Sequestration

[Teo Torriatte]

So this is what things have come down to. The sequester goes into effect today and no one in Washington is doing a damn thing about it. Am I the only one that is pretty much totally fed up with just about everyone in the government?

Not just the House Republicans, either... but them, the Senate AND the White House. I have to go to work and do my job... they should have to, as well. But they just sit on their hands and wait to see if they can convince enough people that the other side is more at fault than they are.

Boehner wants the Senate to "get off their ass" and pass a bill... but he is being just as intractable as they are!

[Trieste]

I was just talking about this with someone yesterday. Congressional base pay is about 170k. They get cost of living raises automatically every year. They have frequent recesses. Thy have a sane health care system and their pensions are secure.

None of that is threatened. Why, exactly, should they give a crap at this point, especially after Citizens United?

[Avis habilis]

Half the people in Congress are independently wealthy. I don't mean that figuratively either. I mean fifty percent of them are millionaires. Cut their pay. Eliminate their pay. Cut all their benefits. Take away all their staff resources.

They won't notice. They don't need it.

[elone]

I think we have to face the fact that our government is totally broken and in serious need of some major reform. Ultimately, we the voters need to boot them out, but that is so difficult because everyone always says it is not my congressman/senator, it is all the others.

Some ideas:

1. Term limits on House and Senate, maybe that would lessen the impact of lobbyists funding campaigns and effectively running our country. They put them on the President, why not all of the useless people in Congress.

2. Redistricting by non partisan organization, maybe the census bureau or some sort of commission/court.

3. A real third party movement, we would need to make it easier for parties other than Dems and Repubs to get on ballots.

4. Get rid of campaign contributions from pacs etc. Unfortunately our Supreme court really screwed us on this one.

5. National referendums on issues, let the voters decide some of this stuff directly. (opens can of worms)

5. Real ethics reform/transparency

6. Reform of congressional rules that allow these stalemated to continue

7. Vote, write, express your opinions frequently.

[gaggedLouise]

*nods to all of elone's suggestions*

A few more - and not just applying to the U.S.

1 Politicians seeking top offices, or parliament/city council seats, should be required to have some serious work/career experience outside of politics. I'm fed up with people who have practically never had a job outside of politics, party youth leagues, party affiliated think-tanks, party communication etc, and then running for parliament or even entering the top level of government.

2 People in parliament should be encouraged to keep up a non-political career while they are sitting - it helps them grow a spine vs party bosses and keep in touch with outside issues -  but this should also be kept in the public eye, and transparency and sharp-toothed watchdogs should apply to minimize interference between the political career and someone's off-house job or old employers. - Also, entitlements and bonuses from politics and steady non-political jobs should not be allowed to pile up on each other to the ceiling.

3 No country should have just two parties monopolizing the political system

4 Make central banks and treasuries more transparent and broaden the public debate about what they do and why.

[Callie Del Noire]

Half the people in Congress are independently wealthy. I don't mean that figuratively either. I mean fifty percent of them are millionaires. Cut their pay. Eliminate their pay. Cut all their benefits. Take away all their staff resources.

They won't notice. They don't need it.

Hell just take away their free POSTAGE. Make the federal system pay postage and sudden the post office would suddenly be closure to being out of the black.

[Oniya]

I think you mean 'back in the black'.  (Being 'in the red' comes from the days when deficits were written in red ink to distinguish them from profits - a convention that can still be seen in spreadsheet settings today.)

[Ephiral]

One thing I've always thought would be a good idea: Elected officials' salaries should be directly indexed to the average income of their constituents. I understand that salaries should be attractive to educated, capable professionals, so I wouldn't say they should *match* their typical constituent - but their fortunes should rise and fall with them. This assumes, of course that we eliminate outside sources of personal profit from a political career; for example, I've always been blown away that insider trading is perfectly legal in the US as long as you're in Congress.

[Trieste]

It's one thing to be pissed off about it in the abstract.

It's another thing entirely to see the look on my professor's face when he said today that his lab (one lab in one department at one university) lost a $275k grant today and if he doesn't replace the money he will be looking at laying off at least 15 students.

At least 15.

I don't care if my only other options are Jan Brewer and Rick Perry - I am extremely unlikely (I won't say 'never', but...) to vote for a single member of the current Congress again. At all. Regardless of party.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think you mean 'back in the black'.  (Being 'in the red' comes from the days when deficits were written in red ink to distinguish them from profits - a convention that can still be seen in spreadsheet settings today.)

Yeah.. i MEANT 'nearly in the black' but someone talking in the background threw me off.

[gaggedLouise]

"Follow the money" remains as true as ever.  :-(

[RubySlippers]

I want to just point out the cuts over ten years is just $1.2 trillion out of a much larger budget its not the end of the world here, most of the government is still funded. It seems to me most people wanted the spending to be reduced and now it is and now they are complaining its being reduced - I don't get it frankly. All this means is things like the grant for the lab will need to find another source of funding corporate, an endowment fund, local or state government money or something else maybe the university can raise tuition to fund these things.

As I see it conservatives wanted less Federal control and funding in many cases now they have it charity, local and state governments need to pick up the slack now. The other side seemed to feel we overspent on things like the military will now that is going to be reduced.

Ever consider the Sequestration could be in the long run a good thing seems to me this will in time reduce waste and programs that are not working that well, even if in the short term its going to have some negative impacts.

[Love And Submission]

I don't think our system is broken. I think  It's outdated. I tend to be very liberal but even I'll admit that there's something wrong when the Democratic Party as it stands today was founded in 1828 and The Republican party as it stands today was founded in 1854.


Seriously The two main political parties of the united states were founded pre-electricity , pre-car , pre-plane. 

I get that the members and to an extant the ideologies change but still we're talking about two parties that are both over a hundred and fifty years old.

I also don't think the people who founded these parties envisioned things like the Internet , Electronic Gaming Consoles and High-powered assault rifle.

[RubySlippers]

I just wanted to add most of the daydream changes require the politicians to act requiring several constitutional amendments at the state level or Federal level what is the chance of that happening when your stepping on their respective power bases. A third party could work but the funding and support would be hard to muster to get a foothold and would need to be appealing to enough people to matter. I tend to be more pragmatic than that all I and many can hope for is to get some things for us out of the government here and there.

