# Sequestration and the “fiscal cliff” **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 12, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106 "2013-02-12T19:16:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/81 "2013-02-24T19:01:53Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Actually, I do. To fix SS, just discontinue the ceiling on income subject to tax, maintain the ceiling on benefits, and incorporate some sort of means-testing. > > To fix Medicare, allow it to bargain for prescription prices, stop buying those Rascal power chairs (probably a minor savings but a waste in general), and allow everyone in the pool. Dispense with all private insurance and its bloated overhead. I agree! Another newsletter for me to read. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/82 "2013-02-24T19:15:48Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Well, that’s bullshit then. License these functions out to a private company and bill them for their profits, minus 10%. No reason that moneymakers should be subject to the same rules as teat suckers. It’s interesting that when shown a problem with the sequester your first thought is to privatize something for no reason at all. A pervasive ideology that asserts itself as the answer to everything isn’t useful. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/83 "2013-02-24T20:22:34Z")
Given, Congressional salaries cannot be cut; but most Congressmen said that their salaries should be cut. (Safe to say, when it ain’t gonna happen.) Ironically, some Tea Party-backed are against cutting their own pay. Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) said his salary should not be cut. He didn’t seem to care that Congressional aides might be furloughed. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was asked if she’d take a pay cut several times. She never answered directly, but instead said she’d cut some staff. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is also against cutting Congress’s pay. She said it wouldn’t hurt her, but it would hurt other Congressmen who are their families’ breadwinners. > **[Lawmakers say they'd take pay cut, but they can't | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/politics/budget-congress-pay)** > > Pain from forced spending cuts is a week away and lawmakers are preparing their aides for the fallout that could hit them like other government workers. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/84 "2013-02-24T21:35:07Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Well, that’s bullshit then. License these functions out to a private company and bill them for their profits, minus 10%. No reason that moneymakers should be subject to the same rules as teat suckers. What’s bullshit is paying contractors to perform inherently governmental functions. The Constitution provides that the Federal government must provide patents for the protection of new inventions. To have new inventions reviewed by workers of Lockheed, SAIC, Sony, Merck, or whatever contractor happens to put in the lowest bid, and allow that corporation to decide whether or not another corporation, or a solitary genuis in his basement who doesn’t have a whole legal department on retainer, has invented something new, is a terrible idea on its face. What’s curious to me is why you think that would be a good idea in any way at all. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/85 "2013-02-24T21:39:04Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Hm. Good idea. How much profit do roads and freeways make for the various governments? Better to license their management out to a private company. New companies would make enormous profits outsourcing the manufacture of transponders, and then selling them such that every vehicle is equipped with one. Drivers could then pay monthly bills to each of the private company that operates the roads they use, so that they only have to pay for the roads they use instead of paying for the entire system. By making all roads privately held, there would be competition so that people could choose to drive on the cheapest ones; and there would be a hiring boom as companies construct new roads that offer more choices. Yes, but it’s important that each driver have the liberty to choose which traffic-rule patrol service to subscribe to. What if the default service for the cheap direct road enforces a 60 mph limit, but I prefer to go 70 mph? Of course, with the transponder and other controls on-line, smart drivers will switch patrol service subscriptions frequently, depending on road conditions, to get the best insurance rates. (BTW, you might want to install transponders on the forest animals as well, so that eco-nuts can “vote”, with their money, to save species selectively.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/86 "2013-02-24T22:20:15Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Actually, I do. To fix SS, just discontinue the ceiling on income subject to tax, maintain the ceiling on benefits, and incorporate some sort of means-testing. > > To fix Medicare, allow it to bargain for prescription prices, stop buying those Rascal power chairs (probably a minor savings but a waste in general), and allow everyone in the pool. Dispense with all private insurance and its bloated overhead. I **asked** : Do you guys just genuinely think Social Security and Medicare can continue for the next 50 years without: massive tax increases on working class families, cuts in benefits, or structural reform? Your response was a cut in benefits and an increase in taxes, along with some structural reform. