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.
Shame on Obama and the Democrats! Perhaps they have proven who they really are
to the American people!
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
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.
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.... 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.
@ 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
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.
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'.
@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.
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
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
theprivate 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.
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)
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.
@Unreconstructed RebAt least some agencies have already sent out the
notices. For DoD the furloughs will begin 23 March.
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.
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
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.
@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?
@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.
@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.
re:Alfredfrom 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
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
@crawfordzooEveryone 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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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?
@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.
@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
SammyBProvo, UTHoly 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======== netrightdailycaptialismistitutepoliticomafiosoamericanclarionfoxnewsinsiderblogs hardly count as "the news".
@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 liarI am also exhausted with
the media generally allowing Obama to get away with calling a smaller increase,
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.
re:SammyBHere'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
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.
"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
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.
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.
The president has been speaking of the effects of the cuts on people, not your
beloved stock market.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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,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