Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Washington's sequestration scare-tactic fail

Comments

Return To Article
  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    March 8, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    Swiss,

    I'll buy your bridge. There are 2 types of furloughs. A shutdown furlough happens when the government's budget authority runs out and everything is forced to close by law. This happened in the budget showdown in 1995, and later Congress decided not to penalize federal workers for being forced home by politics. Shutdown furloughs have been narrowly avoided the past few years, and another one looms in less than 3 weeks. Pundits generally agree that in today's poisonous climate, it's doubtful that federal workers would receive pay for time lost in another shutdown furlough.

    Sequestration is the second type of furlough - adminstrative. This is a planned event in response to budget reductions. There is zero expectation that federal workers admninistratively furloughed would be reimbursed when they are being furloughed precisely because there isn't enough money to pay them. That was the POINT of sequestration. The only hope of avoiding this is if Congress decides to allow agencies more leeway in where they absorb the cuts, and there's a House-passed bill that's in the Senate that may do just that.

    Be grateful your job isn't completely at the mercy of disfunctional politicians.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 8, 2013 12:34 a.m.

    "However, it would be entirely accurate to say Wall Street does not view sequestration as a threat to the economy. "

    This is the silliest statement I have ever read. Using DN's logic, it would be entirely accurate to say Wall Street does not view current debt and deficits as a threat to the economy. It would be entirely accurate to say Wall Street does not view congressional gridlock as a threat to the economy. It would be entirely accurate to say Wall Street view's the current president as the greatest president in modern time.

  • Swiss Price, Utah
    March 7, 2013 7:20 p.m.

    Have no fear sequesterees just go home and do whatever you want to do. DC shutdown before. People went home that weren't essential. They enjoyed not going to work and when it was over. They were paid as if they went to work. Does anybody believe this Obamaquester will be handled any different than the shutdown was.
    I have a great bridge to sell anyone who says it won't.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    As noted in another post, Mr. Obama warned that childhood immunizations would suffer because of the $30 Mil sequestration cut to immunization programs. His budget cut $50 Mil from childhood immunizations, almost twice the sequestration, something he forgot to tell us. The president's mendacity is staggering. His sycophants have released criminals from jail blaming it on a cut that had not occurred. Sending his wife to appear on tv talk shows does not substitute for good governance.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    The stock market is only good because it is fed by low, or non-existent, interest rates - which the feds have forced to compensate for the Obama administrations’ anti-economic growth policies. Little of that money is being plowed back into actual economic growth or job creation. Most market analysts agree than when interest rates change - as they eventually must - the results will not be good.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    March 7, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    truthseeker2: You are right that the sequester only targets certain programs within the budget so for those specific programs the cuts amount to more than 2.4%. Just like when a company has to cut 2% of its workforce, the unemployment of the few people layed off is 100% for those people and impacts them severely.

    The sequester is a dumb way to cut the budget, but it still doesn't take away the fact that the total cuts only amount to about 2% of the total budget. The reason that all the cuts are directed at only a few programs is because the government chose to do it that way.

    I wish the President and Congress would figure out how to make severe cuts to government spending in the most efficient way, but since Obama and the Democrats never want to cut anything and just continue this road to bankruptcy, the sequester is the best we can do under those conditions.

    Painful gastric bypass surgery is better than dying of morbid obesity if you prove you can't control your appetite and exercise a little.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    March 6, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    Badgerbadger,

    Since the Great Recession, federal employees have given up $102 billion in pay freezes/cuts, lost benefits, and stalled promotions. Many agencies have had hiring freezes and been unable to fill open slots, so we've been doing more with less.

    Don't lecture me about shared sacrifices. I didn't see you making shared sacrifices when I was deployed support in a war zone, under the same risk of IEDs, snipers, and mortars as the guys in uniform. During the economic boom I didn't see you asking the private sector to make shared sacrifices with us 'govvies' who weren't out making a bunch of money because service to country at war was a higher priority for us. And I pay the same taxes that you do to support the folks who've been unemployed for 5 years.

