Do you have any actual clue what services and oversight the FAA provides to the airline industry and the public-at-large?
Stranger
If I lose my job can I blame it on the sequester too?
To be serious, who cares whether sequester hurts or not. What has been done to make the sequester a bad dream?
Nothing, NADA, zilch and Zero. No serious proposals were ever put forth.
So now, let’s discuss who owns this baby, AGAIN.
Ow, ow, stop! Your straw man is hurting me!
I’m not saying air safety is going to be seriously affected by this. Although if you think you aren’t going to see more delays this summer via fewer controllers AND fewer TSA employees, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn you can have cheap.
I am saying communities with large numbers of federal employees are going to feel the economic effects of less income going to those employees. The sequester will have an impact on the economy … we just haven’t seen it yet. That’s what I’m saying.
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 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 after study has shown that Head Start doesn’t work. Even liberal democrats 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.
The proper way to cut worthless programs is to cut worthless programs. Not to cut every program equally.
And then they get their asses kicked in another election and tell themselves that the problem is that the voters just don’t understand the GOP’s message. I think they understand it just fine and reject it. The sequestration is hurting lots of people including the poor, American Indians and enlisted military personnel. Of those people the only ones who are even a blip on the GOP’s radar is the military, but really they only want them for the photo op; and the GOP is fine if that photo op is flag draped (less chance of the prop getting off message).
Man, I am really hoping that ALL the TSA agents will be gone. Talk about speeding up the airport!
I agree.
Uh, which liberal programs do you wish to discuss the destruction of?
Okay, when can I expect the Obama Administration or Congressional Democrats to propose the elimination of Head Start or any of the other federal programs that have been classified as failures by government research?
If the answer is “never”, then it seems I should take whatever cuts I can get, rather then holding my breath and waiting for the Democrats to cut federal spending in the proper way.
Exactly. The president is fucking people over just to try and score some political points. “The republicans are evil meanies!” Even though all of congress and the president signed the sequestration bill.
The White House tours had to absolutely stop because of sequestration and because there was no money but the president is still having his private concerts with Justin Timberlake and Queen Latifah because that is vitally important to the country.
Okay, since Democrats and the media have apparently decided that the control towers will be their victims of choice, let’s have a look. There are 516 control towers in the USA. There are about 20,000 airports in the country, with about 5,000 being public. So obviously some airports survive without control towers. It’s very doable and not difficult.
Just because the FAA chooses to stop funding the control towers doesn’t mean they have to shut down. The state of Texas, for instance, will provide funding for towers that lose federal funding. Of course that’s not a realistic option in states facing a more dire financial situation, many of which are run by Democrats.
There is actually no need to close any towers.
Republicans contend that there should be ample opportunities for savings elsewhere in the FAA’s budget, which has increased more than 50 percent since 2000, while domestic air traffic has declined 27 percent over the same period. In fact, all of the air-traffic-control towers identified for closing were operational in 2009, when the FAA’s budget was smaller than it will be under sequestration.
The FAA must cut $637 million, or roughly 5 percent, from its budget for the remainder of the year, and it has insisted that the only possible way to meet that target is to close the designated towers. However, Thune and Shuster identified nearly $3 billion in annual non-personnel costs that should have been examined for cuts before the FAA resorted to closing towers and requiring furloughs, including $500 million in consultant fees, $179 million in travel expenses for employees, and $143 million in operating costs for the FAA’s own fleet of 46 aircraft.
The GOP also touts the general agreement among members of the airline industry that the FAA has enough room in its budget, and sufficient authority to move funds around, to avoid the disruption that could result from closing air-traffic-control towers and furloughing employees. Major airlines, as well as the industry’s leading trade organization, Airlines for America, have drafted legal memos to this effect.
So the sequester did not force the tower closings. It’s something that government bureaucrats chose to do.
Here is my take on the sequester.
Yet again I’m in a district that is having major layoffs because of the economy. This makes the third year that districts have to get smaller and cheaper. It also means that for the few jobs that are available they either want brand new teachers or teachers with 3-5 years experience and little continuing education. Good luck finding a job with a masters or 6+ years in teaching. In the private sector there are many similar stories.
But now that government employees are affected by the economy and lack of any real response from the government that now it is a crisis.
Uhh, if you read my post, you would see that i am not denying that the FAA provides services to the airline industry. They have a twofold effect: 1)free services to the airlines financed by taxpayers 2) instilling public trust in airlines that may not deserve it.
Your claim that the FAA helps the “public-at-large” is a silly generality devoid of meaning.
The sequester will have an effect that is proportionate to its scale. Which is to say miniscule in the long run. Of course, there is also Bastiat’s “that which is not seen”. If taxes were raised to cover the sequester, we wouldn’t be able to have an itemization of the cost of that policy like we can with cuts to government.
While I may not agree with your use of “minuscule” (I’m the one dealing with a forced 10 percent pay cut here), as I stated previously, the administration erred in exaggerating the immediate impact of the sequester. It will hurt certain locations and some areas of the economy, but it’s not going to be any kind of epic disaster.
My posts here, though, are to address this from the OP:
Well, yeah. Because the actual cuts to pay/furloughs haven’t happened yet! Things may change for your life, or they may not. But you can’t say the full impact of the sequester has hit and things are hunky dory. The impact is still coming, gradually and cumulatively.
I work for a software company that is also a defense contractor. We’ve laid off 10% of our staff as a direct result of sequester having disproportionate effect on military research budgets, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more.
Anecdotal evidence from colleagues suggest that this is across the board. RFPs from the Department of Defense are down closer to 20-25%.
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), 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 say we shut down all the city dumps.
After all, my garbage once didn’t get collected for two weeks, and everything was fine! The streets didn’t overflow with refuse, all that happened was our bins got a little full. Clearly, garbage collection isn’t that big of a deal.
Andjobless claims increase, bucking a four month trend. Maybe yesterday wasn’t the ideal day to start this thread.
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.
Wow, this is full of ignorance. First of all, we have been shedding government jobs over the last four years.
Secondly:
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.