Slashdot Mirror
How Sequestration Will Affect Federal Research Agencies
carmendrahl writes "Unless Congress and the White House act before March 1, the automatic across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester will kick in. And federal agencies are bracing for the fiscal impact. Federal agencies and the White House are releasing details about how these cuts will affect their operations. If the cuts take effect, expect fewer inspections to the food supply, cuts to programs that support cleanups at former nuclear plants, and plenty of researcher layoffs, among other things."
spring time... flu season, isn't it? Comes summer with increased risk of food poisoning?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
You know they will somehow extend this hard deadline, just like the last.. three times? I lost count.
Sheer bloody idiots. They couldn't get their act together to get sensible budgets, so now we end up with this. Shame it's not tied into Politicians' pay, but they're probably getting their cuts of the pie from the people who will benefit from all this.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Whenever a government department is threatened with cuts, they announce that they'll cut front-line staff and not overpaid managers or worthless paper-pushers. That's why government spending expands forever until the economy collapses.
It's worth noting that all this discomfort only results in a drop of $85 billion. In part, that is because mandatory spending, which is something like 60% of the budget, isn't affected.
Still, looking at the list, there's a number of worthy budget cuts, such as the oversized federal law enforcement, small business loans, and various "government service" rent seeking. And one really has a hard time arguing against a 13% cut back in defense spending.
As I see it, the problem with sequestering isn't that it cuts government services, but that by its nature it can't target less effective spending or any mandatory spending at all.
It is a scam.
They make sure the thing people care about get cut first.
The things that really should be cut never get touched.
We all get cowed into giving them more and more money.
See how much of an automatic cut your senators pay gets.
No, wait they still get an automatic raise
Makes me crazy.
So when do they disband the TSA and Fatherland^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Homeland security?
Notice how whenever there is a push to raise taxes, or pass some budget, how the people are always threatened with sacrifices to core services. Airport security, food safety, firefighter equipment, books for school children and so on. Never are absurd government programs in any such danger. They always grab you by the balls and squeeze. Pay up or else.
There are going to be a lot of defense contractors being laid off. Great time for China and other countries to go on a hiring spree! These are the guys insuring America's technological superiority in that segment, and I'm sure a lot of them would jump at an opportunity to continue feeding their families!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Just a few years ago, the budget was 2/3 of what it is now, so how were food inspections paid for then?
Most people don't realize that this big deficit spending problem started when the $787B "one time stimulus" became part of the baseline budget and was re-spent (and then some) year after year after year on the biggest government expansion ever seen on this Earth. That $787B is STILL being spent over and over again.
Bond Bubble Ben is still printing Bernanke Bucks at a rate of about $1T/year as well, because the FED is the only entity willing to buy new US debt anymore.
When are Americans going to wake up and realize that you can't spend money you don't have on things you neither want nor need and expect to come out ahead at the end of the day?
I guess "as long as I'm getting mine" is the new American Dream.
Here are some gross, as in disgusting, numbers for US Government Spending:
2006: 2655.1B
2007: 2728.7B
2008: 2982.5B
2009: 3517.7B
2010: 3456.2B
2011: 3598.1B
2001: 1862.8B
If you take the 2001 spending figure and adjust it for inflation, it is 2411B, so in 2011 dollars we're spending 1186B more than we were in 2001.
1.2T in government growth, people. That's 49%. And that's just government growth at the federal level. Government is taking fully 50% more money from us (and our kids, and their kids, and probably also their kids after that) than they were 10 years ago.
Sources:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/HistoricalBudgetData.xls
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
I never thought I would be sorry to see CmdrTaco go, but these sorts of non-nerds stories are here all the time now. Come ON, the federal budget? Gahhh...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The things is, as far as I can tell there are no actual cuts in spending. It's simply that they're going to get a 5% increase in spending instead of an 8% increase and they're calling that a 3% cut and claiming the sky will fall. It shouldn't surprise me that we fall for this but it does.
