly, do you deny government spending has increased astronomically over the last decade? … I would guess because it more closely aligns with your economic dogmatism. Increased government spending over the last decade has included big outlays for Bush’s wars, interest on the debt, Medicare and Medicaid. Of these, I think only Medicare is subject to sequester-forced reductions; those reductions take the form of reduced payments to providers, not furloughing lazy government workers. Another big item in recent federal spending is making up shortfalls, largely for schools, to state and local governments. I’m not sure about “astronomically” – NASA is still a smallish budget item – but those asking for reduced government spending are asking specifically to shortchange students, veterans, and Medicare patients. The idea that federal government employment has ballooned is another right-wing prevarication. From [this source](http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-obama-reagan.html) we can find total nonmilitary Federal employees as a function of President: ```auto Beginning of Carter's term 2,883,000 Beginning of Reagan's terms 2,875,000 Beginning of Bush-41's term 3,113,000 Beginning of Clinton's terms 3,083,000 Beginning of Bush-43's terms 2,703,000 Beginning of Obama's terms 2,756,000 In 2010 2,840,000 ``` Yes, there’s been a slight uptick under Bush-43 and Obama, but the absolute numbers are still less than under Carter or Reagan. And these are _absolute_ figures – U.S. population has risen. BTW, the three largest groups of these employees are for civilian defense, post office, and veteran affairs. And the veteran affairs workers are largely caregivers, not paper-pushers – you’re confusing V.A. with the private sector (whose virtues you extol 😉 ). Veterans will be proud to learn they’re asked to serve the country again, by having fewer caregivers so those nurses will be “more productive.” ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/68 "2013-04-04T20:12:58Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’m glad we have a consensus on the meaning of “breadwinner jobs”, but I’m confused as to why you thought I wasn’t aware that government bureaucrats were among these. From your own post: “There has been unprecedented growth in the government over the last decade or so. This was accompanied by no increase in breadwinner jobs over that same period.” So, Will, explain your point to me. Government jobs are breadwinner jobs. If there’s been no increase in breadwinner jobs over the past decade AND there’s been unprecedented growth in government, that must mean that the private sector has lost a ton of “breadwinner” jobs. So, your mean-spirited dismissal of the jobs numbers aside, where do you think those displaced workers are going to get jobs if the government isn’t hiring? And what do you think is going to happen to the economy when those people don’t have jobs? ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/69 "2013-04-04T20:16:23Z")
> [@phouka](#): > > - 15% of the workers at a missile test site in the Marshall Islands This sentence no verb. > [@phouka](#): > > - Montana may have to return over $1 to the USDA That’s like worth what, half a roll of toilet paper? Why don’t we have a collection drive. > [@phouka](#): > > - > - USDA is no longer reporting milk production, leaving dairy farmers with no idea how to price their milk. Instability for a crucial part of the food supply. Umm, farmers aren’t stupid. What did they do before there was a USDA to report milk production? Didn’t they gauge the market and set prices according to what it would bear? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/70 "2013-04-04T20:23:34Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I will await calmly, for forty days and forty nights, for your cite showing me the serious proposals that were put forth. [here’s one](http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan). It has balanced domestic and military cuts, health care reforms, revisions to CPI, closing tax loopholes, cuts to Federal employees. It literally has something for everyone. However, it comes from the secret Muslim, so of course it isn’t serious. (Funny how conservatives reject any proposal they didn’t invent as not being “serious”.) The Senate also had a majority vote for a package that would eliminate the sequester by eliminating some agriculture subsidies, closing tax loopholes, and various other stuff. Republicans filibustered it to death, so I guess things that get majority votes in the Senate aren’t “serious?” Meanwhile, the “serious” Republicans put together a “serious” package on “serious” sequestration. Too bad it only got 38 votes. That’s seriously embarassing. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/71 "2013-04-04T20:24:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Tourists face fewer services in Harkers Island, N.C.? The opening of campgrounds along the Arkansas River has been delayed?? Air shows cancelled in Rapid City, Louisville, _and_ Cleveland??? Army Band cancels concert in Orangeburg??? Parks face fewer resources in Montana??? Dirtier restrooms at parks in San Francisco??? Horse help reduced in Reno??? > > Okay, you’ve convinced me. Horse help being reduced in Reno is a catastrophe that this country just can’t live with. > > In your post, you mentioned 193 jobs cut in Hampton City Schools, supposedly resulting from the sequester. The [article](http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-03-27/news/dp-nws-hampton-schools-budget-proposed-0326-20130327_1_cafeteria-monitors-expenses-instruction-class-sizes) which supposedly justifies this actually says that the jobs are being cut mostly due to local budget problems, with cuts from the sequester playing only a small part. I have a funny feeling that if I actually clicked on all 100 links in the article, I find quite a few similar cases of people trying to blame the sequester for budget cuts that would have happened without it. The Huffington Post