Sequester rant...

As most of you know, the sequester went into effect today. Certain government agencies had their budgets slashed today, all to varying degrees. So if you run an agency that needs widgets, you wont be able to buy as many. If you need fuel, you wont be able to use as much. But what does the government do to Medicare? They cut what the will pay to doctors, but still expect the exact same volume of work! Imagine if they told Chevron... uh... please keep sending us the same amount of gasoline but we will start paying you less! I hope there is one doctor ballsy enough to tell his Medicare patient today... "I'm sorry, I cannot afford to see you until the government restores payments....." It would make for a good news story... I am contractually obligated to take care of all patients regardless of their insurance or lack thereof....

I hate Congress, but I love my Congressman.

Quote: SOOPOO

They cut what the will pay to doctors, but still expect the exact same volume of work!

Are the doctors allowed to ask the patients to make up the difference?

Personally, I think a lot of this is posturing for the camera. Half of these "cuts" aren't even cuts, they are merely a slower rate of growth than expected. In a $3 trillion budget, $85 billion is merely a drop in the bucket. Government could slash its budget overnight by 20% and still maintain the same level of crappy service we get.

Quote: Gabes22

Government could slash its budget overnight by 20% and still maintain the same level of crappy service we get.

And that's the central issue. The really essential aspect.

A cut of 3% which s leaves more than you spent last year hardly deserves to be called "slashed." It is hardly a nick.

When we have to really slash 47% of the population will not know how to survive on their own without having a check handed to them.

President Obama just said this could cost 750,000 jobs. Which begs the question, why do 3/4 of a million people work for the federal government, let alone 3/4 of a million people who could lose their jobs and we could operate like nothing happened?

Quote: Gabes22

President Obama just said this could cost 750,000 jobs. Which begs the question, why do 3/4 of a million people work for the federal government, let alone 3/4 of a million people who could lose their jobs and we could operate like nothing happened?

The government will buy less (fewer?) goods and services from private companies during this period. Those private companies thus need less staff...

That didn't really answer my question though. Why is the government that big to begin with. 750K is just about 1 in every 450 people in this country. If you include working people, that is roughly 1 in every 200 Americans, and this is just they ones they "might" cut, which suggests that staffs are at least 3-4 times that. Why is the Federal Government so big that roughly 1 in every 50 people which has a job in this country works for them. That seems like an astronomically high number to me.

This is very simple; the Fed Gov't spends way more than it takes in. Has for years. Our combined national debt is somewhere around 17 TRILLION dollars. Sooner or later the bill comes due. This "sequester" is a small drop in the bucket of what's coming down the road. Both sides of the aisle are to blame. Very few elected officials, of either party, have the courage to make the real significant changes that are needed to get our fiscal house in order. We need new blood in office, with honest answers. Stop voting these same morons in. Our government is being run irresponsibly. Enough is enough.

I have worked a number of jobs over the years with varying amounts of stress/pay ratios. But government jobs, regardless of the pay levels, have very low stress/pay ratios.

It irks me that politicians talk about creating jobs as if that is the unit of success. A job is a job is a job.

But a big part of the problem is that some of the lower stress/pay ratio jobs that are out there are government created jobs that are not equal to many of the other jobs which have suffered from the political juggling going on.

Small businesses that have to pay taxes and in general do all the really hard work themselves because they are too small to have dedicated workers just doing specific things have to worry about all kinds of crap that a government worker, like someone who renews your license at the DMV counter never has to deal with.

I go in to the DMV, and I wait in line for 2 hours here in Nevada, and when I finally get to talk to the person, they are not stressed at all. Then they are talking to me about how great their job is.

So, check it out. Meanwhile, this person is just rubber stamping a process that a computer could do these days. So someone "created that job." Great.

And I'm almost certain that there is no government metric for how much of my time is wasted in line. IE: for every person "working" at the DMV, how many other people are waiting in line and unable to work. If you think about it, the politician may be thinking about jobs created at the DMV office, when in fact, when you factor in hourly pay rate, the DMV office represents not positive 15 jobs but negative 300 to 3000 jobs. I'm sure it's more extreme in Santa Monica where many people have to go to the DMV that earn several hundred dollars an hour.

My overriding point though is that when government is using stupid metrics to try to fix things and legislate us out of trouble with policies to create jobs, I think we're all doomed.