Sounds like plenty of American engineers will be looking for work.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The economic payout of federal research investment averages around 8:1 in terms of job creation, new revenue, trade, etc. Even research that doesn't lead to new therapeutic modalities still puts people to work and can aid in other research endeavors. There are places in the federal budget with poor payout that deserve to be explored for savings, but research is not one.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The automatic sequestration will only remove $44 billion from this year's budget. Bigger cuts will occur in later years. But you should know that the government will still spend more this year than last, despite the sequestration. It's just that the increase won't be as much. The crying of poverty is just political BS.
They aren't really cutting spending. Spending will still increase, just not as much as they wanted. And for that we get to listen to the Ruling Class whine and moan and act all theatrical about what a terrible panic will ensue because they can't overspend as much as they want.
What a load of bullshit.
And what a load of idiots we are when we let them get away with it. Any program manager who cuts anything critical instead of his own paycheck should be fired immediatly without recourse. And any politician who plays the false panic card during the next few months should get a nice present come next primary season - a challenger who won't sit and take all the bullshit that'll get thrown around.
Folks aren't out rioting in the streets over these cuts like they did in Athens, Madrid, London, Paris....
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
And, even with sequestration, Washington would still be spending over TWICE as much as they did during the Clinton administration. Sequestration is means "cutting" about 4% from the planned budget. (While still spending more than last year.)
It's widely believed that Clinton-style budgets were good. If you believe that, you should ask for sequestration times fifteen, cutting the projected budget by 60% to get back to Clinton-like spending.
If the elected officials can't do this then they should resign.
Rightfully killing the F35 would fix all the DODs obligations. Raising the retirement age would fix other budget issues.
Each and everyone of us telling our employees how they are to use our taxes!?
They are responsible to infoprming us taxpayers what they need funding for and we each decide where our taxes are used. This means genuine government transparancy.
This will solve government failure in budgeting and accounting, as the people will be setting the budget and the tax processors can allocate as each of us say, for accounting purposes.
The constraint of where we the people can say to use our taxes is that it must be for the generation of team work benefits we the people can share in, unl;ike the full benefits now claimed by the politicians who think "we the people" is just them.
This also helps deal with lying politicians who say what they will to get our vote but then flip flop while somehow claiming they represent us still.
We the people are the paying boss.
Look up the history of when taxes begain and understand the Declaration of Independence clairity of our rights and duty to put off bad government and replace it with what will do what the founders intended, look after our future security and this means more than warfarem but financial etc...
The eaisest transition to do this is we the people say where our taxes are to be used. There is nothing in law that violates our constitutional rights and duty for use to have the genuine right to do this.
For if you do not siupport this honesty, then you are one to support rigged elections, You either trust the people, or you don't. And if you don't then I suggest the next time you go to the store, just give teh cashier your money and let them decide what you get in return... for is not that the way things are going with your taxes?
per the most recent CBO estimates. The total budget is $4T. Anybody who is crying tears over any part of the federal government losing a whopping 1% of its budget really needs to re-examine where they are coming from. How many individuals and families deal with far larger swings in income on a weekly basis? How many people have had to abruptly make swift changes to their personal outlays because they or another family member has lost a job? Become ill?
Worse still, are these even real cuts? Or are they just slowing the rate of increase in the growth of spending?
Right, because living on the dole is sooooooo much better than becoming wealthy. I should stop working right now, give up my car, live in a crime ridden neighborhood, have no access to healthcare, eat crap food, and barely survive, just to NOT be taxed. You've convinced me!
Look, idiot, first of all, the wealthy currently pay LESS taxes than the middle class. I'm really, really, really FREAKING tired of hearing rich bastards complain that that their taxes are going to go up and that somehow raising your taxes by 3% is the end of the world as we know it, and you're now paying more than people who earn below the poverty level. Boo freaking hoo. If most of your income is from investments, you're paying 15% federal income tax while I'm probably paying close to 35%.
Secondly the entire tax code is geared to benefit the wealthy. There's a zillion Tax Shelters, loopholes, and other flotsam that makes your taxes lower than most if you're in the $million+ club. And if you have a good accountant (and if you're rich you surely do), he can work a little magic that makes your taxes even lower!
