Can somebody explain sequestration, in regards to the “fiscal cliff”, and the likelihood of it happening in the next month? My fiancé works for the feds and keeps getting scary emails about huge budget cuts. I keep telling her to “keep calm, carry on” because with congresses approval rating I doubt they would let it happen, but I really don’t know anything about the issues.
I work for a defense contractor. If sequestration happens, it’s likely that my company’s contract will be reduced, which means layoffs or furloughs (hopefully just temporarily). There would also probably be layoffs and/or furloughs for DoD civilian workers.
I think it’s probably going to happen. The only way to avoid it at this point is a simple delay (or cancelation). But that would have to pass with primarily (D) votes. Any negotiated resolution would have to include some revenue - and again would have to pass with (D) votes. And it doesn’t even sound like anybody’s working on one.
The GOP painted themselves into a corner here, and it seems right now that they’d rather let the defense contractors and the economy take the hit and try to pin the blame on Obama if we get a bad few quarters because of it.
Personally I kind of think the whole thing should just be scrapped for now and let the already agreed to cuts and revenue boosts, along with an improving economy, do some work on the deficits before we start blowing things up some more.
Or, put another way, lets try to go back to regular budgetary order rather than all of these mini-catastrophes, deadlines, and cliffs.
They’re already at it, working it hard. Calling it the “Obama sequester”. (Please don’t say “cite?” 'cause then I’d have to link you to Hugh Hewitt or FoxGnaws, and I’d have to do penance, like three pages of Maya Angelou..)
Oh, wait, here’s John Boner.
http://boehner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=319420
(Much less of a sin, easy penance, and I was gonna watch Rachel Maddow anyay…)
I work for the National Park Service, and there is a directive as to which cost cutting steps will be taken and in what order if sequestration happens. While there are a number of things on there, like cuts to supplies, training, and travel, #1 is to delay hiring of any permanent positions and #3 is eliminate seasonal and term positions. To translate #3 into the real world, that could mean things like no life guards, so beaches will be closed.
Hey, sharks gotta eat too, you know!
I am a civilian working for Dept of Defense-Dept of the Army.
I have no doubt we will be furloughed. We are currently looking at one unpaid day off every week until the end of the fiscal year and it would start in March or April. This is essentially a 20% pay cut.
All TDYs are cancelled. Training is cancelled, except for on-line stuff. There is a hiring freeze. We are letting go of temporary employees and term employees whne their terms are up.
Ordering supplies? It is to laugh. We are looking hard at all our service contracts and will probably not renew a good many of them.
As for being a furloughed employee; it will work one of two ways. If you are deemed mission essential or critical (life, health, etc), you will be required to come to work and not get paid. You WILL however be paid for that time when Congress gets off their collective high horse and passes a damn budget. If you are not considered mission essential, you will not report to work on those furlough days, but, you will also never receive that pay, even if Congress passes the budget.
You cannot use leave during this time. The reason for this is that it is considered compensation, and therefore a sort of “pay” and, if there is no budget, you cannot use it.
As of yet, at least where we work, we have not received “official” notification of definite furlough. However, there have been numerous gloom and doom memorandums from higher up the chain all the way to Dept of Defense.
I do not have any faith in our elected officials. We have been dealing with budget woes well before the first “clliff”. I work in an office that is supposed to be staffed by six people. For almost a year, it has just been me, supporting an organization of well over 5,000 people with analytical services. Before that, it was just two of us, but my remaining co-worker was lucky and got out.
I’ve been through numerous ups and downs in my Federal career, and I have nearly 30 years of service. This is the worst it has ever been. The WORST.
It isn’t often that Republican babble has much validity, but one point they harp on is correct:
Businesses can plan more effectively with predictability, when they needn’t worry about sudden changes in tax rates or regulations.
Thus, the GOP insistence on keeping “cliff” or shutdown on the table, with artificial deadlines every few months, is very cynical. Or rather, it demonstrates that hindering government efficiency is one of their goals.
“Congress gets off their collective high horse and passes a damn budget.”
Taters, It’s the Senate that hasn’t passed a budget in four years.
Septimus, It’s the Senate’s refusal to pass a budget that blocks any long term resolutions thus creating the artificial deadlines every few months.
With the proper deletion of select words, this would be hilarious. (Unfortunately, Paladino is not in Congress.)