    The folks I work with spend more time doing their jobs than most of the guys I saw in the private sector who surfed the net or played solitaire at their desks any time the bosses back was turned.

    Your claim that the deficit is an obstacle to economic growth flies in the face of every boom for the past 4 decades.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 6, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    The president has been speaking of the effects of the cuts on people, not your beloved stock market.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    If the stock market rise is a sign of good government fiscal policy then Obama should get an A+. I will remind you that between 2009 and 2012 the market doubled in a three year period. Such a rise only happened once or twice before. The health of our economy may easily be in spite of the sequester. Do we really want to jeopardize that.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 6, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    To those of you who claim to be working an HAFB:

    Did you endure furloughs, or periods of unemployment, or pay cuts during the great recession? A whole lot of your countrymen, and even fellow Utahans did. Many are still without jobs. We forget that here in Utah because it is not as bad here, but across the country there are those still unemployed after 5 years. Liberals are the ones who preach shared sacrifice. Why are you unwilling to take your turn?

    I realize the sequestration will affect some of the population negatively in the short term, but it is for the good of everyone in the long term. Deficits spending has become a drag on the economy instead of a stimulus.

    The republicans have the right side of this issue. They already have a bill to target the cuts at waste, instead of chopping the military, i.e. your jobs. Harry Reid will probably block it, but you need to write him and urge him to do the right thing.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    March 6, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    "The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year, so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.

    But that’s misleading, because large parts of the federal budget are exempt from the sequester cuts — including such “mandatory” programs as Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and food stamps. The sequester cuts are split between defense and nondefense spending.

    According to a February report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester includes $42.7 billion in cuts to discretionary defense spending, a 7.9 percent reduction; $28.7 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, a 5.3 percent reduction; $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts, a 2 percent reduction; and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts, a 5.8 percent reduction.

    Claims that the sequester only cuts 2.4 percent (or 3 percent) of the federal budget ignore that the sequester does not apply to the entirety of the federal budget."
    (factcheck)

    last post

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    March 6, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    Miss Piggie,

    I forgot to add that *I* fully expect to receive a furlough and 20% reduction in pay. I have been living with determination of sequestration impacts every day at work for the past 6 months. It affects the current fiscal year as well as the next 9. I have done the math and frankly you don't understand what you're talking about.

    Nate,

    I understand what you mean about opportunity cost of tax dollars. I have also seen studies of fiscal multipliers showing that in certain circumstances it's more efficient in GDP terms to spend $10 million on something like a road project than it would be to give 10,000 people $1,000. This is a fascinating area in which we could have a good spirited discussion, but unfortunately it's a little constricted in the word and posting limits.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 6, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    re:SammyB

    Here's the text (redacted) of the email you are talking about:

    "All,
    During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region).
    The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS (Animal Plant Health Inspec. Service--Blanket Purchase Agreement).
    The response back was, “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that “APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.“

    So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
    I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000
    aquaculture reduction.
    I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

    It appears the right-winged tabloids are trying to twist and distort what the e-mail actually says. No surprise there.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    March 6, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    Miss Piggie,

    It's hardly a scare tactic. I know people who are receiving furlough notices. Others here are vouching for the same. Various agencies and the military warned Congress that they would have to do that unless they repealed sequestration or allowed agency discretion to absorb the cuts. Sequestration was DESIGNED to do this, it's not part of a nefarious scheme of Obama's. This is real and this is happening.

    "My understanding is that the sequestration cut is supposed to be across the government... every agency (except Obama and is friends, of course) get a 2%."

