Looks like a 20% cut in pay for the summer.

Joe Gearin wrote: The "Political Class" is on one side---- we are on the other.

The aristocracy has been building an empire for decades. They've essentially won, and all of the scandals and elections basically swing power to and fro factions within.

Wally wrote: We all share some of the problem. If you ran a Burger King and kept getting 20% approval ratings you'd fire everyone. Why don't we hold our elected officials to the same standard.

See the post immediately above yours. I will also add that while the American people may think they have 2 choices, it's actually only 1 choice - red elephant versus blue donkey is essentially irrelevant at this point.

Wally wrote: We all share some of the problem. If you ran a Burger King and kept getting 20% approval ratings you'd fire everyone. Why don't we hold our elected officials to the same standard.

Because "my pork isn't pork, your pork is pork"

AMericans feels like it's always the other guys screwing things up, not the guy they elected.

Douglas Adams wrote: “I come in peace,” it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, “take me to your Lizard.” “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…” “You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?” “No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.” “Odd,” said Arthur, “I though you said it was a democracy.” “I did,” said Ford. “It is.” “So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?” “It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.” “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?” “Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.” “But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?” “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?” “What?” “I said,” said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, “have you got any gin?”

What I can't fathom is why it's so hard for these "managers" of any given department to manage a 2% cut.

2% is nothing. As noted, many families had to adjust to 10-20%+ downturns in their income 3+ years ago when the economy fell apart. Businesses did the same. My employer cut our pay 10% in '09, and cut ALL non essentials (took away coffee maker, etc.).

But a 2% to a government program... woah no!! sky is falling!! furloughs for everybody! your meat's not getting inspected! etc. etc.

all politics aside, it's just ridiculous. It's 2%. Manage. I have a hard time believing any/all programs are running within 2% of peak efficiency anyways.

I also agree that we've proven over and over again we can't figure out how to pick and choose meaningfully, or assess efficiencies at the government level, so the only way to get anything done for cost cutting seems to be across the board.

To the OP, I feel for you, and this isn't directed at you.... just sheer amazement at the stupidity of the whole greater process.

^That's why I was a fan of the Mack-Penny plan, cut 1% each year for 6 years (so a 6% cut spread over 6 years) and Bang, balanced budget or close to it.

But currently Gov't depts have no incentive to save, I have an idea for it, but it will never happen.

Just to throw fuel on the fire: Amtrak has 2 people (two!) whose job is to make sure that all of their vendors meet their diversity requirements. I have no idea how much they get paid, but the fact that they are paying 2 (two!) people to do that is berking ridiculous.

The only reason they cut pay and services so much in reaction to a 2% funding cut is to get people to whine about it. If they did the sensible thing then nobody would whine and they wouldn't get their gravy train back or heaven forbid they would be expected to actually do with a 3% or 4% cut next. NO WAY they're going to volunteer for that one!

Oh, and blaming it on Obama is just playing their game. It's no more his than it is the easter bunny's or the repubs in the senate. It's everyone's fault.

I think its very telling how out of control spending was when considering the following:

Before the sequestration threatened the first time and when it finally went thru, the Whitehouse tried to apply political spin pressure on conservatives to compromise (or cave in depending on pov) on the issue.

One of the tactics they used was to bait them on an issue commonly seen as more of a conservative issue; military spending.

They attempted to project a narrative that they would be hurting their own cause dramatically on defense spending.

This tactic got almost no traction anywhere. Basically the reply from elected Republicans amounted to, "the only way we're going to get the complete cuts to the bottom line is if defense eats it too? we can live with that." and the point fell flat after that.

I think the Whitehouse expected a bigger response to that particular narrative than what they got, wether it was voter blame, or just more protective behavior from Republicans.

But what it says to me is that the R's thought process was "you mean we can get 2% everywhere guaranteed if we bite 2% off defense? And we don't have to fight any more legislation on the calendar to get it, its already on books?"

Even when the military ASKS for logical cuts, the politicians refuse:

http://news.yahoo.com/army-says-no-more-tanks-congress-insists-115422396.html

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/394/3295750/Congress-makes-it-harder-for-DoD-to-cut-costs

Instead they install the sequester cuts, which everyone agrees are not intelligently aimed.

madmallard wrote: But what it says to me is that the R's thought process was "you mean we can get 2% everywhere guaranteed if we bite 2% off defense? And we don't have to fight any more legislation on the calendar to get it, its already on books?"

As an outsider looking in, that's how it looks to me too.

The problem is that we've got a "pox on both of their houses" mentality; but on one side you've got inadequately equipped and possibly inept firefighters, and on the other you've got arsonists. There is a real problem here, and it's not with the side that kept a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half in four years by doing it in five.

Yeah, effecting me too. Got the word yesterday and waiting till the end of this month for the official notice.
Bright side is maybe I'll be able to catch up on honey-dos around the house. This has also been my year for work travel, already had 8 trips this year and have arrangements made for 4 more in the next month. 12 trips before the middle of June so far. As perspective, I had 12 trips total last year, averaging about one a month.

xflowgolf wrote: ....But a 2% to a government program... woah no!! sky is falling!! furloughs for everybody! your meat's not getting inspected! etc. etc.....

I believe the defense related cuts (because of how things are structured) come out to more like 8%.