[gaggedLouise]

I just wanted to add most of the daydream changes require the politicians to act requiring several constitutional amendments at the state level or Federal level what is the chance of that happening when your stepping on their respective power bases. A third party could work but the funding and support would be hard to muster to get a foothold and would need to be appealing to enough people to matter. I tend to be more pragmatic than that all I and many can hope for is to get some things for us out of the government here and there.

Okay, but sometimes it's necessary to think outside of the box. Almost nobody pre-1990 really believed the Soviet Union would disintegrate either, not in the foreseeable future and not without a major war. And the USSR, too, had wide popular support among its own people - probably as wide as the U.S. has today on home ground. Sure there was dissent, but most people who lived there were in support of the country they knew even if they felt the order had grown bloated and a bit corrupted sometimes. Even most of those who were critical were not thinking in terms of actually tearing the place to bits and building from the rubble.

*nods at DTW* Political systems that become outdated ultimately lose their legitimacy. The same if the system has nothing to offer except to a lucky few who can kick and climb their way into the backrooms at the top.

[Ephiral]

A third party could work but the funding and support would be hard to muster to get a foothold and would need to be appealing to enough people to matter. I tend to be more pragmatic than that all I and many can hope for is to get some things for us out of the government here and there.

Tell that to the NDP.

[Bandita]

Here's a thought.  Take away the filibuster.  Just obliterate it. 

There was a time in politics when there was no filibuster.  Aaron Burr was responsible for the filibuster, because he, very politely, hinted that it would very very seldom be used, because a 'gentleman' knew when to shut up. 

You take away that thing, that abused tool that the founding fathers didn't actually add until the 3rd or 4th congress or so, and you have a system that can work again.

Until then, this whole sequester thing is working out very very nicely for republicans.  They WANT it.  It means losses of jobs, and people getting angry, and they hope that will mean Democrats get blamed.  They WANT to break our government, they WANT to make it so that people will vote for them, not because they like them but because if one party rules both house and senate, then work might get done. And most of all they simply don't care anymore who gets hurt in the process.

Edited to add:

I would also point out that the two parties have changed so much that they don't even come close to resembling the parties they were 150 years ago.  The republican party 150 years ago was still the party of anti-slavery, of freedom and equality. 

And then about 50 years ago, the party flip-flopped and became the home base of the KKK.  There have been incredible changes in both parties, the Dems used to be the official party of slavery and now they want to make sure every kid gets health care.  Huge changes.  You can't judge that the parties are outdated when they have evolved so much over the last two centuries.

[Love And Submission]

Tell that to the NDP.

It's kind of sad on my part that a few years ago , I was watching CSPAN and saw a debate for Canadian Prime minister and laughed because it seemed more like  one of our Primary Elections debates then a Presidential one. Now I think most americans would love to see a field like that.



It's still kind of amazes me as  american to have seen a Prime Minister debate between Stephen Harper , Stephane Dion ,    Gilles Duceppe , Jack Layton and Elizabeth May.

[Ephiral]

It's kind of sad on my part that a few years ago , I was watching CSPAN and saw a debate for Canadian Prime minister and laughed because it seemed more like  one of our Primary Elections debates then a Presidential one. Now I think most americans would love to see a field like that.



It's still kind of amazes me as  american to have seen a Prime Minister debate between Stephen Harper , Stephane Dion ,    Gilles Duceppe , Jack Layton and Elizabeth May.

TBH, not all of them are viable candidates at this point - we're still basically a 3.5-party system. But the NDP is ~60 years old, and in just my own time as a voter, they've gone from a wasted vote to kingmakers in a minority government to the Official Opposition. With poorer sources of funding than the incumbent parties. And I think it's strengthened our system. (I'm of the opinion that a minority government is a healthy government, because it prevents any one interest from steamrolling all others.)

[Cyrano Johnson]

Once you have a faction entrenched in your political system whose only concern is to break the system, and that no longer even pretends to care about the welfare of anyone not in its base, and that will not change course for any reason for the foreseeable future, there are basically no good options. I don't see any way out of a long-term impasse like that beyond the executive essentially claiming emergency powers and bypassing Congress.

[RubySlippers]

I just want to put this out there this is a small cut in the budget in the scheme of things at 5% of the affected agencies and the military, what will everyone be doing when they have to cut say 20% or more from the budget to balance the books and pay down the debt. It could be more than 20% but lets say its four times worse. I'm serious the sky is not falling, the government is largely funded and have everything running well so far as I see it. But you know eventually they will need to look at raising taxes and/or cuts based on the need to make things balance out and all.

Seems to me this trial run with small cuts is not boding well for the later big ones.

[DarklingAlice]

Cuts need to be made, but the sequestration is basically a dumb blunt instrument that was supposed to spur people into making actually useful cuts. The problem from my standpoint is where this money is being cut. NIH alone is looking at an 8% dip. See, the thing about research (already underfunded to start), is that as technologies become more complex they rise in cost unless you have a research foundation to improve and refine that development.

E.g. the medical entitlements that are not being cut have a cost that will increase as A) the economic situation worsens, B) the cost of medical tech increases, C) population grows. Medical research gradually reduces those costs. So the base state is a sort of treadmilling. Cut research and the cost of the end product increases to a greater extent than it would with funded research (not to mention the economic hit of lost jobs). So is anything being saved?

The same basic principle applies to other areas as well: cost of a standing military and the care given to veterans increases over time and is reduced via the research by the VA, DOD, etc.  Any way you cut it removing research funding only costs in the long run, it's a blatantly short-sighted tactic employed by people who either lack the foresight to see (or the integrity to admit) the problems down the road.

[Hades]

I just wanted to add most of the daydream changes require the politicians to act requiring several constitutional amendments at the state level or Federal level what is the chance of that happening when your stepping on their respective power bases. A third party could work but the funding and support would be hard to muster to get a foothold and would need to be appealing to enough people to matter. I tend to be more pragmatic than that all I and many can hope for is to get some things for us out of the government here and there.

In theory a constitutional amendment could be passed without having to deal with the federal level at all.   My civics lessons are a little rusty so I may have the numbers wrong in this, but if I'm remembering correctly if a majority of states call for a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of passing an amendment setting term limits for Congress as well, then the measure is treated as having cleared the Congress.  Meaning that once a majority has agreed to the measure, it's sent to all the states for consideration and then requires a two-thirds majority to be ratified.

So it would be possible, but I am not entirely optimistic about such an amendment's chances through either process with politics as fubar* as they are now.