    Wrong. It does affect Obama because it impacts the White House operating budget. And it impacts government agencies at much higher rates that 2%. The cuts represent 2% of the overall federal budget. But 2/3s of that is nondiscretionary budget which sequestration cannot touch. The cuts come out of the remaining 1/3 of the budget, minus things like combat operations. At this point you're looking at cuts in the range of 8-10% for various agencies. Plus half the fiscal year is over, so the cuts have to be absorbed in the remaining 6 months. Hence 20% cuts in paychecks.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    @atl134

    "Oh so now you're mad at them for cutting spending?"
    Can't speak for Mountainman - but I am mad at Obama and the Democrats for staging a completely hysterical drama over a 2.5% reduction in INCREASES in spending spread over several years (including a release of thousands of illegal immigrants prior to any smaller increase in spending actually taking place, in an attempt to viscously politicize the issue): Particularly when Senate Democrats refused to alter the cuts to make them more surgical (which would not affect the military so harshly), rather than meat cleaver, and instead proposed an additional INCREASE in the INCREASE in spending and taxation.
    Obama is merely being what Obama has always been (to anyone who actually paid attention): a bully and a liar
    I am also exhausted with the media generally allowing Obama to get away with calling a smaller increase, a cut.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 6, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    SammyB
    Provo, UT
    Holy Cow,people! Why aren't you talking about the leaked email from the White House?
    Today the news about the leaked email said that very thing and no one here is talking about it?
    12:44 p.m. March 6, 2013

    ========

    netrightdaily
    captialismistitute
    politicomafioso
    americanclarion
    foxnewsinsider

    blogs hardly count as "the news".

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    March 6, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    @Unreconstructed Reb:
    "With respect, if you didn't hear that several hundred thousand people would be losing 20% of their pay as a result of sequestration..."

    It's a scare tactic. The Obama administration will go to any lengths to discredit Republicans. He wants to control the House at midterm elections. Obama's long term objective is to significantly change the American system... into socialism. He can only do that if the Republicans lose control and the Democrats win control of the House in the next House election in two years.

    "... then you don't have a clear idea of how sequestration works."

    My understanding is that the sequestration cut is supposed to be across the government... every agency (except Obama and is friends, of course) get a 2%. And it affects future budget increases... not current spending levels.

    "This is much bigger than a 2%..."

    It's 2%. Do the math

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 6, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    @Res Novae "...golf club memberships and private jets..."

    I see this as wasted tax money, not true prosperity. I think you may agree.

    "...fiscal multiplier effect..."

    I've seen these estimates, but they always ignore the other half of the equation -- the negative ripple effect of taking that dollar out of the economy in the first place. What would that same dollar have done if spent in the private economy? It would have had multiplier effects of its own, which we are now missing out on. I know these effects are immeasurable, but how do the two not cancel each other out?

    "...'efficient' spending is another issue entirely..."

    I think we may agree on this, also. The question boils down to this: will the federal government be smarter with the money than the aggregate wisdom of the hundreds of millions of people being taxed? Progressives generally believe they will. In my lifetime, I have seen no evidence that this is true. Quite the opposite.

    Some federal spending we can't avoid. For all the rest, I say let individuals and families decide how best to spend it. It's our money.

  • SammyB Provo, UT
    March 6, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Holy Cow,people! Why aren't you talking about the leaked email from the White House? Last night my son said it is obvious that the president is making painful cuts designed to scare the public that will have only a tiny impact on the deficit while leaving the giant issues alone. He said that closing the White House to the public was a tantrum with the hopes that the Republicans would feel the heat.

    Today the news about the leaked email said that very thing and no one here is talking about it?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    @Mountanman:
    "Shame on Obama and the Democrats! Perhaps they have proven who they really are to the American people!"

    Oh so now you're mad at them for cutting spending? Obama can probably cure cancer and you'd complain that he's putting doctors and pharmacists out of work.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    March 6, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @Nate -

    "Prosperity doesn't come from government spending."

