I will await calmly, for forty days and forty nights, for your cite showing me the serious proposals that were put forth.
Because people in government jobs never buy bread?
For the record, Will, the term “breadwinner” job 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 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?
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.
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 for cheekiness.
Yes, you are quite right. The FAA is self funded.
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.
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 we can find total nonmilitary Federal employees as a function of President:
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.”
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?
This sentence no verb.
That’s like worth what, half a roll of toilet paper? Why don’t we have a collection drive.
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?
here’s one. 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.
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.
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?
Did this deficit reduction involve all cuts or did it also include new revenue streams? :dubious:
You are highlighting his exact point. There will ALWAYS be a need to keep whichever governmental agency open, forever.
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.
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?
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.
- never said government jobs increased
- 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.
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.
Helpful hint: clicking on blue underlined words (including my previous posts) takes you to web pages that tend to contain more information.
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.
There is no excuse for furloughing people in a self-funded government program that has excess funds in it.
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.