*Fubar - For those unfamiliar, this is an American slang term that stands for "Fucked Up Beyond All Repair"

[RubySlippers]

And what if it backfires two things I and many people I know want to see is:

A guarenteed social safety net for all citizens and we mean guarenteed affordable housing, food, clothes, assurances of a job or welfare funds if one isn't working and education at Federally supported schools free up through four years of college or a trade school.

The second would be making all forms of discrimination illegal including economic discrimination for example you couldn't use ones credit rating against them for employment and you couldn't have laws hurting the homeless in public policy.

And I would add to this the use of the military as it is for the defense of US soil and our territories, and for humanitarian missions only and the former would require a threat of invasion at the level to destroy the body politic of our nation. That is the military is to only be defensive or for humanitarian missions no more deployments all over the world unless its a general war. And I would narrow the threat to be governments and nations not groups to take out any support for a war on terror. I would allow in the language deployments for elimination of foreign threats limited to the special forces as a limited action by the president. This would allow us to downsize the military under clear lack of need for a large military but maintain a strong home force and some special forces.

Now how many here would support this as law of the land? You get the issue you could invoke this and anything could happen some people might like but some could be huge shifts in policy.

[Trieste]

And what if it backfires two things I and many people I know want to see is:

A guarenteed social safety net for all citizens and we mean guarenteed affordable housing, food, clothes, assurances of a job or welfare funds if one isn't working and education at Federally supported schools free up through four years of college or a trade school.

It's interesting that you would put this in a thread about the sequester (which you are defending) which includes cuts to things like schools, housing, and other 'safety net' sorts of programs. One of the more well-publicized results of the sequester is the loss of Head Start for a large number of children. Forcing spending cuts when revenues are already lowered due to recession is, uh, not the way to get more help from the government.

The second would be making all forms of discrimination illegal including economic discrimination for example you couldn't use ones credit rating against them for employment and you couldn't have laws hurting the homeless in public policy.

I could get behind this, as long as 'all forms' includes things like criminal history and drug testing. If someone is a felon who has already served their time, and they are applying to a job that doesn't require security clearance, why do they have to disclose that on their application? After all, they have been rehabilitated by the for-profit prison system.  ^-^

I am always very wary when someone talks about "Outlaw all forms of discrimination!" because it almost invariably translates to, "Outlaw all forms of discrimination that apply to me - those other fuckers deserve to be discriminated against!"

And I would add to this the use of the military as it is for the defense of US soil and our territories, and for humanitarian missions only and the former would require a threat of invasion at the level to destroy the body politic of our nation. That is the military is to only be defensive or for humanitarian missions no more deployments all over the world unless its a general war. And I would narrow the threat to be governments and nations not groups to take out any support for a war on terror. I would allow in the language deployments for elimination of foreign threats limited to the special forces as a limited action by the president. This would allow us to downsize the military under clear lack of need for a large military but maintain a strong home force and some special forces.

Now how many here would support this as law of the land? You get the issue you could invoke this and anything could happen some people might like but some could be huge shifts in policy.

This sounds like a really nice idea that might have worked back in the days of rocks and sticks. With modern technology comes the ability to devastate another country from your La-Z-Boy in West Bumfuckigoula or wherever. Since other countries no longer need to invade us to hurt us very badly, I would be very wary of adopting a strategy like this. I would probably also restrict humanitarian aid to places devastated by natural disaster or civilian populations affected by war - maybe. I'm personally of the opinion that there is so much humanitarian aid needed in the US that we don't have a lot of business sending resources elsewhere until we get that straightened out. It's kind of like expecting those parts of the east coast that got hit by Sandy to ignore their rebuilding so they can send aid to places affected by wildfires in the west.

It's not that I don't think we should help others who need it, but it is an established fact that you are better at helping others when you have reached a stable place yourself. I think the US needs to do that. Badly.

[RubySlippers]

I'm not per se for the Sequestration but it does the budget cutting things no one seems to want to do. But I would like to see a better use for our money and  a serious social safety net for all but that would mean other programs might need to be reduced like the military.

The theory is if we can build bombs and train soldiers we can divert that to medical centers and training medical care providers fits my line of reasoning or providing good trade schools in every school district.

But I just was trying to point out you call a constitutional convention we are looking at todays people not in the original context landowners, the educated and elites coming up with things it would be many normal people who have their own wishes. Look at Venezuala's latest Constitution in many ways its better than ours when dealing with the common people it could likely be more good than not but it would likely not be a conservative document any longer.

[Trieste]

I'm not per se for the Sequestration but it does the budget cutting things no one seems to want to do. But I would like to see a better use for our money and  a serious social safety net for all but that would mean other programs might need to be reduced like the military.

That's... that's actually the whole point and design of the thing. The cuts are supposed to be painful to everyone as an incentive not to do them. These cuts were specifically designed to be indiscriminate and bad for everyone.

The definition of sequestration cuts is cuts that hurt everyone. And Congress is supposed to not want those cuts to go through, so it's supposed to be an incentive for them to reach fiscal goals and avoid those cuts.

The sequester cuts are designed to be harsh and inefficient.

They are not a good thing.

Sequester cuts are designed to be Not a Good Thing.

[gaggedLouise]

That's... that's actually the whole point and design of the thing. The cuts are supposed to be painful to everyone as an incentive not to do them. These cuts were specifically designed to be indiscriminate and bad for everyone.

The definition of sequestration cuts is cuts that hurt everyone. And Congress is supposed to not want those cuts to go through, so it's supposed to be an incentive for them to reach fiscal goals and avoid those cuts.

"Ye all want to see the axe going, but none of ye wish to be the one wielding its shaft"

-Famous quote by King Gustav Vasa, speaking to the Swedish parliament in 1527, a time when he knew that most of the delegates wanted to depose him - but also sensed that the various groups opposing him were too disunited and their aims too set against each other to do it. Two of the chief grievances were taxes and military spending. The King prevailed, ruled for thirty more years and transformed the country.

A parliament has to be able to work together, and have some focus beyond the next elections.

[Moraline]

I'm sure I missed something here but why aren't the American people screaming for cuts to the bloated military spending? That's where the real savings can be made. Spend your budget on improving your economy and lives of your people instead of on a war machine.

"U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in. "

America’s staggering defense budget, in charts
Posted by Brad Plumer on January 7, 2013 at 11:26 am (The Washington Post)

(Those figures may not be accurate as I didn't cross reference them but I'm sure they are close.)