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/87 "2013-02-24T22:23:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **Martin Hyde** : so you think that the sequester will be allowed to continue for the rest of the year? I sure don’t. The only people in Congress who want the sequester to happen are the Tea Party types who are happy every time they force government to fail at something, and I just fail to see that pro-defense conservatives and all the moderates and liberals who actually like things like medical research, having air traffic controllers fully staffed, and not RIFing FBI agents, and that sort of stuff. I said I thought no deal would be reached prior to the CR. Once you’re negotiating the next CR you can address the sequester as part of that. > [@](#): > > You are somewhat right on one point: the full effect of sequestration won’t be felt until probably early- to mid-April, since it takes time to implement. After that, though, everyone is going to hurt. Let’s say Boeing wants to get the 787 recertified to fly: well, it’s going to take longer because the FAA is going to be furloughing people. Let’s say Glaxo wants a new drug approved: FDA is going to be in the same boat. April is after the CR deadline. > [@](#): > > The main problem is that the mandatory cuts of (I’m rounding off here) 10% to every agency wouldn’t be a huge problem if they were levied on October 1, when agencies had 100% of their budget to deal with. But the cuts are coming when agencies have spent 50 or 60% of their funds for the year, so they have to take 10% of 100% of their budget from the 40% of the money they have remaining. > > I’ll make you a bet: I think that sequester will begin, the government might shut down, and then there will be a short-term deal probably involving tax hikes and modest cuts to a handful of programs that will replace the sequester. No way the sequester continues a full year under a CR. No way at all. The government won’t shut down when the sequester starts. If the current CR expires the government will have to partially shut down just as it did when Clinton and Gingrich feuded because of a complete lack of funding for many Federal agencies and the constitutional requirement that Congress approve funding. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/88 "2013-02-24T23:16:41Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I **asked** : Do you guys just genuinely think Social Security and Medicare can continue for the next 50 years without: massive tax increases on working class families, cuts in benefits, or structural reform? > > Your response was a cut in benefits and an increase in taxes, along with some structural reform. I disagree, I propose some minor tweaks that would save it. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/89 "2013-02-24T23:38:36Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I said I thought no deal would be reached prior to the CR. Once you’re negotiating the next CR you can address the sequester as part of that. . . . > > The government won’t shut down when the sequester starts. If the current CR expires the government will have to partially shut down just as it did when Clinton and Gingrich feuded because of a complete lack of funding for many Federal agencies and the constitutional requirement that Congress approve funding. I’m trying to parse through what you’re saying. I think you are saying that sequestration will be ordered on March 1, a deal on a CR (and something on sequestration? I’m not clear) will be reached before March 27, and no big budget deal this year. Right now the House is working on a CR for the rest of the year that assumes sequestration will continue through the rest of the year. I’m saying that if that were to pass, and sequestration is not avoided, that would be disasterous to agencies as I explained above (FAA, medical research, FBI, etc.) I’m saying sequestration will be ordered on March 1. There will be no deal to avert sequestration before March 27, at which point the CR runs out. Coin-flip chance that government shuts down for a short time. Then a deal is struck to replace sequestration for this year only with a mix of cuts and revenue (more heavy on cuts), and then a full year CR is passed. No big budget deal this year to trim deficits by trillions. Then we do this all again next year, because there’s another sequestration that kicks in on October 1, which is even larger than the sequestration we’re staring in the face. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/90 "2013-02-24T23:58:19Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I disagree, I propose some minor tweaks that would save it. Eh. In fairness to Martin, those are pretty major “tweaks”. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/91 "2013-02-25T00:24:49Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s interesting that when shown a problem with the sequester your first thought is to privatize something for no reason at all. > > A pervasive ideology that asserts itself as the answer to everything isn’t useful. I’m not a Libertarian and I don’t have a “privitize first” philosophy. But the idea of a sequester is an across the board budget cut to save money. There are no savings to be had by cutting an entity which is making money on its own like a National Park. Again to make a comparison to the home budget, if you are trying to save money, you don’t quit your job so you don’t spend as much money on gasoline. You realize that the gasoline money allows you to make more money at work. Just like with a National Park, it’s silly to cut expenses which pay for themselves and then some. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/92 "2013-02-25T00:26:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The Constitution provides that the Federal government must provide patents for the protection of new inventions. Nitpick. The constitution provides a power of Congress to provide patents, not a mandate for it to do so. There’s no reason why it couldn’t contract that out any more than having a private entity like the Fed “print and coin money.” ---