Personally I would like to create a "vote of no confidence" for the entire federal government.

Quote: Gabes22

President Obama just said this could cost 750,000 jobs. Which begs the question, why do 3/4 of a million people work for the federal government, let alone 3/4 of a million people who could lose their jobs and we could operate like nothing happened?

The numbers are just made up. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said we would lose 170MM jobs over it. IOW every job in the USA and 20MM in China I guess.

It is 3%. If you were a CEO and claimed all this would happen with a 3% drop in sales you would be fired.

Quote: Gabes22

That didn't really answer my question though. Why is the government that big to begin with. 750K is just about 1 in every 450 people in this country. If you include working people, that is roughly 1 in every 200 Americans, and this is just they ones they "might" cut, which suggests that staffs are at least 3-4 times that. Why is the Federal Government so big that roughly 1 in every 50 people which has a job in this country works for them. That seems like an astronomically high number to me.

The 750,000 number includes people in private business. Not all of the people whose jobs are on the line work for the government. For example, defense contractors will likely lay off staff during the sequester (example: Oshkosh will make fewer ridiculously huge military trucks for a few months).

Quote: AZDuffman

It is 3%. If you were a CEO and claimed all this would happen with a 3% drop in sales you would be fired.

Most sources say it's 9% for non-defense and 13% for defense in 2013. Where does your 3% number come from?

Quote: Gabes22

That didn't really answer my question though. Why is the government that big to begin with. 750K is just about 1 in every 450 people in this country. If you include working people, that is roughly 1 in every 200 Americans, and this is just they ones they "might" cut, which suggests that staffs are at least 3-4 times that. Why is the Federal Government so big that roughly 1 in every 50 people which has a job in this country works for them. That seems like an astronomically high number to me.

He didn't say 750k government jobs are lost. For instance, if a military base closes, it generally affects all the community support jobs around it.

People that are eating lunch at a local diner, disapear...etc., Cleaners do less busines, Gas stations,...


edit, or what rdw said

Quote: rdw4potus

Most sources say it's 9% for non-defense and 13% for defense in 2013. Where does your 3% number come from?

It is 3% of the entire budget. Any % can look bigger if you do not count everything you need to divide into it.

Obama needs to quit campaigning and do his job. Figure out where a cut can be made. Do it across the board if need be. If he put half the effort into that as he does attacking the GOP we would have a balanced budget.

Quote: AZDuffman

Obama needs to quit campaigning and do his job. .

When Reagan did it, it was bypassing congress and addressing the people directly. Now you call it campaigning. Same thing.

Quote: rxwine

When Reagan did it, it was bypassing congress and addressing the people directly. Now you call it campaigning. Same thing.

Not really. Reagan was a success and the economy boomed under him. He united the country. Obama cries like a baby that the people he calls greedy racists won't do exactly what he wants.

He is community organizing, not governing.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really. Reagan was a success and the economy boomed under him. He united the country. Obama cries like a baby that the people he calls greedy racists won't do exactly what he wants.

He is community organizing, not governing.

Obama is a narcissist. At least Clinton genuinely wanted everyone to like him, which is why he seemed to always do what 50.1% or more of the people wanted. If you disagree with Obama, he actually thinks you are stupid.

Quote: Gabes22

Obama is a narcissist. At least Clinton genuinely wanted everyone to like him, which is why he seemed to always do what 50.1% or more of the people wanted. If you disagree with Obama, he actually thinks you are stupid.

I agree with almost everything you've said. But, just to be clear, about 70% of the population favors Obama's proposed solution in this case...

I wasn't aware he has a solution.

Quote: rdw4potus

But, just to be clear, about 70% of the population favors Obama's proposed solution in this case...

90% used to believe we should burn witches at the
stake. At any given time, the 'population' is the least
informed entity you can quote.

Quote: EvenBob

90% used to believe we should burn witches at the
stake. At any given time, the 'population' is the least
informed entity you can quote.

Yup, and when the popular vote starts endorsing witch burning type answers, we invariably have Conservatives at the helm.

Quote: Gabes22

Obama is a narcissist. At least Clinton genuinely wanted everyone to like him

I'm pretty sure much of the nation hated Lincoln at one time. What does it prove?