Back during the Eishenhower administration, the wealthy were taxed at 90% -- and he was a Republican! So, get your panties out of a knot, man up, and pay your damn taxes. It's not just the right thing to do, it's the price you pay for civilization. I mean, unless you're looking forward to a French Revolution kind of future.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Historically normal levels of tax on both dividends and capital gains will increase revenues enough to help us avoid:
* raising the age to qualify for social security
* slashing medicare
And making the "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich" tax evasion schemes illegal would also be a better alternative than dealing with a manufactured crisis to take away the benefits our parents enjoyed. We want an America that is at least as good as what our parents enjoyed.
Of course, eliminating government waste and cutting spending responsibly is absolutely essential.
And penalties for large banks that commit fraud and money laundering for drug dealers, etc. should at least be MORE than the profits generated by the illegal activities.
If High Frequency Trading isn't going to be made illegal, then at least a small fee on each transaction would help fund FDIC, reduce the deficit, etc.
Surely this is better than screwing us out of timely Social Security benefits we ALREADY EARNED AND PAID INTO!
Greatest generation my ass. They should be called the Most Selfish Generation because they are screwing over future generations for short-term personal gains or out of willful ignorance. What a sham.
Wake up. This so-called crisis isn't real. It is manufactured to make us afraid and extort us into giving up our hard earned benefits.
inflationary spending by numbers is like slashdot following reader response to political stories (like this one) that increase the number of increasingly shrill comments, but lead the direction of the stories away from the science, the insightful analysis of readers in the forefront of technical knowledge, the prime direction of this forum. If you only look at numbers, your posters will increase up to the point where the focus and direction is completely lost.
In NSA America social networks join you!
The vast majority of the federal budget is mandatory, necessary maintenance/upkeep, earned benefits people paid for years of their lives for, or temporary benefits.
The amount of the budget that funds everything else, stuff like NASA, scientific research, etc makes up a relatively tiny slice of the budget.
So yes, 85 billion isn't huge compared to the overall total but when you subtract out Medicare, Social Security, etc it ends up being a bigger chunk than it first appears.
Besides which, to find total government employment you have to include state and local governments. Total government employment has dropped significantly over the past few years. If the government had held steady we'd have 6% unemployment (or lower) right now. If households, the private sector, and government cut at the same time it's called a depression.
Oh and anyone comparing the government to a family budget is a complete and utter moron. Families don't pay bills and receive income in a currency the family prints in their basement; by definition the federal government can coin or print as much money as they want, including without borrowing if it so chooses (the Fed credits the government account with cash ex nilhilio when the US Mint makes coins). Granted, if you do too much of that interest rates will rise... And if the economy were closer to 100% utilization it would distort the market. But we aren't and interest rates are still at historic lows; banks, corporations, and the richest of the rich are hoarding cash in massive amounts.
We should have automatic stabilizers that kick in and out without requiring Congress' approval. In recessions, government spending kicks up to cover the gap. In boom times spending cuts back and the debt is repaid.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
All the parties involved play games with the budget with different motives and incentives.
It would be nice if things could be handled in an open way the public could understand (is that possible anymore, most Americans can't do math?) But the reality is that the politicians benefit from the complexity involved and the confusion they create - if the public finally did their job, then the politicians would step up the complexity (unless voted out of office...)
I'm not worried about a national debt at WW2 levels I'm worried that we didn't have anything near WW2 to justify running it up. It signifies the dysfunctional electorate and is merely a symptom of the classic despotic disease - the one which always ends fatally.
I'm glad the cuts are coming because the important things will be forced and hopefully they won't get as many compromise pork as if they prevented it from happening in 1 mega bill. Even though it may only be for a short period, this may be the biggest military pork CUT we will see until the collapse of the republic.