**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:** [February 25, 2013, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/93 "2013-02-25T00:50:13Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Nitpick. The constitution provides a power of Congress to provide patents, not a mandate for it to do so. There’s no reason why it couldn’t contract that out any more than having a private entity like the Fed “print and coin money.” The Fed is not a private entity. [Cite.](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm) ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/94 "2013-02-25T01:29:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This idea that the sequester isn’t Obama’s idea is asinine–it’s the only way he could see to get what he wanted (more debt) without avoiding what he didn’t want (immediate decrease in spending.) I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about whose _fault_ it was. Certainly **OMGABC** claimed it wasn’t the Republican’s fault back in post #14. In fact, it very clearly was. The standard practice was to increase the debt ceiling when needed to keep the U.S. from defaulting on its debts. Obama would have been fine with this. The Democrats in Congress would have been fine with this. Actually defaulting on our debts was not a viable option for anyone who’s not an idiot. And yet, the Republicans in Congress decided to play a game of chicken and actually threaten to allow a default in order to extract concessions. They created the crisis that lead to this crappy compromise. If a drug cartel kidnaps my family, and I offer them money to buy my family’s freedom, do you say “Shame on **tim314** for helping to fund the drug trade” or do you blame the hostage takers? ---
**Author:** ![Taters](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/taters/32/2845_2.png) [@Taters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taters)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/95 "2013-02-25T01:57:20Z")
If Congress can’t come to an agreement by Friday, sequestration occurs. It takes a while to roll out, but the effects will be felt starting in mid April. If Congress can’t actually pass a budget by March 27th, or even another CRA, there will be a shut down. Let’s assume that Congress will pass another CRA (which is bullshit; they should do their damn job and actually pass a budget); sequestration is still in effect. Make no mistake; everyone will feel it. You’re going to feel it at the damn grocery store, because the FDA inspectors will be furloughed too. Less time and less inspectors mean there will be less food on the shelves, driving up the price for everyone. It’'ll start slow, but it’s going to happen. Want to travel? There will be even longer waits because there will be less TSA personnel on the job. There will be longer waits just for the damn plane to leave the tarmac and get in the air, because there will be less controllers in the towers. Do you need a new passport or visa? Going to take longer. Are you elderly and relying on Medicare or Medicaid? Do you need to discuss something with one of personnel at these entities? It’s going to take even longer to get an appointment. Do you need a piece of DME approved by Medicare, or even a procedure? Going to take longer to get that approval. Here’s the thing; it won’t be felt at first, but as the months progress, there’s going to be a huge backlog everywhere. Once July rolls around, there are going to be a lot of pissed off citizens, but I’m sure Congress will still sit on their fat, rich asses and continue to argue up there in their glass house. I keep seeing and reading that it’s only two or three percent of the budget. However, where they want to cut is where the average, normal every day citizen is going to feel it. That’s why it’s so nasty. Oh, and those personnel who are furloughed? Eventually the bills are going to catch up with them, and they are going to fall behind. There will be defaults and there goes the damn credit market…again. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/96 "2013-02-25T13:10:36Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I disagree, I propose some minor tweaks that would save it. I listed out three possible ways you could fix those entitlement programs, you basically picked 2.5 of them (benefit cuts and structural reform, and instead of large tax increases to middle class families you picked tax increases to upper middle class and higher families.) You certainly didn’t disprove my assertion that you can’t fix those programs without doing at least one of the three things I said you’d have to do. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/97 "2013-02-25T13:12:06Z")