I wasn't trying to prove anything. Just agreeing and adding on to AZDuffman's point. Personally, Republican or Democrat, having the President live in your town sucks. When he is around it just disrupts life here too much.

Quote: SOOPOO

As most of you know, the sequester went into effect today. Certain government agencies had their budgets slashed today, all to varying degrees. So if you run an agency that needs widgets, you wont be able to buy as many. If you need fuel, you wont be able to use as much. But what does the government do to Medicare? They cut what the will pay to doctors, but still expect the exact same volume of work! Imagine if they told Chevron... uh... please keep sending us the same amount of gasoline but we will start paying you less! I hope there is one doctor ballsy enough to tell his Medicare patient today... "I'm sorry, I cannot afford to see you until the government restores payments....." It would make for a good news story... I am contractually obligated to take care of all patients regardless of their insurance or lack thereof....

In some ways it's just another form of redistribution: whether true or not, health care workers are thought to earn decent livings so they'll survive and on their backs, money will go elsewhere to "the people who need it" or the "programs we need".

The money eventually will have to come from somewhere, and disproportionately the middle and upper classes will need to pay. In many ways we've been thrown into a pot put on slow boil as we don't notice all of the little things, but one day we'll just wake up cooked!

After reading all the responses to this topic I could not help but break one of my rules and get involved in a political conversation of sorts. In the interest of full disclosure, I work for the federal government as a white collar worker who is effected by this sequester but feel that it gives me a unique perspective.

There is so much misinformation being spread around through propaganda from both sides of the aisle that no one including me knows the true effect this is going to have on the economy through a trickle down effect. In actuality there are very few Government employees that are going to be going through the RIF process (reduction in force aka layoff). However many contractors will be shedding employees due to the budget constraints and the agency choosing not to renew contracts. Most Federal Government workers (not DMV they are state) will be facing furloughs and associated pay cuts raging from 10-20% of gross salary.

All of the below are my personal feelings please do not construe these as facts, they are based merely on my observations:

Discretionary spending is just the tip of the iceberg when dealing with the federal budget. It could be reduced to $0 and we would still have a huge deficit yearly. With that said there could be reform in this area to save money but not just take an across the board approach such as this sequester. The areas that I see significant savings in are eliminating duplication of efforts across the agencies, eliminate ear marks in bills (although they are no longer allowed by that name they appear in different forms in bills), reduce spending on contractors to perform services that can be performed in house. The real spending problem is with entitlement programs. They need a complete overhaul if anyone is serious about addressing the deficit. The problem is that no politician is going to touch this with a ten foot pole because they will infuriate his/her constituents.

As for the stereotype of the typical Government worker and Government Agency some of what everyone thinks is true but a vast majority is misinformation. I came from the private sector doing a similar activity, granted it is very specialized, but took a pay cut. I knew this going into the job and choose to do this for personal reasons and do not regret the decision at all. Overall it improved the quality of my life. I do not want to get into specifics of what I do, but my primary responsibility is to collect revenue due to under reported or unreported value and ensure consumer safety of products. I am under greater stress for less pay working for the Government then I was working for a private company. When times were good and the economy was booming you do not hear anyone complaining about Government employee salaries or benefits. It may have to do with the huge bonuses that that my private sector counterparts received. Now that the tides have changed and corporate bonuses and salaries are not the same everyone feels that the Government worker is over paid. Some people are overpaid in the Government, let me say it straight out without pulling punches but a majority are paid similar or paid less then the private sector. This includes the perks by the way. I do not think a secretary should make 60k for doing payroll and total compensation should be adjusted to better suit your job. If adjusted correctly though the Government would probably end up paying more in salary.

In my agency we are facing furlough because a majority of our budget is made up of salary. Our group is small (about 550 nationwide) but we pay for ourselfs and then some. Is it really logical to furlough an agency group that contributes money toward the general fund instead of taking it away? No one thinks they need the government until a service or saftey net is not provided. If we would eliminate the fraud for many programs it would amount to a large savings. Is this going to effect me, yes but not to the point that I can not live. I will just funnel less money to main street due to the salary reduction.

The posturing in Washington is typical of partisan politics. Both sides are so entrenched that they fail to see the trees through the forest. If they would give on ideology a bit, and come up with a reasonable solution everyone would win. There are much smarter ways to reduce spending then this approach, and I feel that agency management could handle this better because they know the workings of the departments.