[Oniya]

Many of the people are.  Unfortunately, since about 9/11/01, the politicians (who seem to have a hard time listening to the people these days) have been wrapping defense spending up in the flag and daring anyone to lay a finger on it.  And, of course, we have the ever-so-vocal minority of the populace that believes that the entire Middle East needs to be held accountable for ... something.  Living on top of oil, I think.

[Hades]

Hell, alot of times the politicians don't even listen to the actual military when it comes to defense spending.

Case in point, is this article here.   As a quick summary, the article points out five projects being pushed for by Ohio's congressional delgation back in August 2012 that the Pentagon had said repeatedly they didn't want/need.  Such as a missile defense system for the East Coast of the US to protect the country from an attack by an Iranian missile.   I'll let that sink in for a minute since if you're like me your brain just whimpered and begged for mercy.  There's also mention of upgrades to the A1 Abrams tank, which is set to be retired from service in 2014. 

I understand needing a strong defense, so I don't mind that.  But if we could be a bit more reasonable about it, that'd be nice you know?  As Moraline pointed out, the US spends a huge amount on defense.  More than the next 14 countries combined I believe.  And of those 14 countries, all but two are our allies (China and Russia being the two outliers, and they're more like frienemies rather than actual enemies these days).   So if we cut out the cost of a new ballstic missile, are we really going to suddenly become vulnerable because we only have eleventy gazillion* missiles instead of eleventy gazillion and one?

*Note - Eleventy gazillion may or may not be a factual number and intended for illustration and not a factual statement.  >.>

[Moraline]

...   So if we cut out the cost of a new ballstic missile, are we really going to suddenly become vulnerable because we only have eleventy gazillion* missiles instead of eleventy gazillion and one?

*Note - Eleventy gazillion may or may not be a factual number and intended for illustration and not a factual statement.  >.>

That reminds me of this:

A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto

[Oniya]

Short version:

Out of almost 2100 explosions from 6 countries, the US is responsible for over half of them, most explosions took place on friendly soil, and I'm surprised that the southwest corner of the US doesn't glow in the dark.

[Moraline]

Short version:

Out of almost 2100 explosions from 6 countries, the US is responsible for over half of them, most explosions took place on friendly soil, and I'm surprised that the southwest corner of the US doesn't glow in the dark.

I know right? It's mind blowing! *grins*

Seriously though, how many times do they need to "test." It works already! Stop blowing shit up and save your damn money.

[gaggedLouise]

This is one method that could still be used to block the path towards key votes if filibustering should go out the window:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/04/us-calls-out-un-diplomats-for-coming-to-budget-meetings-drunk/

In another article I saw on this, Mr. Torsella voiced the suspicion that over the years some U.N. diplomats (he didn't say from which countries) had turned up deliberately drunk as a skunk in order to derail budget talks.  ;)

[TaintedAndDelish]

This sequester idea was good, but with one tiny little flaw. The consequence affected the citizens, not the politicians. The nice thing about making rules is, you can craft them in such a way, that you are not adversely affected by them. If you want to make a change in this country, become a politician. You don't need to be competent, you just need to be slick enough to trick a large number of people into supporting you by making promises that you can't or won't bother to keep.

[Ephiral]

I was talking to a friend about this the other day. The sequester was an attempt to force negotiation under specific terms by limiting action. Used properly, that's an incredibly powerful and dirty tool, but the key is that you actually have to restrict your actions. It didn't do that, because its consequences could never hurt the people that mattered.

[TaintedAndDelish]

If the consequence of not coming to an agreement was a fine in the order of a full year's salary or prison time for not doing their job, we would not be in this predicament right now. 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

True enough.  The people that are hurt by these cuts are once more the populace.  While people in office talk about how the cuts aren't so bad, they likewise dismiss or restrict the hours of government employees that did nothing wrong except having the misfortune of working beneath a Congress that can't decide its ass from its elbow.

[elone]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the sequester cuts the worst in the first year. The cuts are something like 80B or so. After that it is mostly a reduction in spending increases that would have occurred. At least that is how I understood it on the CBO report.

Also, how bad could the cuts be if they put in a bill for about 60B just for Sandy relief. That is almost the amount of cuts in the sequester.

I agree with those who think that our military spending is so out of control that most of the cuts could come there. I always like my tax dollars going for golf courses for the generals, and their chauffeurs, maids, chefs, mansions, holiday travel, etc.

Of course they have to put up with their pay being capped at $14,971/month. Base pay, not including extra allowances.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

[Trieste]

Yeah, cutting tens of billions in services while we're trying to recover from a recession is great. ::)

Johnny B probably got the idea from his friends in Greece. I hear they're not so worried about their deficit anymore. ::)

They're giving it two riots thumbs up over there.  ;D

[Caela]

If the consequence of not coming to an agreement was a fine in the order of a full year's salary or prison time for not doing their job, we would not be in this predicament right now.

Forget a full year's salary. My personal opinion is that their salaries should have been the first things cut...in half (at least, there is no reason that someone who only works PART of the year at their job should be making more than 4x - or more - than their lowest paid constituents)...PERMANENTLY. Also, this little perk of some positions being paid salaries for the rest of their lives, receiving health benefits for the rest of their lives etc...GONE. Granted it wouldn't save a huge chunk of change in the short term, but it would add up over the long haul and it would be something that hurt the politicians not doing their jobs instead of the main populace who are just trying to make ends meet and keep their kids fed during a recession.

I'd also change the way they write bills and get rid of their ability to add riders to a bill. You want to use federal money to build a bridge to nowhere...you can no longer attach it to a bill about education. You have to submit it as it's own bill and let it be voted on on it's own merits. This would chop a good chunk of the pork barrel spending out since a number of these would be shot to hell IF they ever made it out of committee. Too many decent bills get shot down because of the riders attached to them, and too much pork gets through as a means of buying votes. Again, not something that would likely save tons of money, especially in the short term, but something that would effect the Politicians more than the average Joe.

Other cuts DO need to be made, but they should be made with some common sense and look at the big picture, not just short term gains. The military budget is bloated beyond belief but cutting their tuition programs is BS. I'd have no problem cutting salaries for top brass down to something like 75k a year. The money saved I'd put back into the system to given soldiers a bit of a pay bump. It wouldn't be huge obviously, but it would still be an improvement over what they have now. I'd also look at those projects that Hades mentioned, the ones the military actually said they don't need and that are really just States looking to pad their own pockets with military contract, and cut them clean out. The money not being wasted on such projects could be put back into the system for the VA or tuition programs for soldiers.