    If you saw the hourly rates for many contractors from private companies working for the government, you'd find out that there's plenty of prosperity from government spending. Taxpayers shouldn't be complaining about the money spent on entitlements nearly as much as they should be complaining about the golf club memberships and private jets they've been paying for on behalf of contractor CEOs.

    "When we spend a federal dollar, it first must be extracted from the economy in the form of taxation. Either it's a complete wash, or we get reduced efficiency from that dollar as it makes its round trip through Washington."

    Not necessarily, there's a strong economic argument that particular types or scenarios of government spending has a fiscal multiplier effect on GDP. For every $1 spent, GDP may increase by $1.50 in GDP, for example. The government recoups its dollar as overall GDP increases in a healthy economy and the government engages in taxation. The economy still improves by $.50. Of course, the disconnect between economic analysists and policymakers as far as "efficient" spending is another issue entirely.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    March 6, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon,

    "I work at Hill AFB."

    For whatever it's worth, I'm right there with you in terms of the personal impact, Brother. It's clear that a lot of folks don't grasp the full implications of sequestration.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    March 6, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    @crawfordzoo

    Everyone I know in DOD here is still waiting for official furlough notices to come out. I'm surprised to hear that furloughs for some are starting in a couple of weeks. That would mean that their notices came out before sequestration was implemented. Not saying you're wrong, I just find it interesting. If you know someone who was furloughed with less than 30 days' notice, point out that it's a violation of 5 CFR part 752.404.

    @Miss Piggie

    "Why would furlough notices be needed for existing employees since the sequester affects only budget increases?"

    With respect, if you didn't hear that several hundred thousand people would be losing 20% of their pay as a result of sequestration, then you don't have a clear idea of how sequestration works. This is much bigger than a 2% hit to the total federal budget would imply at first glance.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 6, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    The final report of the Special U.S. Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction was released Wednesday. Congress set up the SIGIR office and Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen and his staff relentlessly tracked down what happened to the $146 billion in Iraqi money and the $60 billion in U.S. funds -- much of it airlifted to Iraq in pallets of shrink-wrapped $50 bills. Despite a $60 billion U.S effort to rebuild Iraq, life for most Iraqis has not improved significantly, according to a bitter and regretful retrospective by Iraqi officials and U.S. diplomats, military officers and politicians.

    From the SIGIR report:
    "The Iraqis, the recipients of the United States’extraordinary reconstruction largesse, largely lament the lost potential that the massive amounts of U.S. aid promised. U.S. senior leaders firmly grasp the shortfalls faced in Iraq, absorbing them as lessons learned and recognizing the need for mproving the U.S. approach to stabilization and reconstruction operations."

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 6, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    re:Alfred

    from the GAO report:

    "DOD (Dept of Defense) is one of the few federal entities that cannot accurately account for its spending or assets and is one of three major impediments that prevent GAO from rendering an opinion on the annual consolidated financial statements of the federal government. Without accurate, timely, and useful financial information, DOD is severely hampered in making sound decisions affecting its operations."

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    March 6, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2:

    "Government spending needs to be cut. There is waste, fraud, abuse, and general lack of efficiency everywhere in government."

    GAO (the audit arm of the Congress) recently issued a report on fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government... implement the GAO findings in the report and the sequestration will go away.

    "Obama wants to direct ANY attempts to stop the runaway train to areas where it will impact the American public the MOST. He is hoping that the pain he inflicts on regular people will be blamed on Republicans."

    Obama's objective for the next two years is to discredit the Republican party to the extent that the Democrats will be able to take over the House in the next midterm election. At which point Obama (and his Democrat pals) will control all of government, then Obama will proceed to finishing his plan to change America... into socialism.

    @UtahBlueDevil:
    "...and you need to cut their allowances by 7%."

    No. The cut is 2%... over two years. Do the math.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 6, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    @Nate:
    "When we spend a federal dollar, it first must be extracted from the economy in the form of taxation."