The effect will not be seen until April at the earliest because of the guide lines that agencies must follow. I do not think that the effects are going to be as bad as Democrats are making it out to be but it will be worse then the Republicans make it out to be. I guess the markets will respond and we will all get our answer soon enough.

My agency, the USPTO, isn't supposed to be overly affected, but we'll see. I work a 9-80 schedule so I wasn't in today to check my mail. Thankfully we contract out a lot of work so (word is) they'd go first along with overtime. It's complicated, but has something to do with the fact that we pay for ourselves with fees. So...

Keep on filing. And paying your renewal fees (Thanks Wiz, Dan, and others).

Quote: Wizard

Are the doctors allowed to ask the patients to make up the difference?

No- Medicare requires us to bill Medicare first, and they will pay 80% of the fee. Then we are REQUIRED to bill the patient for exactly the other 20%. The only way I can waive that 20% is if I get a hardship letter from the patient. In the past colleagues, friends, and family members were given 'courtesy' for the 20%, not allowed any more. Many patients have what is termed 'secondary insurance' which pays that 20%. So I have to send Medicare a bill. Then they (eventually) pay me. Then I have to send the patient a bill. Then the patient will call our office and give us the secondary insurance if they have it. We get the 20% 2 to 3 months after the procedure. If the patient has no secondary insurance we maybe get paid half the time for that 20%.

Quote: SOOPOO

No- Medicare requires us to bill Medicare first, and they will pay 80% of the fee. .

How is Obamacare taking away 700 billion from Medicare
going to effect doctors. Or don't you know yet.

Quote: rdw4potus

I agree with almost everything you've said. But, just to be clear, about 70% of the population favors Obama's proposed solution in this case...

Obama proposed the sequester, are you saying 70% of the population supports it?

Quote: EvenBob

How is Obamacare taking away 700 billion from Medicare
going to effect doctors. Or don't you know yet.

the Hippocratic Oath should now read....."do not harm and make no money"

This will not end well.

Quote: AZDuffman

Obama proposed the sequester, are you saying 70% of the population supports it?

No, he didn't. Jack Lew did. Jack Lew is NOT BARACK OBAMA. There is a difference between the administration and the President. I know you wish it wasn't so, but it just is.

Quote: rdw4potus

No, he didn't. Jack Lew did. Jack Lew is NOT BARACK OBAMA. There is a difference between the administration and the President. I know you wish it wasn't so, but it just is.

His administration = his idea. Or was he just too busy playing golf to know what he was signing off on.

Where does the buck stop? Not in Obama's office by your standards I guess......

Quote: AZDuffman

His administration = his idea. Or was he just too busy playing golf to know what he was signing off on.

Where does the buck stop? Not in Obama's office by your standards I guess......

So, because he signed off on it, it was his idea? What an indefensibly silly notion. Boehner and McConnell also agreed to the sequester. Was it their idea, too?

Quote: rdw4potus

So, because he signed off on it, it was his idea? What an indefensibly silly notion. Boehner and McConnell also agreed to the sequester. Was it their idea, too?

Not really, Obama's White House proposed it. Boehner was ready to make a better deal but Obama prefers crisis and disaster so he can blame someone else to score political points.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really, Obama's White House proposed it. Boehner was ready to make a better deal but Obama prefers crisis and disaster so he can blame someone else to score political points.

Boehner had the votes to get something through the house that also would have passed the senate? What was that magic plan?

Congress has had its lowest approval ratings ever -- in history. As a working group that makes them losers. Duffman approves apparently. It figures.

Quote: rxwine

Congress has had its lowest approval ratings ever -- in history. As a working group that makes them losers. Duffman approves apparently. It figures.

Lets see, we have a Senate that hasn't even passed a budget in three years and they have low approval? Imagine!

Quote: AZDuffman

Lets see, we have a Senate that hasn't even passed a budget in three years and they have low approval? Imagine!

Grover Norquist had 95% of Republican members pledge to not raise taxes, but the dumbass didn't get them to pledge against spending.

Quote: rxwine

Grover Norquist had 95% of Republican members pledge to not raise taxes, but the dumbass didn't get them to pledge against spending.