I hate to say it, but if you're trying to streamline gov't spending, and cut waste, some jobs will be downsized or flat out lost. The federal gov't is so bloated it's ridiculous and it does need to be pared down to size. If you have three people in one office doing the same job, and it's only a two person job, then someone is going to lose their job. Perhaps they could be transferred to an area that needs more people, perhaps not, but some jobs would end up on the chopping block. It sucks but if we're really trying to get gov't spending under control it needs to happen.

I would probably also restrict humanitarian aid to places devastated by natural disaster or civilian populations affected by war - maybe. I'm personally of the opinion that there is so much humanitarian aid needed in the US that we don't have a lot of business sending resources elsewhere until we get that straightened out. It's kind of like expecting those parts of the east coast that got hit by Sandy to ignore their rebuilding so they can send aid to places affected by wildfires in the west.

It's not that I don't think we should help others who need it, but it is an established fact that you are better at helping others when you have reached a stable place yourself. I think the US needs to do that. Badly.

THIS.

I would probably go a bit further and cut it to only places effected by natural disasters, and then on a case by case basis because...really...I am enough of a bitch that I see no good reason to send money to reinforce the home of someone who hates me, when my own roof needs replacing. I think we have enough people in need here that need our help that we should be sending our aid money to our own people. I would much rather see our aid money spent on things at home like decent low-income housing, food supplement programs designed to get people eating real food (not just the trash that's cheapest), job training programs to get people real, viable, skills that will allow them to get off the gov't tit and let them give themselves and their children, better lives and more opportunities.

[Sasquatch421]

Forget a full year's salary. My personal opinion is that their salaries should have been the first things cut...in half (at least, there is no reason that someone who only works PART of the year at their job should be making more than 4x - or more - than their lowest paid constituents)...PERMANENTLY. Also, this little perk of some positions being paid salaries for the rest of their lives, receiving health benefits for the rest of their lives etc...GONE. Granted it wouldn't save a huge chunk of change in the short term, but it would add up over the long haul and it would be something that hurt the politicians not doing their jobs instead of the main populace who are just trying to make ends meet and keep their kids fed during a recession.

But cutting their pay would undermine the dignity of their position according to Mrs. Pelosi... I do get a chuckle though when she talks about Senators struggling to make it on 178 thousand a year. Hell I made it through the year making under 4 thousand... A bunch of stoned monkeys could probably do their jobs better just make sure they have Pop-Tarts...

http://now.msn.com/nancy-pelosi-says-cutting-congress-pay-undermines-dignity-of-job

I'm a veteran myself and I agree they don't need some of the things they are spending money on... Our F/A-18's are perfectly good for the job do we really need new jets? Also I depend on the VA and government for my tuition assistance what happens there?

[Oniya]

Considering the antics they've been engaging in over the past decade, I don't know that there's that much 'dignity' left to undermine in some cases.

[Torch]

But cutting their pay would undermine the dignity of their position according to Mrs. Pelosi... I do get a chuckle though when she talks about Senators struggling to make it on 178 thousand a year.

Dignity aside, Nancy Pelosi does have a point. Not every member of Congress is independently wealthy, and there are some legislators who rely solely on their income as an elected official. Keep in mind most of these members are married and supporting families, and they must maintain a residence in their home state as well as a residence in Washington DC, one of the most expensive places to live in the US. There are members of Congress who sleep in their offices and use the Capitol Hill gymnasium for showers simply because they can't afford to rent or buy an home in DC.

There is also the matter of Congressional staff, and budgets to pay those staffers are directly proportional to state population. If you are a representative from a small population state like Wyoming or North Dakota, your staff is screwed because you don't have the big budgets like those from California, Florida and New York, and you can bet those members of Congress often make up the shortfall from their own pockets. 

I realize the prevailing wisdom on this thread is that Congress is overpaid and underworked, but I can guarantee you every one of those members can make a far more substantial income in the private sector than as an elected public official. If congressional salaries are sliced the way some feel they should be, who in their right mind would take the job and risk all those headaches for such little pay? Then you set up a situation where the only folks willing to run for Congress are the ultra-wealthy...and gee, look how well that would turn out.  ::)

[Caela]

Dignity aside, Nancy Pelosi does have a point. Not every member of Congress is independently wealthy, and there are some legislators who rely solely on their income as an elected official. Keep in mind most of these members are married and supporting families, and they must maintain a residence in their home state as well as a residence in Washington DC, one of the most expensive places to live in the US. There are members of Congress who sleep in their offices and use the Capitol Hill gymnasium for showers simply because they can't afford to rent or buy an home in DC.

There is also the matter of Congressional staff, and budgets to pay those staffers are directly proportional to state population. If you are a representative from a small population state like Wyoming or North Dakota, your staff is screwed because you don't have the big budgets like those from California, Florida and New York, and you can bet those members of Congress often make up the shortfall from their own pockets. 

I realize the prevailing wisdom on this thread is that Congress is overpaid and underworked, but I can guarantee you every one of those members can make a far more substantial income in the private sector than as an elected public official. If congressional salaries are sliced the way some feel they should be, who in their right mind would take the job and risk all those headaches for such little pay? Then you set up a situation where the only folks willing to run for Congress are the ultra-wealthy...and gee, look how well that would turn out.  ::)

You make an excellent point about  the fact that not ALL politicians are independently wealthy and having to keep two households (particularly when on is in the DC area) is VERY cost prohibitive. With that in mind I'll amend my comment about cutting their pay to thinking that it should only be cut until they get their asses to the table and do their JOB and get a budget out. Once this is actually accomplished and sequestration ends, they can have their regular checks back. Seriously though, something clearly needs to be done to get these people to get over their BS and actually working to solve the problem instead of just bitching that it is all the other sides fault.

There is more than enough blame to go around.

As for staffers, I think assigning funds for them based upon your states population is just wrong. Weather your CA or RI you need staff. Each Congressperson should be allotted a certain number of staff (no idea what is reasonable here) and that is all they get. Being on certain committees might earn them more depending on the amount of extra work that being on those committees brings their way. I will note this is just a personal opinion based on what seems fair and right in my own head, not something that has any basis in research at the moment.