    About half (57 cents on each dollar) comes from taxation. The rest (43 cents) comes from borrowing... usually from China or Japan, the countries who have money to lend.

    "Borrow the dollar, and it still must be paid back..."

    Correct, but 'paid back' is in the future... which will affect our kids, grandkids, etc., for generations. In other words... go into debt today to keep our economy running and the heck with what will happen to future generations when the debt must be paid.

    @Truthseeker:
    "Why the bull market for stocks..."

    Simple... Investors have moved to equities because interest rates are either low or non existent. If/when interest begins to rise the equity market will be negatively affected... sans another economic disaster such as the real estate fiasco. If another disaster is on the horizon it likely will involve, in some fashion, our obscene national debt used to feed an ever growing and inefficient federal government.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    March 6, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    @Mountanman:
    "Shame on Obama and the Democrats! Perhaps they have proven who they really are to the American people!"

    They have... They're called 'Uncle Sugar' or 'Santa Claus.' Why? Because their leader, Obama, uses tax dollars as give-aways to his constituents for their vote.

    @Badgerbadger:
    "...but I think too many of them look at the Obamas only with their eyes, and like what they see..."

    Well, I look and get queazy... feels like morning sickness.

    @crawfordzoo:
    "The effects of the sequestration will be felt in the weeks and months to come as furloughs will cut paychecks by a 800 - ? a month."

    How could that be? The sequestration cuts increases. How could cutting increases in out-years be a cut in current paychecks?

    @UtahBlueDevil:
    "I am sorry some people let political fever influence their ability to understand how the equities markets work..."

    If you have insights on how the equity market works, I'd be interested in hearing same.

    @Unreconstructed Reb:
    "At that point formal 30-day furlough notices will be issued as required by law..."

    Why would furlough notices be needed for existing employees since the sequester affects only budget increases?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 6, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Agreed.

    One of the WORST Deseret News Editorial letters ever.

    WallStreet is not the economy.
    GDP is.

    I work at Hill AFB.
    Hill AFB pumps over $1 Billion into the Utah economy every year.
    20% cuts will have a HUGE impact on the Utah economy, but the cuts will not take effect for 40 days - and then will increase over the summer.

    Do you think the State can just pony up another $200 million to make up for that economic loss?
    And the residual economic impact with all the service businesses will be 3-4 times that much.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 6, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Joe... your still wrong.

    It is as if you have 3 kids, and you need to cut their allowances by 7%. Yes, they are scheduled to get a 3% raise next year... this is very much true. But here is the difference. To make the math simple, lets say your kids get $100 each. But two of the kids allowances' are off limits for cuts.

    Your goal is to cut 7% of $300. That would be $21 savings. Since you can only cut that $21 dollars from one child, what will happen is the two kids exempt will have $103 dollars next payout, but kid 3 will have their $100 cut by $21 to $79, then get their 3% back leaving them with $81.40. The net impact to the one kid is a loss of about 18%, while the net effect to the others is a 3% increase.

    Now in the grand scheme, the 7% probably makes sense. But it is how that 7% is dirstributed that is causing the problems. Things like TSA, FAA, EPA, FDA are being hit much harder - as is the civilian side of defense due to how cuts are being distributed.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    March 6, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Actually my analogy was flawed. Instead of threatening to cut her allowance from $20,000 to $19,600, you just threaten to only give her $20,300 next year instead of the raise to $20,500 she was expecting so she calls that a "cut".

    ...there, now it is more accurate.

  • crawfordzoo Barstow, CA
    March 6, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    @Unreconstructed Reb
    At least some agencies have already sent out the notices. For DoD the furloughs will begin 23 March.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    March 6, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Government spending needs to be cut. There is waste, fraud, abuse, and general lack of efficiency everywhere in government. Obama wants to direct ANY attempts to stop the runaway train to areas where it will impact the American public the MOST. He is hoping that the pain he inflicts on regular people will be blamed on Republicans.