benefits from an audience that will accept anything it says without criticism and can thus play fast and loose with the facts. > > In other cases, you’re moaning about cuts to programs that have been proven to not work. You list cuts to Head Start on eight occasions in your post. [Study](http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/head-start-tragic-waste-money) after [study](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/05/head-start-program-fraudulent-and-ineffective#_edn1) has shown that Head Start doesn’t work. Even [liberal democrats](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html) cite it as an obvious example of a program that should get the ax. So shouldn’t we celebrate the fact that we’re wasting slightly less money on such a worthless program? > > You also apparently want me to be very sad about the fact that the USS Rentz won’t be deployed this month. You did not explain why this is supposed to be a bad thing. As far as I’m concerned, anything which reduces the military’s ability to kill people is a good thing. In this case, though, the ship was probably only scheduled to waste taxpayer money. > > It would seem that your post consisted of copying and pasting from a website without actually thinking about what you were copying and pasting. Once the website’s claims are exposed to a little bit of thought and scrutiny, its argument doesn’t stand up. Report after report have also said that Head Start works. Maybe you should start a dedicated thread about it, because I see you bash it a lot. Most of the time, the criticism seems to be about academic benefits to Head Start even though it also is supposed to help with nutrition, health, and parental involvement. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/72 "2013-04-04T20:27:54Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So the sequester did not force the tower closings. It’s something that government bureaucrats chose to do. Im not sure if you’re arguing that tower closings are good or bad, but that’s irrelevant. You’re missing the whole damn point: the sequester hasn’t fully kicked in yet. Do you understand that? If so, why did you post the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/73 "2013-04-04T20:34:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > [here’s one](http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan). It has balanced domestic and military cuts, health care reforms, revisions to CPI, closing tax loopholes, cuts to Federal employees. It literally has something for everyone. However, it comes from the secret Muslim, so of course it isn’t serious. (Funny how conservatives reject any proposal they didn’t invent as not being “serious”.) > > The Senate also had a majority vote for a package that would eliminate the sequester by eliminating some agriculture subsidies, closing tax loopholes, and various other stuff. Republicans filibustered it to death, so I guess things that get majority votes in the Senate aren’t “serious?” Meanwhile, the “serious” Republicans put together a “serious” package on “serious” sequestration. Too bad it only got 38 votes. That’s seriously embarassing. Did this deficit reduction involve all cuts or did it also include new revenue streams? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/74 "2013-04-04T20:36:29Z")
> [@theR](#): > > Report after report have also said that Head Start works. Maybe you should start a dedicated thread about it, because I see you bash it a lot. Most of the time, the criticism seems to be about academic benefits to Head Start even though it also is supposed to help with nutrition, health, and parental involvement. You are highlighting his exact point. There will ALWAYS be a need to keep whichever governmental agency open, forever. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/75 "2013-04-04T20:54:55Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Increased government spending over the last decade has included big outlays for Bush’s wars, interest on the debt, Medicare and Medicaid. Of these, I think only Medicare is subject to sequester-forced reductions; those reductions take the form of reduced payments to providers, not furloughing lazy government workers. When I say government spending is unproductive I’m not taking a dig a government workers. If you assume government workers are the hardest workers out there they would still be unproductive because of the nature of their tasks. > [@](#): > > The idea that federal government employment has ballooned is another right-wing prevarication. From [this source](http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-obama-reagan.html) we can find total nonmilitary Federal employees as a function of President: > > ```auto > > Beginning of Carter's term 2,883,000 > Beginning of Reagan's terms 2,875,000 > Beginning of Bush-41's term 3,113,000 > Beginning of Clinton's terms 3,083,000 > Beginning of Bush-43's terms 2,703,000 > Beginning of Obama's terms 2,756,000 > In 2010 2,840,000 > > ``` Nice factoid but I never claimed government employment increased. I claimed government increased, meaning spending. That’s what is being cut. That is what the sequester debate is about, government spending not government employment. I’ll rephrase my questions, do you deny government spending has increased substantially over the last decade or so? Do you deny that there have been zero net breadwinner jobs over this period? > [@](#): > > BTW, the three largest groups of these employees are for civilian defense, post office, and veteran affairs. And the veteran affairs workers are largely caregivers, not paper-pushers – you’re confusing V.A. with the private sector (whose virtues you extol 😉 ). Veterans will be proud to learn they’re asked to serve the country again, by having fewer caregivers so those nurses will be "more productive Firstly, I do not extol the virtues of the “private sector” in health care, as you cannot even call it a free market with a straight face. Secondly, most veterans have