Sequester cuts and fabricated delays at the FAA
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() http://heritageaction.com/2013/03/are-faa-sequester-cuts-as-dumb-as-they-look/ So why exactly are we having delays again? Answer: politics... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() You say government is inept, so why can't they be inept at imposing cuts too |
![]() ![]() |
![]() http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Obama-opting... “The worst-case scenario for us,” a leading anti-budget-cuts lobbyist told The Washington Post, “is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens.” |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JoshR - 2013-04-23 8:06 AM You say government is inept, so why can't they be inept at imposing cuts too Touché |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() DanielG - 2013-04-23 6:14 AM http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Obama-opting... “The worst-case scenario for us,” a leading anti-budget-cuts lobbyist told The Washington Post, “is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens.”
So true... |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Reports out this AM the FAA is *requiring* airlines to inform passengers that delays are due to sequester cuts -- and yes, the language is specific. Insanity. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Mike_D - 2013-04-23 9:37 AM Reports out this AM the FAA is *requiring* airlines to inform passengers that delays are due to sequester cuts -- and yes, the language is specific. Insanity. That wouldn't surprise me at all. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-mak... In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Capitol Hill Republicans say the White House is free to make other cuts instead. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster suggests the FAA first take a whack at the $500 million it's spending on consultants, or perhaps the $325 million it blows on supplies and travel. In case there's any doubt about the President's ability to prioritize, at least two GOP Senators, Jerry Moran and Roy Blunt, have written bills to clarify Mr. Obama's authority to make sensible spending decisions. He's not interested, and Senate Democrats have blocked such reforms. Making smart choices about federal sending would spoil the fun of creating flight delays and then blaming Republicans.
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]()
How about digging into the 3.2 Billion (in FY 2003) Airport Improvement Grant Fund? Nope, no one will notice that, gotta go for some heavy delays! http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/annual_report_2001-03.pdf |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Aarondb4 - 2013-04-23 1:19 PM According to the legislation of the sequestration, agencies aren't allowed to shuffle money around within themsleves. It's 5% from everything (except for a couple of exceptions for the DoD and meat inspectors), so legally they can't take money from a grant fund and move it to ATC salaries.
How about digging into the 3.2 Billion (in FY 2003) Airport Improvement Grant Fund? Nope, no one will notice that, gotta go for some heavy delays! http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/annual_report_2001-03.pdf That's why there's the proposal TriR noted above to amend the legislation to allow for some shuffling of funds. The reason it won't pass is because right now the repubs own the cuts, they're the ones who wanted the 5% across the board (many said that wasn't big enough). If the administration accepted flexibility, then they would own the cuts that they didn't want, and no matter what they choose you can be sure they'd be attacked for choosing wrong. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2013-04-23 2:29 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-23 1:19 PM According to the legislation of the sequestration, agencies aren't allowed to shuffle money around within themsleves. It's 5% from everything (except for a couple of exceptions for the DoD and meat inspectors), so legally they can't take money from a grant fund and move it to ATC salaries.
How about digging into the 3.2 Billion (in FY 2003) Airport Improvement Grant Fund? Nope, no one will notice that, gotta go for some heavy delays! http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/annual_report_2001-03.pdf That's why there's the proposal TriR noted above to amend the legislation to allow for some shuffling of funds. The reason it won't pass is because right now the repubs own the cuts, they're the ones who wanted the 5% across the board (many said that wasn't big enough). If the administration accepted flexibility, then they would own the cuts that they didn't want, and no matter what they choose you can be sure they'd be attacked for choosing wrong. At least our leaders are all working together to help us through these challenging times. Now where did I put that sarc font? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-04-23 1:44 PM I know, right?drewb8 - 2013-04-23 2:29 PM At least our leaders are all working together to help us through these challenging times. Now where did I put that sarc font? Aarondb4 - 2013-04-23 1:19 PM According to the legislation of the sequestration, agencies aren't allowed to shuffle money around within themsleves. It's 5% from everything (except for a couple of exceptions for the DoD and meat inspectors), so legally they can't take money from a grant fund and move it to ATC salaries.