The effects of it though do make a pretty powerful statement about how highly intertwined our economy is to government spending. I am not sure if anyone has done a study on it, but I am guessing maybe %30-%50 (higher?) of peoples employment in this country are significantly affected by government spending.

xflowgolf wrote: What I can't fathom is why it's so hard for these "managers" of any given department to manage a 2% cut. 2% is nothing. As noted, many families had to adjust to 10-20%+ downturns in their income 3+ years ago when the economy fell apart. Businesses did the same. My employer cut our pay 10% in '09, and cut ALL non essentials (took away coffee maker, etc.). But a 2% to a government program... woah no!! sky is falling!! furloughs for everybody! your meat's not getting inspected! etc. etc. all politics aside, it's just ridiculous. It's 2%. Manage. I have a hard time believing any/all programs are running within 2% of peak efficiency anyways. I also agree that we've proven over and over again we can't figure out how to pick and choose meaningfully, or assess efficiencies at the government level, so the only way to get anything done for cost cutting seems to be across the board. To the OP, I feel for you, and this isn't directed at you.... just sheer amazement at the stupidity of the whole greater process.

If it were that simple, it wouldn't be as hard as it is. Alas, stuff isn't happening thanks to how the cuts are being done.

Say I had a bunch of projects that I could decide which ones to cut, so that we can keep people working- that would be ok. A pain, but ok. Instead, every single line item is being cut, including payroll. Outside of a few exceptions, noting is being spared.

Now people like to think that nothing will come of it. Well, we've already seen that a cut in FAA reduced the amount of air travel that the system could hanlde. And to brush off food inspections? Really?

I'm not saying there isn't waste. But that happens with free market companies, as well- ones you all hand your money over to. This one, though- as if it's so evil to have roads, or schools, or laws that protect each other, or a military, or a safety net, or etc.

I find another instance where I differ from the group I hang around with...

Datsun310Guy wrote: We have a Debbie downer friend that starts every negative statement with; " Because of Obama......"

There is a real problem here, and it's not with the side that kept a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half in four years by doing it in five.

I found this in Webster's

Chutzpah: fighting spending cuts on a daily basis for 4.5 years and then taking credit when they work.

mtn wrote: Just to throw fuel on the fire: Amtrak has 2 people (two!) whose job is to make sure that all of their vendors meet their diversity requirements. I have no idea how much they get paid, but the fact that they are paying 2 (two!) people to do that is berking ridiculous.

The sad part is if it's like our place since diversity is so important they saved money in places no one cares about like maintenance to make sure they had enough diversity people on hand.

dculberson wrote: The only reason they cut pay and services so much in reaction to a 2% funding cut is to get people to whine about it. If they did the sensible thing then nobody would whine and they wouldn't get their gravy train back or heaven forbid they would be expected to actually do with a 3% or 4% cut next. NO WAY they're going to volunteer for that one! Oh, and blaming it on Obama is just playing their game. It's no more his than it is the easter bunny's or the repubs in the senate. It's everyone's fault.

The problem is that every time people whine about it, they only fix part of the problem. Originally, the FDA was going to furlough it's meat inspectors. There was a public outcry, because the price of meat would go up.

So they spared the meat inspectors, but no one else.

The FAA furloughed air traffic controllers. There was a public outcry, because flights were delayed.

So they spared the air traffic controllers, but no one else.

Now, over 650,000 DoD employees are getting furloughed. Will there be a public outcry?

My point is that, if they actually wanted the public to whine and moan about the sequestration, they would have fixed either none of it or all of it.

Adrift wrote:

There is a real problem here, and it's not with the side that kept a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half in four years by doing it in five.

I found this in Webster's Chutzpah: fighting spending cuts on a daily basis for 4.5 years and then taking credit when they work.

And please do explain how the deficit was cut in half...?

Apparently, no one has any confidence that Congress will fix this. There's discussion of more furloughs next year and a possible reduction in force.

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2013/05/next-years-defense-furlough-prospects-uncertain/63193/?oref=top-story

The 1% will not be affected by this. Everyone else will be but it doesn't matter to our ruling class aka politicians because it's the rich they're trying to appease.

Case in point - The FAA.

Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) would be furloughed. This affects all air travel including private jets accessed via private terminals. "This cannot stand!" said the rich and the politicians who use the rich guy's jets to avoid the TSA and other inconveniences Joe Public has to endure but the ruling class does not. Therefore, this was fixed immediately.

Let us consider the TSA. How long has the public talked about how inefficient, ineffective, and how expensive the TSA is? It's never been fixed. Is it a coincidence that the ruling class, again - politicians and the rich they serve, avoid the TSA by flying via private jets out of private terminals thereby avoiding the TSA they forced on the rest of us? You decide.

Just remember when you're flying again, and taking a pay cut, how well the ruling class flies and how their compensation isn't affected by sequestration. The politicians still have their single payer all encompassing life long health care. They have their life long pensions after serving in public office for one term. The 1% still get the benefits of buying off our government thanks to Citizen's United Supreme Court decision.

Isn't it time we had a government that fostered a strong middle class? The same strong middle class that made the USA the most powerful nation in the world during the 50's and 60's? Coddling the rich 1% won't get us there again.

Elected Officials' pay isn't affected by sequestration.

Senate fixes the (part of the) sequestration (that affects rich people)!