been duped into believing they were serving their country but were only serving their government and its cronies. Finally, please don’t say we need the government to run a post office, because that means I have been wasting my time. Actually all you’ve done in your post is disprove something I never said, and obfuscate the topic at hand i. e. why have breadwinner jobs stagnated while government spending soared. So I guess it’s too late. > [@Finagle](#): > > From your own post: > > “There has been unprecedented growth in the government over the last decade or so. This was accompanied by no increase in breadwinner jobs over that same period.” > > So, Will, explain your point to me. > Government jobs are breadwinner jobs. > If there’s been no increase in breadwinner jobs over the past decade AND there’s been unprecedented growth in government, that must mean that the private sector has lost a ton of “breadwinner” jobs. So, your mean-spirited dismissal of the jobs numbers aside, where do you think those displaced workers are going to get jobs if the government isn’t hiring? And what do you think is going to happen to the economy when those people don’t have jobs? 1. never said government jobs increased 2. the private sector is taking a shit because soaring government spending has diverted resources from entrepreneurial activities. Not to mention, expansionary monetary policy diverted trillions of dollars into an unsustainable housing bubble and continues to destroy savings. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/76 "2013-04-04T21:05:54Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The idea that federal government employment has ballooned is another right-wing prevarication. From [this source](http://www.politicususa.com/big-government-obama-reagan.html) we can find total nonmilitary Federal employees as a function of President: > > ```auto > > Beginning of Carter's term 2,883,000 > Beginning of Reagan's terms 2,875,000 > Beginning of Bush-41's term 3,113,000 > Beginning of Clinton's terms 3,083,000 > Beginning of Bush-43's terms 2,703,000 > Beginning of Obama's terms 2,756,000 > In 2010 2,840,000 > > ``` > > Yes, there’s been a slight uptick under Bush-43 and Obama, but the absolute numbers are still less than under Carter or Reagan. And these are _absolute_ figures – U.S. population has risen. That’s entirely true, and it’s something that more people should be aware of. Over the past 20-odd years, the salary and benefits that the government gives to each employee have shot up. The result is blatantly predictable and obvious to anyone who understands basic math. They can’t afford to hire as many employees as they used to because each employee costs so much. The same thing is even clearer for lower levels of government. Liberal strongholds like California and Illinois have much lower numbers of state employees–particularly teachers-- per capita than conservative states like Texas. The problem is obviously not tax revenue, since the liberal states have the highest taxes in the nation. The problem is that the public sector unions have pushed individual salaries and benefits so high that places like California simply can’t afford to hire many of them. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/77 "2013-04-04T21:29:36Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Did this deficit reduction involve all cuts or did it also include new revenue streams? :dubious: Helpful hint: clicking on blue underlined words (including my previous posts) takes you to web pages that tend to contain more information. ---
**Author:** ![Edward\_The\_Head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Edward\_The\_Head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edward_The_Head)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/78 "2013-04-04T21:33:11Z")
I don’t know about the rest of the agencies, but in the meetings that we had the FAA was required to make cuts across the board, there was to be no moving of money around, so if they wanted 5% gone then 5% had to be cut off of every thing. I don’t know why people think everything is going to happen all at once, especially since it hasn’t started yet. My first furlough day is in three weeks. I already know what days I will be furloughed between now and September. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I can imagine some pretty good messes coming out of it. Yes planes can land at airports without towers, but just the few I’ve looked at in the DC area fall on the edges of the Potomac TRACON, which means they will now have to handle the extra flights those outer towers handled. So not only will the controllers be furloughed, but they will be expected to do more with less people to help them. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/79 "2013-04-04T22:35:45Z")
There is no excuse for furloughing people in a self-funded government program that has excess funds in it. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769/80 "2013-04-04T23:09:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I know a number of people who work for the federal government or the various institutions that feed off it. None have suffered unduly from the sequester as far as I know. All continue to bring in a higher salary than I get from my private-sector job. > > [A quick search](https://www.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetSESResults) at a government website shows us that there doesn’t appear to be any shortage of government offices that are currently hiring, and salaries are not exactly low. You’ve heard of “attrition”, right? People sometimes retire or get other jobs. And sometimes you can’t just get rid of their job. If you have a doctor’s office, you are probably okay if one of the receptionist positions disappears, but you can’t exactly choose not to replace the doctor. A lot of agencies are have been hiring only on attrition for some time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-else-survive-the-sequester/654769.md?page=5)