How about digging into the 3.2 Billion (in FY 2003) Airport Improvement Grant Fund? Nope, no one will notice that, gotta go for some heavy delays! http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/annual_report_2001-03.pdf That's why there's the proposal TriR noted above to amend the legislation to allow for some shuffling of funds. The reason it won't pass is because right now the repubs own the cuts, they're the ones who wanted the 5% across the board (many said that wasn't big enough). If the administration accepted flexibility, then they would own the cuts that they didn't want, and no matter what they choose you can be sure they'd be attacked for choosing wrong. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2013-04-23 3:29 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-23 1:19 PM According to the legislation of the sequestration, agencies aren't allowed to shuffle money around within themsleves. It's 5% from everything (except for a couple of exceptions for the DoD and meat inspectors), so legally they can't take money from a grant fund and move it to ATC salaries.
How about digging into the 3.2 Billion (in FY 2003) Airport Improvement Grant Fund? Nope, no one will notice that, gotta go for some heavy delays! http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/annual_report_2001-03.pdf That's why there's the proposal TriR noted above to amend the legislation to allow for some shuffling of funds. The reason it won't pass is because right now the repubs own the cuts, they're the ones who wanted the 5% across the board (many said that wasn't big enough). If the administration accepted flexibility, then they would own the cuts that they didn't want, and no matter what they choose you can be sure they'd be attacked for choosing wrong. Maybe because they are wrong... hmmmm.. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2013-04-23 2:49 PM drewb8 - 2013-04-23 3:29 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-23 1:19 PM According to the legislation of the sequestration, agencies aren't allowed to shuffle money around within themsleves. It's 5% from everything (except for a couple of exceptions for the DoD and meat inspectors), so legally they can't take money from a grant fund and move it to ATC salaries.
How about digging into the 3.2 Billion (in FY 2003) Airport Improvement Grant Fund? Nope, no one will notice that, gotta go for some heavy delays! http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/annual_report_2001-03.pdf That's why there's the proposal TriR noted above to amend the legislation to allow for some shuffling of funds. The reason it won't pass is because right now the repubs own the cuts, they're the ones who wanted the 5% across the board (many said that wasn't big enough). If the administration accepted flexibility, then they would own the cuts that they didn't want, and no matter what they choose you can be sure they'd be attacked for choosing wrong. Maybe because they are wrong... hmmmm.. Which is why they don't want to own the cuts, as Drew said. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() | ![]() Fed employee here. Sequester is a joke. Sure there is a "hiring freeze" (of course, essential positions are still being posted), but other than being told I can't travel for training, we aren't really being hit. My office ended up with a cut of roughly $350,000, which is fine because we are always scrambling to spend money at the end of the year anyhow. As you all have alluded to, politics is the real reason some folks are acting as if the sequester is a huge ordeal. Don't be fooled, there really isn't any savings going on at most agencies. I do know some seasonal Park Service folks that were let go earlier than their temporary contract terms, but that is the worst impact I have seen so far. It's pretty much business as usual. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2013-04-23 2:29 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-04-23 1:19 PM According to the legislation of the sequestration, agencies aren't allowed to shuffle money around within themsleves. It's 5% from everything (except for a couple of exceptions for the DoD and meat inspectors), so legally they can't take money from a grant fund and move it to ATC salaries.