Hey, I wish they would control spending, actual cuts. But we have a POTUS that refuses to cut even a dime of spending and proposes tax increases like it is a bodily function. Hard to deal with someone like that.

Quote: AZDuffman

Lets see, we have a Senate that hasn't even passed a budget in three years and they have low approval? Imagine!

Sadly, the House's approval rating is lower than the Senate's.

Quote: AZDuffman

Hey, I wish they would control spending, actual cuts. But we have a POTUS that refuses to cut even a dime of spending and proposes tax increases like it is a bodily function. Hard to deal with someone like that.

Ironic to whine about a POTUS that won't cut a dime on the day that across the board discretionary spending cuts kicked in, don't you think?

But seriously, Obama's been talking non-stop for YEARS about both raising taxes and cutting spending. That may not be a good plan, but it's very very obviously happened.

Quote: rxwine

Congress has had its lowest approval ratings ever -- in history. As a working group that makes them losers. Duffman approves apparently. It figures.

You made me smile.

The President and the Congress decided together to avoid this problem when it was politically inconvenient and came up with a plan that punished the people for their inability to govern.

The sequester really isn't a lot of money out of our budget...hmmm...okay we have no passed budget...it isn't that big of a hunk out of our increased spending BUT it was done in a way that will really hurt some people. Wall Street doesn't seem all that upset about it (and it probably was already factored into the market months ago since they know our government is proficient at getting nothing done) so perhaps the impact on EVERYONE won't be huge...but tell that to the ones that will be impacted.

I wonder if it isn't time to play "small ball" and try to swing things in one direction or the other. Instead of huge bills meant to fix everything (and, like the Sandy bill, be so made so complex people can try to hide money for Alaska in a bill for a relief from a hurricane that hit a few miles from there), why not do a series of small bills that fix as many of the problems that agreement can be reached on as possible? If everyone is pretty much in agreement that XXXX tax incentive shouldn't be allowed or that XXXX government program is a waste, then address that item.

If the House passes the bill and the Senate doesn't consider it, talk about them failing to do their job. If both pass the bill and the President doesn't sign it, talk about him failing to his job. What we have most of the time now is no one doing anything and then saying the other side isn't doing anything.

For example, we have 10-12 different programs for school lunches according to Rush. Is that true? If it is true, can we cut it down to less and increase efficiency? Just saying the government is inefficient is great...but shouldn't we be "kicking ass" and making those in government who are wasting our money do a better job with our dollars? Why do we just accept that government is what it is?

The size of the federal government (executive branch workers) at the end of 2011 was 2,793.494. Between 1965 and 1996 the numbers were higher. Payroll was $170.8 billion. The workers include the 612,000 US Postal workers, 318,000 in VA, 766,000 in defense, 192,000 in homeland security, 117,000 in Justice, and 66,000 in Social Security.

50,000 jobs were cut in 2011, mostly consisting of 31,000 postal workers and 13,000 in defense.

Quote: boymimbo

The size of the federal government (executive branch workers) at the end of 2011 was 2,793.494. Between 1965 and 1996 the numbers were higher. Payroll was $170.8 billion. The workers include the 612,000 US Postal workers, 318,000 in VA, 766,000 in defense, 192,000 in homeland security, 117,000 in Justice, and 66,000 in Social Security.

50,000 jobs were cut in 2011, mostly consisting of 31,000 postal workers and 13,000 in defense.

I'm not sure what the "right" number of federal employees is, but I believe it is some number less than the number we have right now. I don't want to dump any of them on the streets but we need to do with the government what many of us do in our own lives--find the waste and trim it.

For example...if there really are 12 programs giving out food for school lunches, figure out how they can be combined, still provide the lunches, and keep the number of "worker bees" needed to make the programs work but reduce the overhead of middle/upper management, etc. that having extra organizations causes. I'm not "after" the federal employee or the program (though some need to disappear); I am after the waste.

Quote: rdw4potus

But seriously, Obama's been talking non-stop for YEARS about both raising taxes and cutting spending. That may not be a good plan, but it's very very obviously happened.

He has talked about cutting spending, but never proposes anything that does it. Even when he proposes cutting military spending he talks about using the "savings" for something else.

Now on raising taxes, he is happy to do that. Mostly as long as it is on "the rich" of course.