Furlough is coming

It actually ended up costing the taxpayers more, because not only were they paying backpay, but also interest on that backpay. Might've only been pennies per person but of course that adds up quickly when you consider the number of government employees there are. Included in the backpay was the compensation to all benefits packages and that was a pretty complicated calculation in its own right.

I do believe this is written to avoid such a "crisis."

 

There's actually 8 months in the fiscal year right? March through October? Secondly, how does 85/3800 (in billions) equal 10%? That number is 2.24% and even if you double it is less than 5%? What are we talking about here? Politically this is bad for everyone but I haven't been convinced that fiscally or economically it is. I'm open to being convinced, I really am, I just haven't seen a good argument.

 

The 85 isn't coming from the entire 3800. VA and SS won't be touched, at least not to the extent of everything else. Even within departments, certain programs won't be touched. For instance, in USDA, should sequester occur, SNAP won't be touched, but WIC will. School lunch won't be touched, but farm subsidies will (and they should). So it's not just simple arithmetic. And there are 12 months in a fiscal year. October 1 - September 30. The absorption of the cuts will occur for the last six months of the FY...April 1 - September 30. And they are retroactive, meaning an entire year's worth of cuts must be condensed into 6 months, so if you received funding under a continuing resolution, which expires at the end of March, you will receive even less funding for the remainder of the year because of the cuts. I'm not trying to convince you either way, just making the point that it's not just as simple as saying you're taking 85 away from 3800.

There will be pain and people will notice, but the pain will mostly be felt by those who can least afford it. But even as a government employee, I'm not all up in arms about it. I'm just disgusted by how sour the political environment is.

 

I thought the fiscal year started in November, my mistake. It is interesting though how the president who has done a lot of things unilaterally is now basically saying he can't move money around. Is there a reason he can't move funds from one department to another if some of these departments are hit hard?

And, taking your number of 10% at face value, that still doesn't seem like the would will end tomorrow.

 

It all has to be appropriated by Congress either through a budget or continuing resolution. The President can't re-route funding as he sees fit. It would take congressional action.

I still want to know why Obama approved these cuts in 2011 if they were going to be such a disaster. And why is he waiting til days before they kick in to re-address them. I know Congress was supposed to have come up with the alternative by now, but they didn't, and no leadership from the White House until zero hour only complicates things.

 

If we've learned anything from this president, it's that he'll find a way.

 

Is anyone else hearing that congress is thinking of giving the president power to determine which cuts come from where and will give him until the 8th of march, then to be voted on or changed, congress would have until the 22nd to pass it? I think this is a brilliant strategy by the republicans, this would eliminate any negotiation for revenue, and they would be able to shift blame to the White House.

 

discretionary spending is less than half that $3T. and many departments have already been through cuts making effects more likely.

 

common knowledge. it was supposed to force congressional action (compromise), but it was a miscalculation--not severe enough.