Politicians in modern times; having such a dysfunctional system, must force impossible situations in order to make the necessary deals happen. Reasoned timely debate is no longer possible; lobbyists have less influence during such deadline crises (unless they helped create them and prepared.) No matter what, there are always bad parts put in with the good parts so thinking a mock crisis changes that is foolish. What it does seem to do is force problems into big massive compromises where maybe there are more bad deals. I would think this is the case since they love to push things back into shared deadlines and combine issues into big bills; however, it could simply be they need to raise the stakes high enough to force it to get done when enough politicians suffer.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"IMO capital gains shouldn't be taxed if the initial investment was through income that's already been taxed."
So true. And when I go out an buy a car, why should I pay tax on any purchase? After all, the money that I'm using to buy the car was ALREADY TAXED... So, technically, there shouldn't be tax on ANYTHING after that money was taxed, right?
Why is there tax on my phone bill? Or when I go to the grocery store? Or fly to some destination for vacation? Or buy gas?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The Federal funds rates (which has knock-on effects on various lending and account interest rates) is low for that reason.
The low effective interest rate on US treasury securities (which includes the discount rate on T-bills, which technically aren't interest but amount to the same thing), which is what is relevant to the US governments ability to raise money, is because US treasury securities are widely seen as a very secure investment, and investors demand a low risk premium.
Are households sovereigns whose income is set largely by the family's choice of how much to tax?
If not, does it make sense to pretend that the budget of the government of a soverign nation-state differs only in scale from that of a household?
The "sequestration" cuts are $85B out of $3.6T, or ~2.4 %. This has motivated politicians from both parties, and loud-mouthed political actors of all stripes, to make wild claims about terrible consequences if the cuts were to be made. The implicit claim is that cutting 2.4% across the board would result in an "unready, hollow force", 9% unemployment, and all sorts of other horrific things (which I'm sure you've heard of by now).
Is it even true? From cutting a measly 2.4% of future spending? Or is it yet another shock doctrine exercise to distract us from other things we should be paying attention to instead? There's a book, BTW.
etc.
The only way this can not be completely self-contradictory is if you assume that tax rates have no effect whatsoever on revenue. This is, to say the least, and extraordinary claim for which some evidence should be provided, and...
I agree completely. We should return to the historically normal levels of tax on both dividends and capital gains in effect for hundreds of years before 1900.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Coming soon to the corners of the Internet occupied by Americans, a whole wave of recycled horse-burger jokes fresh from their successful appearances in the European corners of the Internet.
In the words of Phineas Freekowtski, "Hubba bubba!"
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
If most of your income is from investments, you're paying 15% federal income tax while I'm probably paying close to 35%
First...if you're paying a 35% tax rate, then you're bringing in close to $400k and are not what I would consider a good representative sample of the "middle class", so I think your response is kind of unbalanced there. I would consider middle class averages to be someone making $40-50k or a family making $100k, which puts them at a 15-25% tax rate.
Second, capital gains were taxed at 15% and are now taxed at 20%, but you throw that out there like it's some kind of insult that folks are taxed at that rate. There's nothing stopping EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE USA from using the exact same capital gains tax, it's just that most people don't earn the majority of their income from investments. So let's back up and take a look at what makes up a huge portion of our economy...investors. Do we really want to disincentivize investing and hurt the economy by raising effective tax rates? If you take away the investor's incentive, then maybe he'll just go somewhere else and take all of those jobs he creates with him.
At the end of the day, you can argue both ways, and both views can make valid points, but MY point is that we've empowered people to be lazy. If you can get food stamps, free healthcare, free cell phones, subsidized housing, etc, etc then if you're one of those people that's going to get a job making $30k, then WHY NOT just sit on your butt instead and take the free handout? It's people like this that consume resources while contributing nothing that I have a problem with. They're the reason liberals advocate higher taxes on the rich. It's specifically because under the current tax code, with all these folks not paying any taxes at all, it's an unsustainable system. And the other problem I have is that while they see that there's a deficit, their solution is to raise taxes on a specific group of people to benefit another group of people. That's redistribution and I don't like it. It makes it OK for person A to contribute nothing and while person B has to contribute more than everyone else.
But I mean, it's cool and all if you just want to call me an idiot. I guess that works too.