It is somewhat embarassing that the Dems haven’t passed a budget, but the Republicans share some of the blame for turning the process into a political game of gotcha. Budget resolutions merely set fixed targets for spending and taxes for the year–some, for example, have argued that the debt-ceiling deal in 2011 is a kind of budget because it set discretionary spending limits for the next 10 years. No one really believes this, because with such a long time horizon future Congresses can simply vote to alter the limits set in 2011 (like they did this past year by delaying the sequester; this is why IMO the sequester has always been a bit of a joke).
Normally Congress must have a budget resolution passed before it can pass appropriations bills; the Dems have gotten around the lack of a budget resolution by passing obmnibus spending bills and continuing resolutions. The GOP doesn’t like this because they can’t amend these bills, a tactic they use to score political points they can use in the next election:
Another effect is the ban on earmarks enacted by the GOP House in 2010. Sure it’s easy to rail in the abstract against Congressional “pork”, but one of the side effects is that the ban unfairly cramps the budget process (i.e. less horsetrading, more partisan rhetoric):
The article also notes that earmarks haven’t really gone away as a result; offices on the Hill and in the executive branch now just call agencies directly after the appropriation is completed, just to “suggest” how the money can be parceled out to pet projects.
As far as the current sequester, IMO there is no way the military cuts go thru (because there are enough members of both parties who won’t stand for it; spending on the military is a truly bipartisan issue). Dems also (stupidly IMO) seem to be offering chained CPI for Social Security (a method for measuing inflation that is lower than the one in place now for SS), which would reduce future benefits–and if they’re willing to go there, I suspect many of the discretionary cuts will be on the table. My fear is that the Dems see a “win” on the issue as getting some tax increase on the wealthy, and are willing to sacrifice a lot of base favorites to get there.
The failure of the Senate to pass a budget has exactly zero impact on any of these issues. None.
The budget that the Senate has not passed is a framework for spending and revenue decisions. It is not law, it does not actually provide for spending, it does not actually change tax law. It’s a blueprint, a framework, an outline, a set of principles – not law. The budgets you’re referring to did not set up sequestration, did not have anything to do with government shutdowns, and have nothing to do with the debt limit.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 is law, and it set up the sequestration that may soon happen, and mandatory spending targets for the next 9 years. The Senate could have passed budget resolutions every year, and the Budget Control Act would take precedence over all of them.
Ah, yes. Obama proposes the sequester then fails to produce a budget garnering a single vote since that time while the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly for years (Reid himself refuses to take too any bill sent to him by the House), yet the sequester is still somehow-- magically-- the Republicans fault. Odd how that works out.
Because the Republicans brought all this about.
The the sons of bitches are calling it the “Obama sequester” Have they no sense of decency? At long last, have they no sense of decency?
No, they don’t. They think they can score political points by letting this happen and saddling Obama with the blame. This from a party whose response to getting their ass handed them in the election because they acted like obstructionist assholes is apparently to become more obstructionist and bigger assholes.
You’re being intellectually dishonest here.
The sequester was proposed by the Obama administration in 2011. The aforementioned quote from Boehner was taken from the negotiations last month, a completely separate issue. What does the latter have to do with the former? Nothing, except to highlight how unserious Democrats are about fiscal solvency. Democrats screamed about the “rich” needing to pay their “fair share”. They got their tax increases last month. Loo and behold, they’re screaming about more tax increases today. Democrats painted themselves into a corner. But continue on. It’s amusing.
This must be a joke, if you’re comparing the Democrats to the Republicans. The Republicans haven’t been serious about “fiscal solvency” in decades. The Democrats, at least, recognize that serious debt reduction won’t happen without increasing revenues as well as lowering spending.
You are, as is not atypical, wrong.
That quote is from the sequester deal in 2011. Cite: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20086598/boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted/
And if you truly want to assign blame for spending cuts in the sequester, here is the easy test.
Suppose a bill is proposed that eliminates the sequester entirely. 100%. No offsets at all - it’s just gone.
Which party will support it in the House? Which party will support it in the Senate? Will Obama sign it?
This is rhetorical, of course, because the Progressive Caucus has already proposed such a bill in the House, the Democrats would vote for it, the Senate would pass it (if it weren’t filibustered by the GOP, which it would be), and the President would sign it.
The only reason the sequester will happen is because the GOP insists on it.