How about digging into the 3.2 Billion (in FY 2003) Airport Improvement Grant Fund? Nope, no one will notice that, gotta go for some heavy delays! http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/media/annual_report_2001-03.pdf That's why there's the proposal TriR noted above to amend the legislation to allow for some shuffling of funds. The reason it won't pass is because right now the repubs own the cuts, they're the ones who wanted the 5% across the board (many said that wasn't big enough). If the administration accepted flexibility, then they would own the cuts that they didn't want, and no matter what they choose you can be sure they'd be attacked for choosing wrong. I would counter that the Democrats are "trying" to make the republicans own the cuts, but they do not own it exclusively by any means. I'm going from memory here, so I could be misstating some of this, but the President and the Dem's were trying to get the debt ceiling raised and the republicans didn't want to do it unless there were budget cuts put in place to curb spending. The White House originally threw out the idea of mandatory spending cuts as part of a compromise to get the debt ceiling raised. The congress hashed out the details, so I'm not sure who came up with the 5% number, but I know the republicans really didn't want to cut any of the defense spending and the Dem's didn't want to cut discretionary spending and neither wanted to cut entitlements. So they all compromised and came up with the cuts the way they are with neither side being happy and entitlements being safe. The House passed the Budget Control Act by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it. The Senate passed the Act on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74–26. 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it. President Obama signed the bill shortly after it was passed by the Senate. So, I know it sounds great to blame it all on the Republicans but I would say it's fairly safe to call this a bipartisan issue. Now as part of avoiding the sequestration (fiscal cliff) the Republicans in December gave in to raising taxes on the rich by only extending the Bush tax cuts to people earning under $400k and extending the sequestration by two months. The purpose of extending the sequestration was to negotiate out sensible spending cuts to coincide with the increases in revenue in December. However, the Democrats pretty much bunkered in on not allowing any spending cuts because they figured they could pin the "painful" sequestration on the backs of the Republicans and use it for political gain to avoid sensible spending cuts. (the last part was my opinion of course) Sure, you can say if the Republicans gave on everything there would be no sequestration, but you could say the same thing about the Democrats. If they approved discretionary spending cuts then there would have been no sequestration. Then you throw things in like the infamous leaked "Make it Hurt" email which implies the administration is trying to maximize the political pressure on the Republicans. Then you throw in the drum beat of overt "look how painful it is" stories like this that the media continues to spread then it becomes a little more obvious to me who is really at fault here. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 1234run - 2013-04-23 3:38 PM Fed employee here. Sequester is a joke. Sure there is a "hiring freeze" (of course, essential positions are still being posted), but other than being told I can't travel for training, we aren't really being hit. My office ended up with a cut of roughly $350,000, which is fine because we are always scrambling to spend money at the end of the year anyhow. As you all have alluded to, politics is the real reason some folks are acting as if the sequester is a huge ordeal. Don't be fooled, there really isn't any savings going on at most agencies. I do know some seasonal Park Service folks that were let go earlier than their temporary contract terms, but that is the worst impact I have seen so far. It's pretty much business as usual. Another Fed here and I must disagree. We are looking at at least 5 days of complete departmental shutdown/furlough and we bring IN the money! ETA: a friend of mine is DOD and they are looking at 20 furlough days. Edited by rrrunner 2013-04-23 5:35 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just saw this from today. "We made it clear that there would be these kinds of negative effects if Congress failed to take reasonable action to avert the sequester," press secretary Jay Carney said. "The fact is Congress had an opportunity, but Republicans made a choice, and this is a result of a choice they made to embrace sequester, as -- and I'm quoting Republicans -- a victory for the Tea Party and a home run." Reading that, you'd think there wasn't a single Democrat in the Congress. lol BTW, he's kind of making my point. Pin it all on the Republicans so they'll cave on spending cuts and let them spend even more money we don't have.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() | ![]() rrrunner - 2013-04-23 5:32 PM 1234run - 2013-04-23 3:38 PM Fed employee here. Sequester is a joke. Sure there is a "hiring freeze" (of course, essential positions are still being posted), but other than being told I can't travel for training, we aren't really being hit. My office ended up with a cut of roughly $350,000, which is fine because we are always scrambling to spend money at the end of the year anyhow. As you all have alluded to, politics is the real reason some folks are acting as if the sequester is a huge ordeal. Don't be fooled, there really isn't any savings going on at most agencies. I do know some seasonal Park Service folks that were let go earlier than their temporary contract terms, but that is the worst impact I have seen so far. It's pretty much business as usual. Another Fed here and I must disagree. We are looking at at least 5 days of complete departmental shutdown/furlough and we bring IN the money! ETA: a friend of mine is DOD and they are looking at 20 furlough days. Sorry about your furlough, looks like we may have just lucked out then. Do you feel that it will save significant money though, or will you and your co-workers have to work OT, Comp, or Credit to make-up for lost time? I guess that my point is that it really isn't saving much money. If your friend at DOD is a 13 or higher, then it may save some money, but it will likely be marginal when we consider that the work still needs to be done. I apologize for my attitude as the sequester is impacting you; however, I maintain that the goverment still isn't saving money by doing this. It is just hurting its employees and will have to fork money over when the work still needs to be done, but at a time and a half rate. Hopefully the impact you feel is minimal and again I apologize for my earlier comment. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I have researchers not ordering from me because their NIH grants are cut by 5-10%. I've lost $50k between 2 clients, which means $3K has been lost from my personal income. So yeah; the sequester has directly effected my personal wealth. Ba$tards... |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 1234run - 2013-04-23 5:22 PM rrrunner - 2013-04-23 5:32 PM 1234run - 2013-04-23 3:38 PM Fed employee here. Sequester is a joke. Sure there is a "hiring freeze" (of course, essential positions are still being posted), but other than being told I can't travel for training, we aren't really being hit. My office ended up with a cut of roughly $350,000, which is fine because we are always scrambling to spend money at the end of the year anyhow. As you all have alluded to, politics is the real reason some folks are acting as if the sequester is a huge ordeal. Don't be fooled, there really isn't any savings going on at most agencies. I do know some seasonal Park Service folks that were let go earlier than their temporary contract terms, but that is the worst impact I have seen so far. It's pretty much business as usual. Another Fed here and I must disagree. We are looking at at least 5 days of complete departmental shutdown/furlough and we bring IN the money! ETA: a friend of mine is DOD and they are looking at 20 furlough days. Sorry about your furlough, looks like we may have just lucked out then. Do you feel that it will save significant money though, or will you and your co-workers have to work OT, Comp, or Credit to make-up for lost time? I guess that my point is that it really isn't saving much money. If your friend at DOD is a 13 or higher, then it may save some money, but it will likely be marginal when we consider that the work still needs to be done. I apologize for my attitude as the sequester is impacting you; however, I maintain that the goverment still isn't saving money by doing this. It is just hurting its employees and will have to fork money over when the work still needs to be done, but at a time and a half rate. Hopefully the impact you feel is minimal and again I apologize for my earlier comment. No offense taken. We will feel it (DH is a Fed too) but I am much more concerned about my co-workers who live check to check. On top of an already falling morale (i.e. no raises for how many years now?) this one is really going to hurt some of them. I will give the agency credit though, they are spreading out the furlough days to try to reduce the impact of lost income. Do I think they are saving money? Yes, because the workers will continue to have to do more with less. Do I think they could have done it another way? Again, yes. Taking away 5 annual leave days would have the same ultimate impact, but it's not as obvious as having smaller paychecks going out. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Furlough Watch: Agency-by-Agency Impacts of Sequestration http://www.govexec.com/management/2013/04/furlough-watch-potential-... |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() rrrunner - 2013-04-23 4:32 PM We're lucky that we're not having any furlough days, sorry to hear that. We didn't really have any fat to trim to start with so the cuts are going pretty deeply into programs we run and work we do. At our office anyway it IS real savings because the bottom line is the budget has to be x dollars less (5%) come Sept 30. There's no way to spend more money to make up missed work without cutting something somewhere else to keep the budget at the lower amount.1234run - 2013-04-23 3:38 PM Fed employee here. Sequester is a joke. Sure there is a "hiring freeze" (of course, essential positions are still being posted), but other than being told I can't travel for training, we aren't really being hit. My office ended up with a cut of roughly $350,000, which is fine because we are always scrambling to spend money at the end of the year anyhow. As you all have alluded to, politics is the real reason some folks are acting as if the sequester is a huge ordeal. Don't be fooled, there really isn't any savings going on at most agencies. I do know some seasonal Park Service folks that were let go earlier than their temporary contract terms, but that is the worst impact I have seen so far. It's pretty much business as usual. Another Fed here and I must disagree. We are looking at at least 5 days of complete departmental shutdown/furlough and we bring IN the money! ETA: a friend of mine is DOD and they are looking at 20 furlough days. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 100% federally funded program here - we're cutting bells and whistles, but shouldn't affect the public we serve. DH is military - lots of cuts to the naval shipyard employees/contractors and some cuts to base services. Only thing that really affects me personally is the loss of pool hours, which were really whacked. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I had issues as a temp for a military contractor even before the Sequester. The place I worked at had an army of temps and I see why. Funding gets delayed for awhile and everyone is out of a job. When I say an army of temps I mean 15 out of 23 people were temps. I know if I was still out there like they said I probably would been I definitely be out of a job now I am sure.
|
|