Considering the antics they've been engaging in over the past decade, I don't know that there's that much 'dignity' left to undermine in some cases.

This + infinity! lol

[Cyrano Johnson]

First step is maybe to stare reality in the face. "There's more than enough blame to go around" is too wishy-washy a statement about what's happening. There is a specific group on a specific side of the aisle with a specific ideology -- the Tea Partiers -- who have decided that their agenda is more important than the welfare of their fellow-citizens. Not sure where one goes from there, but one really has to start with that. It's the actual problem.

[Caela]

First step is maybe to stare reality in the face. "There's more than enough blame to go around" is too wishy-washy a statement about what's happening. There is a specific group on a specific side of the aisle with a specific ideology -- the Tea Partiers -- who have decided that their agenda is more important than the welfare of their fellow-citizens. Not sure where one goes from there, but one really has to start with that. It's the actual problem.

I won't argue that the Tea Partiers, and their extreme partisanship, are a problem now, but sequestration isn't all their fault alone. They are a loud, but fairly small group in Congress and if the Reps and Dems would get off their butts and work together, it wouldn't matter how loud the TP's were, something would get done. Unfortunately they have been pushing further and further away from each other, and more toward their own fringes and working against each other, for decades and the current situation (including the TP's) is just a culmination of how very partisan our main parties have become.

I don't think saying both sides are to blame is wishy washy at all. I think it's honest. No one side is innocent of the problems we're having now, both have had times when they had majorities and shit still didn't get done...why? Because they're all too worried about the next election to bother doing their jobs right now.

[DarklingAlice]

No one side is innocent of the problems we're having now, both have had times when they had majorities and shit still didn't get done...why? Because they're all too worried about the next election to bother doing their jobs right now.

This is why I want to see term limits, or at least something like the old Spartan law about never being able to serve two terms in succession. 'Politician' should never get to be your career.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I won't argue that the Tea Partiers, and their extreme partisanship, are a problem now, but sequestration isn't all their fault alone. 

True, the blame also lies with other Republicans who have failed to stand up to them and demand that they behave like adults interested in governing a country.

But beyond that, "both sides" are not to blame for this mess, or for ultra-partisanship generally. Both sides have sins on their heads, but the sins are different and not symmetrical. The Dems are most certainly not guilty of "pushing toward their fringe" -- just the opposite -- or failing to work with the other side; their sin has been if anything that they've been so willing to try to come to terms with people who don't want to come to terms with them that they've given up many things they never should have, and allowed American politics as a whole to be dragged absurdly rightwards and into its current dysfunctional state. The Dems are apostles of centrism, and the living illustration of its flaws -- they even picked up and proudly drove forward the whole "balance" meme that has done so much to rot American political intellect and intuition -- but demanding that they do more now to "work with" the Republicans is essentially demanding that they renounce what little excuse for backbone they had and simply cave to absurdly intransigent and destructive demands from across the aisle. It will solve nothing, will do nothing but deepen the crisis of governance in the States and further damage the country's reputation.

The problem with partisan intransigence is at the current time a conservative one, and has been for forty years*. The TP'ers are not the first example of it, just the most ridiculous. They are a culmination of how partisan the Republicans have become, and are plainly a phenomenon that their own party cannot or will not renounce. Solving this problem won't eliminate sin and error from the American political landscape... but the immediate problem is not that "both sides" have flaws, it is that one side has decided to deliberately and maliciously sabotage the process of governance. That is a far bigger problem that whatever flaws can be pinned on "both sides."

(* This is not to say that progressives may not eventually start to emulate it. The parallel universe of conservative think-tanks and media outlets, for instance, is starting to gain traction as a model on the other side of the aisle. That's a concern, too; admittedly the centre-left version has yet to start dealing in the fact-free Bizarro World propaganda characteristic of the right, but the cleaving of thought and speech into two separate and antagonistic worlds cannot be good. But this is in its early stages, far from being far enough along to have become characteristic of liberal politics.)

[Elias]

A guarenteed social safety net for all citizens and we mean guarenteed affordable housing, food, clothes, assurances of a job or welfare funds if one isn't working and education at Federally supported schools free up through four years of college or a trade school.

This doesn't help a nation it destroys it, your basically handing citizens an excuse to be lazy instead of offering incentive to become valued citizens, instead you should severely limit who can be a part of the social safety net, and improve their lifestyles to that of a middle class citizen, having a terminal illness or suffering from some sort of mental illness isn't a crime and they should not be forced to live in poverty because they NEED assistance. However those who don't shouldn't get squat, if someone has worked hard and lose their job they should be protected by the companies who fired/layed off/retired them and if they have failed THEN and only then should the government step in.

Smaller government, less aid, bring the community back into the mix and work hard to form relationships on a local level.

The second would be making all forms of discrimination illegal including economic discrimination for example you couldn't use ones credit rating against them for employment and you couldn't have laws hurting the homeless in public policy.

I will tentatively support this, so long as you accept the ideal the best man for the job, and don't believe in handing people jobs just because they're poor. You still need to earn it not be handed everything on a silver platter.

And I would add to this the use of the military as it is for the defense of US soil and our territories, and for humanitarian missions only and the former would require a threat of invasion at the level to destroy the body politic of our nation. That is the military is to only be defensive or for humanitarian missions no more deployments all over the world unless its a general war. And I would narrow the threat to be governments and nations not groups to take out any support for a war on terror. I would allow in the language deployments for elimination of foreign threats limited to the special forces as a limited action by the president. This would allow us to downsize the military under clear lack of need for a large military but maintain a strong home force and some special forces.

Now how many here would support this as law of the land? You get the issue you could invoke this and anything could happen some people might like but some could be huge shifts in policy.

A noble libertarian ideal that will NEVER happen, our foreign policy hinges on international deployment and the money spent on these bases is miniscule in comparison to other projects that are a great deal more wasteful.

[Ephiral]

This doesn't help a nation it destroys it, your basically handing citizens an excuse to be lazy instead of offering incentive to become valued citizens, instead you should severely limit who can be a part of the social safety net, and improve their lifestyles to that of a middle class citizen, having a terminal illness or suffering from some sort of mental illness isn't a crime and they should not be forced to live in poverty because they NEED assistance. However those who don't shouldn't get squat, if someone has worked hard and lose their job they should be protected by the companies who fired/layed off/retired them and if they have failed THEN and only then should the government step in.

