rather than furloughs, why not stop funding weapons programs the Pentagon does
not want but congress keeps approving so they can bring home the pork?But then furloughs may not be so bad an idea - they may realize they
don't need all those employees.
you know, a lot of us are on "furlough" anyway. I'm self employed,
and I haven't been as busy since '08. My pay has been cut way more
than the 20% that some gov. employees are facing. A lot of middle income wage
earners in America have been affected way more than these gov. job guys anyway.
If a few more people have to tighten their belt like the rest of us have had to,
so be it. I just hope that the Pres. and Congress do what is right for American
and not just for their party!
Let's put Congress on furlough and allow the people who do the real work of
American government to continue to work.
John Kerry Warns About Cuts to State Dept, Neglects to Mention the $2.4 Billion
Earmarked For Pakistan
@lost in DC,That would be the rational decision, but sequestration
is structured not to allow the Pentagon to cut what it doesn't need. A
portion of the budget reductions must come from payroll. The result is a
bizarre situation where, to take just one example, the Army is forced to pay for
expensive upgrades that it doesn't even want to its tanks, while at the
same time it has to shut down the depots that provide basic maintenance to said
tanks, furlough the government workers there, cut contractors, and delay basic
tank training.The Pentagon chiefs have accepted the reality of the
coming cuts, but when begging Congress to let them make smart decisions about
where to take them, Congress said no. Sequestration is being driven
by partisan politics, not by deficit reductions in ways that make sense in terms
of economics or force-readiness.@joseywalesYou've taken
an economic hit, I get that. I did too in '08. But furloughing/laying off
several hundred thousand workers/contractors will drag the economy down in a way
that isn't going to help you. Don't cut off your nose to spite your