    It's kind of like your daughter in college who just spent the $20,000 you gave her to make it through the year, even though you thought it should only cost $15,000. A quick audit of her expenses revealed lavish spring break trips, pizza parties for all her friends, expensive trips to the spa, and other perks you don't think she needs. So you threaten to cut her allowance to only $19,600 (still way more than she really needs). She screams at you that your "painful cuts" will result in no baby formula for your new grandson, no critical books for her math class, and she won't be coming home for Christmas.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 6, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    Why the bull market for stocks, a bear market for workers?

    "First, productivity gains. Corporations have been investing in technology rather than their workers. They get tax credits and deductions for such investments; they get no such tax benefits for improving the skills of their employees. As a result, corporations can now do more with fewer people on their payrolls.

    Second, high unemployment itself. Joblessness all but eliminates the bargaining power of most workers -- allowing corporations to keep wages low. Public policies that might otherwise reduce unemployment -- a new WPA or CCC to hire the long-term unemployed, major investments in the nation's crumbling infrastructure -- have been rejected in favor of austerity economics.

    Third, globalization. Big American-based corporations have been expanding and hiring around the globe where markets are growing fastest.

    Finally, the Fed's easy-money policies. They've pushed investors into the stock market because bond yields are so low. "
    (Robert Reich)

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 6, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    Wow. This has to be one of the worst editorials the DN has ever done. Two key points; budget cuts are phased in so it's not yet certain which ones will take place and which ones wont. Second the stock market is always forward looking and and baked in the first weeks of sequestration weeks ago, so to jump up right now and say look look nothing happened is beyond silly, it's plain uniformed. You, DN should be embarassed by this.

    If you paid attention you would know that the "scare" tactics are not centered on the 85 billion but where those cuts are coming from. Estimates of job losses over the course of the fiscal year are between 1 and 2.5 million..that does not equate to a "few" government jobs.

    Lastly, you applaud the cuts to government to free up capital in the private markets to spur economic growth. Folks a record stock market means there is all ready massive capital in the
    private markets and where is your growth? It's in the pockets of the CEOs. Since 2009 the top 1% have reaped 123% of wage increases.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    March 6, 2013 7:07 a.m.

    First, the stock market has had ample time to factor in the sequestration. Failure of the last minute "negotiations" was a given.

    Second, the issue here will not be an immediate end of days scenario. It will be a slow grind downward. First a few things here, then a few more there, and then some more. Contrary to what folks think, agencies are generally trying to slow not speed the effects (they have a mission they believe in). But eventually, there will be pain.

    How doe can be possibly know this? Because it was DESIGNED to inflict pain. The President and Congress put this in place as something so painful that they would definitely heed the advice of the bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles commission and put in place a long-term fix for the economy.

    But, no listening/heeding going on. So, we get the consequences.

    My take, come talk to me about mid-summer. Then let's see if things are all just humming along (absent a deal being made in the interim).

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 6, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil "The stock market has nothing to do with sequestration."

    That's precisely the point. The Obama administration has been predicting dire consequences in the economy for the reduction of growth in federal spending. They were wrong.

    Prosperity doesn't come from government spending. When we spend a federal dollar, it first must be extracted from the economy in the form of taxation. Either it's a complete wash, or we get reduced efficiency from that dollar as it makes its round trip through Washington. Borrow the dollar, and it still must be paid back -- along with its interest payment -- for which we are also taxed.

    Prosperity comes from private industry. Work produces wealth. Government only spends it, on items both necessary and unnecessary.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 6, 2013 6:27 a.m.

    I'm not sure what it means but it is interesting to note that in this morning's news it was reported that the the top thirty performers in the now record high stock market have not added one job to the economy in over three years. Just sayin'.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    March 6, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    A rather short-sighted editorial.