Smaller government, less aid, bring the community back into the mix and work hard to form relationships on a local level.

So why do countries that are famous for their robust social safety nets and government-funded secondary education systems routinely trounce the US in  economic stability and quality of life?

[TaintedAndDelish]

So why do countries that are famous for their robust social safety nets and government-funded secondary education systems routinely trounce the US in  economic stability and quality of life?

Which countries?

[Trieste]

Which countries?

Erm, the countries being compared are clearly visible in the tables contained in both links.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Whoops... missed that! Sorry.

[Elias]

So why do countries that are famous for their robust social safety nets and government-funded secondary education systems routinely trounce the US in  economic stability and quality of life?

Having lived in two of these countries, Canada especially long, I can say with a great deal of confidence that these numbers are greatly exaggerated Canada especially lives in perpetual recession, with massive unemployment which numbers are skewed due to the fact that they don't include those who have abandoned employment in place of living on the dole. Ontario in-particular was a horrible place to live with areas like Welland and Hamilton being blights where the unemployed live in government housing and free everything, while hard working Canadian citizens are taxed out of existence, especially those trying to make it up in the world. The government abandoned many on the coast both east(Problems with fishing) and west(Exploding crime rates), and the only provinces doing well for themselves are the prairies (Due to a booming oil economy, but damn are the prices high AND Quebec which was until recently run by separatists, not sure if they still are. I heard the Quebecois were nearly wiped out in elections recently.)

As for other choices on the list, Luxemburg and Hong Kong are both single cities with massive governments promoting and using them behind the scenes, their stats are incredibly hard to compare fairly to a massive nation like the United States with the third largest population in the world, and in Singapore Only one government party is ever elected into power, since its reformation. Easy to be stable when you have a lot of money and you're a dictatorship.

I mean lets compare large socialist governments that have similar needs to the US and see how they stack up. Then we can get an honest comparison. Germany, France, England, Russia and Japan. These are the nations you need to make your comparisons to and all of these major powers are lacking when compared to the US. Better yet a lot of the places on these lists you provided are defended by American interests and therefore can afford to pump the vast majority of their military budget into socialist programs.

Socialist systems promote the deterioration of freedom.

In America hardworking people do well, and those who are not suffer. My only issue with America is their lack of respect for those suffering and needing catastrophic care, but the best way to free up resources for them is to kick everyone who doesn't need it out of the system and rework it all to those who don't have a choice in their state of livelihood.

[Cyrano Johnson]

"Elias' fascinationg perpsective on Canada"

Having lived in two of these countries, Canada especially long, I can say with a great deal of confidence that these numbers are greatly exaggerated Canada especially lives in perpetual recession, with massive unemployment which numbers are skewed due to the fact that they don't include those who have abandoned employment in place of living on the dole. Ontario in-particular was a horrible place to live with areas like Welland and Hamilton being blights where the unemployed live in government housing and free everything, while hard working Canadian citizens are taxed out of existence, especially those trying to make it up in the world. The government abandoned many on the coast both east(Problems with fishing) and west(Exploding crime rates), and the only provinces doing well for themselves are the prairies (Due to a booming oil economy, but damn are the prices high AND Quebec which was until recently run by separatists, not sure if they still are. I heard the Quebecois were nearly wiped out in elections recently.)

Speaking as someone who has been a lifelong Canadian citizen and knows both the Prairies, the West Coast and Ontario very well, the account above looks to me to be distorted to the point of being outright bullshit.

(EDIT: In fact the more I look at it the more outright, bald-faced falsehoods I can see. I have to go out now but I'll enumerate them when I'm back on this evening for anyone who's interested.)

[Trieste]

Whoops... missed that! Sorry.

:-*

Having lived in two of these countries, Canada especially long, I can say with a great deal of confidence that these numbers are greatly exaggerated Canada especially lives in perpetual recession, with massive unemployment which numbers are skewed due to the fact that they don't include those who have abandoned employment in place of living on the dole. Ontario in-particular was a horrible place to live with areas like Welland and Hamilton being blights where the unemployed live in government housing and free everything, while hard working Canadian citizens are taxed out of existence, especially those trying to make it up in the world. The government abandoned many on the coast both east(Problems with fishing) and west(Exploding crime rates), and the only provinces doing well for themselves are the prairies (Due to a booming oil economy, but damn are the prices high AND Quebec which was until recently run by separatists, not sure if they still are. I heard the Quebecois were nearly wiped out in elections recently.)

As for other choices on the list, Luxemburg and Hong Kong are both single cities with massive governments promoting and using them behind the scenes, their stats are incredibly hard to compare fairly to a massive nation like the United States with the third largest population in the world, and in Singapore Only one government party is ever elected into power, since its reformation. Easy to be stable when you have a lot of money and you're a dictatorship.

I mean lets compare large socialist governments that have similar needs to the US and see how they stack up. Then we can get an honest comparison. Germany, France, England, Russia and Japan. These are the nations you need to make your comparisons to and all of these major powers are lacking when compared to the US. Better yet a lot of the places on these lists you provided are defended by American interests and therefore can afford to pump the vast majority of their military budget into socialist programs.

Socialist systems promote the deterioration of freedom.

In America hardworking people do well, and those who are not suffer. My only issue with America is their lack of respect for those suffering and needing catastrophic care, but the best way to free up resources for them is to kick everyone who doesn't need it out of the system and rework it all to those who don't have a choice in their state of livelihood.

Yeah... to borrow Ephiral's phrasing, citation needed. Like, a lot.

[Elias]

I call Bullshit on your bullshit.

I lived in Toronto, then Burlington moved from there to Hamilton for a short time, then moved to London and then a small town outside of London called Exeter, I spent a great deal of time in Ottawa and Montreal and visit friends in British Columbia and Nova Scotia who I met while in Ottawa thanks to the political forum that was shut down due to budget cuts, I remember that debate. I admit I did not spend tons of time in the prairies but I heard from friends who worked on the drills during the summer.

As for the problems with the maritime provinces, those issues are so iconic a lot of our local Canadian groups sing about it. Especially those with a Celtic sound to them.

[Kythia]

As for other choices on the list, Luxemburg and Hong Kong are both single cities with massive governments promoting and using them behind the scenes,

I shall be sure to write to the mayors of Esch-sur-Alzette, Dudelange, and Differdange to let them know they don't exist.  It's only fair someone tells them.  Oddly, there are thousands of references to them on the internet, its a wonder noone but you has ever realised Luxembourg is a single city.