My prediction on how the sequester will be resolved is starting to take shape: [link](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323699704578324540439190364.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories). That basically explains the Republican talking points and probably represents the start of the negotiations. But note that the plan is to resolve it **with the March CR** , which lines up with what I had said. I am now more confident in not expecting a specific “compromise” on the sequester separate from the next CR, but instead one built into the next CR. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/98 "2013-02-25T13:17:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m saying sequestration will be ordered on March 1. There will be no deal to avert sequestration before March 27, at which point the CR runs out. Coin-flip chance that government shuts down for a short time. Then a deal is struck to replace sequestration for this year only with a mix of cuts and revenue (more heavy on cuts), and then a full year CR is passed. No big budget deal this year to trim deficits by trillions. > > Then we do this all again next year, because there’s another sequestration that kicks in on October 1, which is even larger than the sequestration we’re staring in the face. We’re basically in agreement then. Right now the House GOP, like you said, is proposing a CR that will maintain the amount of sequestration cuts but will give the Pentagon flexibility to change how those cuts go into effect. Most likely the final version of the CR package will reduce the cuts or keep them but spread them out over like 2-3 years or something and will either make them more specific instead of across-the-board or will give all agencies latitude in how they apply the cuts. [There is a minor process argument from John McCain on the latitude argument, as he’s saying it is the job of Congress to determine where cuts happen, not the executive branch.] As to the point **jtgain** has made, I don’t care if we outsource stuff to contractors, but I’d think in general it’d make sense for revenue-generating federal agencies to continue to not be shut down or receive funding cuts if they are revenue positive. That’s the philosophy that seemed to underly State budgets when I worked for the Commonwealth. Technically revenues the parks for example generated were State revenues, but the budget always gave those revenues to the parks department to use to maintain the parks. USPS is a “government owned business”, so it’s a different beast, but basically I think agencies like the SEC/Parks that have their own revenue streams should operate like the USPS. If you’re running your own revenue sufficient to continue operations, I see no reason you should be shut down or have your funds sequestered. ---
**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:** [February 25, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/99 "2013-02-25T15:41:22Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > USPS is a “government owned business”, so it’s a different beast, but basically I think agencies like the SEC/Parks that have their own revenue streams should operate like the USPS. If you’re running your own revenue sufficient to continue operations, I see no reason you should be shut down or have your funds sequestered. This is a side issue, I know, but here’s the root of the issue: if agencies that collect their own receipts are excluded from the appropriations process, then there’s no oversight of whether the agencies are receiving an appropriate amount of funding. For example: let’s say the Patent and Trademark Office (or name any other agency) has a banner year and collect far more in receipts than they have in the past. Should the USPTO be able to spend all that money because they have a standing authorization to spend what they keep? It seems to me that there may be other, higher priorities in the government that could use the “excess” receipts. Conversely, if the office has an unusual down year, should they lay off staff even though they expect receipts to go up next year? The idea that various agencies have their own unique set of funds that others can’t touch is, in my view, one of the serious deficiencies of California’s budget. Though the ballot process, voters have decided over the years that they like agency “X”, so agency “X” is guaranteed a certain stream or share of revenue. Then when hard times hit, the legislature has no flexibility to cut funds or redirect them to where they are actually needed. Shoot, even this model hasn’t worked particularly well for the Post Office. Every time they want to raise the price of stamps by 2 cents, the blue-hairs freak out and there’s huge pressure not to actually subject the USPS to market forces. So what I’m saying is, that sticking agencies with the duties of government and trying to run it like a business is sometimes a very, very poor model. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106/100 "2013-02-25T17:37:45Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I skipped, but why will the National Parks have to suffer anything? Imagine you own a tens of thousands of acres of a parcel of land with natural beauty and/or historical significance and there are thousands descending on it every day. > > Are you in financial trouble? I would think not. It seems that National Parks should be fully self-supporting without the need for taxpayer help, and very profitable. If a particular Park is not, one might wonder how beneficial it really is. HA! The numbers in the first link are a few years out of date, but will give you the general idea. In short - the Park Service Budget is around $3 Billion a year and we get to keep about $250 Million of the fees collected. > **[Budget (U.S. National Park Service)](https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm)** You want to read it all - here is the FY 13 budget. 465 pages of fun. [http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY13\_NPS\_Greenbook.pdf](http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY13_NPS_Greenbook.pdf) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sequestration-and-the-fiscal-cliff/650106.md?page=6)