    Sequestration hasn't even been implemented because Office of Management and Budget is establishing the budget baseline before distributing instructions to individual agencies for their share of the cuts. That will happen this week or next. At that point formal 30-day furlough notices will be issued as required by law to affected federal employees, with furloughs to begin in mid-April. Starting in the next 2 weeks, the process of cancelling or descoping contracts will begin. Several contractor companies I work with are beginning to issue 60 day notifications under the WARN act to inform employees that they will be laid off. More will follow with increased certainty of the impact to spcific contracts.

    Understanding how the nuts and bolts of sequestration work would be helpful before declaring the whole thing a bust a mere 5 days after Obama signed the order to implement it. The immediate impacts haven't even begun, much less the economic ripple effects that will follow. Let's see where we are in 6 months.

    In the meantime, the market is strong. But that is not translating into jobs or middle class gains.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 6, 2013 6:03 a.m.

    @ mountainman.... what has this to do with Obama... your fixation is a bit odd. Washington does not = Obama.

    "Now it appears some serious growth is underway, with new orders and import orders surging. Sequestration hasn't slowed this down a bit. That ought to give Washington a clue."

    The author is pointing out that they have no clue about manufacturing or production planning. This isn't done in a matter of hours, days, or even weeks in many cases. Production is forecasted and planned weeks and months in advance. If the government has curtailed purchasing, this decrease in demand will be felt in the factory shop floors weeks from now. The ripple effect takes a while to get through the chain. I am sure most production planners were hoping/expecting our government to have gotten its act together before sequestration. They were wrong.

    The net effect is largely still unknown. It depends on how department heads - largely nonpartisan people - decide to absorb the cuts. But saying that today's numbers are any kind of indication of the net effect of sequestration, that is just silly.

    Sorry mountainman.... we only have the question, no answer yet on the effect.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 6, 2013 5:42 a.m.

    Copy Cat.... no..... the stock market is a reading of business in the future. It is looking 6 months, a year, or more out on the prospects of these select companies. A lot of these companies don't have business that are dependent of government business - therefor won't have any material impact on their financial results in the near team window.

    I am sorry some people let political fever influence their ability to understand how the equities markets work... but that is just me being silly again I guess.

    To the other silly bits - if you think we are already feeling the full impact of sequestration.... you haven't been paying attention. It will be months until the cuts fully take their bite. Hopefully the adults in Washington will have their acts together by then.

  • crawfordzoo Barstow, CA
    March 5, 2013 10:55 p.m.

    The effects of the sequestration will be felt in the weeks and months to come as furloughs will cut paychecks by a 800 - ? a month. And while the government worker is trying to figure out how to put food on his family's table come April our government generously gives food and other aids to Egypt and Syria. Local economies will suffer even more than they already do and the ripples will be felt all over. Let's look at what the stock market does...oh let's say 4-6 weeks from now. I guess then we'll find out who is silly.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    March 5, 2013 10:12 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil

    "...The stock market has nothing to do with sequestration... at least today's results."

    So the stock market will only be reacting to the sequestration if it goes down? LOL!

    Now YOU are just being silly.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 5, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    It would be nice if the American people opened their minds to the truth about Obama and his agenda, but I think too many of them look at the Obamas only with their eyes, and like what they see so much that they don't want to know anything else.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 5, 2013 7:07 p.m.

    Shame on Obama and the Democrats! Perhaps they have proven who they really are to the American people!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 5, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    Now you are just being silly.

    !) the effects of sequestration haven't even gone into effect - so making any judgement on its impact, or lack there of is truly premature. I do think there was an element of over hype on this issue. But to claim any final analysis is like claiming hoax the second day after a diagnosis of cancer. May be easily treatable, or it may cause a cascading series of events we can not yet see.

    But I get it. You have inches to fill. Ads to sell.

    2) The stock market has nothing to do with sequestration... at least today's results. It is a barometer of business activity... and that is pointing to positive things looking forward. But linking these two events show a real lack of understanding in the dynamics in play right now.