[Ephiral]

Having lived in two of these countries, Canada especially long, I can say with a great deal of confidence that these numbers are greatly exaggerated Canada especially lives in perpetual recession, with massive unemployment which numbers are skewed due to the fact that they don't include those who have abandoned employment in place of living on the dole.

The US does the same thing, so statistics are still directly comparable. Let's see some to back your claims of "massive" unemployment.

Ontario in-particular was a horrible place to live with areas like Welland and Hamilton being blights where the unemployed live in government housing and free everything, while hard working Canadian citizens are taxed out of existence, especially those trying to make it up in the world.

You have clearly never been on EI. At all. Trust me, it doesn't pay for anywhere near what you think it does (or, in fact, anything other than the most bare-bones cut-all-costs-to-the-bone lifestyle).

The government abandoned many on the coast both east(Problems with fishing) and west(Exploding crime rates), and the only provinces doing well for themselves are the prairies (Due to a booming oil economy, but damn are the prices high AND Quebec which was until recently run by separatists, not sure if they still are. I heard the Quebecois were nearly wiped out in elections recently.)

Citation needed on those exploding crime rates - both what they currently are, and a comparison to previous rates. A contrast with the US would be highly revealing, as well. As for the east coast... if I leave the building I am in right now and walk west, I will be in the ocean inside of ten minutes. I have received substantial government support recently. In short: Your claim doesn't hold water. And Quebec? This is the most revealing part of what you wrote. Since your "recently", Quebec has gone red, the Liberal party has collapsed, and now it's orange. The Bloc specifically abandoned the idea of separation years ago. Your information is ten years out of date.

I mean lets compare large socialist governments that have similar needs to the US and see how they stack up. Then we can get an honest comparison. Germany, France, England, Russia and Japan. These are the nations you need to make your comparisons to and all of these major powers are lacking when compared to the US. Better yet a lot of the places on these lists you provided are defended by American interests and therefore can afford to pump the vast majority of their military budget into socialist programs.

I assume you have some statistics to back this up, and aren't just talking out of your ass. I would like to see them.

Socialist systems promote the deterioration of freedom.

If you mean the freedom to be pushed around by people with more money than you, you're spot on.

In America hardworking people do well, and those who are not suffer. My only issue with America is their lack of respect for those suffering and needing catastrophic care, but the best way to free up resources for them is to kick everyone who doesn't need it out of the system and rework it all to those who don't have a choice in their state of livelihood.

"You'll do well if you just work hard enough!" has been laughable in the US for many years now. Did you just come from 1970?

[elone]

Just an observation. For all the hype surrounding the sequester, it certainly has faded from the news lately. Typical sensational journalism and apathy by everyone else.

[Trieste]

First: The full effect of the cuts has not yet been felt. Some of it was immediate, and it sucked. Some of it will be coming up over the next several months. And due to the way some accounting stuffs work, there can be cuts years in the future that will then be attributed to this fiscal year (no, I don't know precisely how; I'm not an accountant, but I do know that I have seen these fiscal tricks before while doing investigative work into how my tuition money was spent).

Second: How many times do you see the local unemployment line on the news? How about the local homeless population? What about single parents standing in the grocery store trying to figure out how to stretch their shrinking dollars into enough meals for the next week? For a more personal demonstration: my husband and I were both struck down with the flu a couple months ago and, mid-flu, had our power turned off. I saw no news cameras. Perhaps they were very secretive news cameras.

Or maybe the news is full of distractionary crap and hasn't covered the real impact of the recession, the banking crisis, or the current unemployment for years. Which one is more likely?

[elone]

Or maybe the news is full of distractionary crap and hasn't covered the real impact of the recession, the banking crisis, or the current unemployment for years. Which one is more likely?

This is my point, the media gets all hyped up over issues, then does an about face and goes on with whatever the next crisis or event makes headlines. How about that Pope?

Seriously, while they do cover events thoroughly when they happen, the stories fade away and nobody seems to notice. People are still being foreclosed upon, banksters still are acting recklessly, and people are still suffering with inadequate healthcare. Congress is worthless, we used to depend on the media to get to the bottom of issues, ie. Watergate. Now it seems they do the big story and then quit. Maybe it is just me.

[Trieste]

I don't think it's just you. I do find myself increasingly seeking out independent or 'small' media sources. Social media plays a large role in my news intake these days. The news I find on social media tends to be more relevant to my life and my interests, and the news sources tend to have a better follow-up record.

[ShadowFox89]

I mean lets compare large socialist governments that have similar needs to the US and see how they stack up. Then we can get an honest comparison. Germany, France, England, Russia and Japan. These are the nations you need to make your comparisons to and all of these major powers are lacking when compared to the US. Better yet a lot of the places on these lists you provided are defended by American interests and therefore can afford to pump the vast majority of their military budget into socialist programs.

Statistics please. Or some facts.

From three different sources, at least one of them being neutral in terms of politics.

[Darius]

There has been some interesting talk and debate in here on the sequestration, but I thought I would talk about how its affecting some different parts of the government.

The sequestration imposed an across the board cut to agencies. There is no nuance to how it was applied, this creates problems in that agencies are very limited in how they can react to it. It affects their budget for the entire fiscal year. What this means is that with half the year gone, half their budget spent, they have to make up for that cut in the last half of the fiscal year, which makes the cuts they have to make more draconian than if this had been applied at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Different agencies handled this in varying ways; some smart, some not so smart. One local agency decided to implement an internal 10% cut at the beginning of the year and operated that way all year. They figured that if the sequestration was averted, they could always obligate that money in the last half of the year. They made some minor changes to how they operated and will finish out the year with minimal impact on their mission and employees due to good planning.

A family member of mine works for DoD. His agency operated as if they would get their normal 2% increase for the first half of the year. Now they have to make up that excess, and the sequestration cuts. On that base civilian employees are going to be on 30 furlough days till the end of Sept. For some of those employees, it means they will not be able to meet some financial obligations. If they do fail to meet every payment on time though, it affects their security clearances. There is a very real possibility that some of them could be losing their jobs if they can't figure it out.

The government really needs to make some serious changes, both to the tax code and how it spends money, but this was the worst possible way to accomplish it.