A guy stopped at a local gas station & after filling his tank, he paid
the bill and bought a soft drink. He stood by his car to drink his cola
and watched a couple of men working along the roadside.
One man would dig a hole two or three feet deep and then move on.The
other man came along behind him and filled in the hole. While one
was digging a new hole, the other was 25 feet behind filling in the
hole.The men worked right past the guy with the soft drink and went on
down the road. "I can't stand this," said the man tossing the can into a
trash container and heading down the road toward the men."Hold it, hold
it," he said to the men. "Can you tell me what's going on
here with all this digging and refilling?""Well, we work for the
government and we're just doing our job," one of the
men said. "But one of you is digging a hole and the other fills it up.
You're not accomplishing anything. Aren't you wasting the taxpayers'
money?"
"You don't understand, mister," one of the men said, leaning on his
shovel and wiping his brow. "Normally there's three of us: me, Elmer
and Leroy. I dig the hole, Elmer sticks in the tree, and Leroy here
puts the dirt back. Elmer's job's been cut... so now it's just me an'
Leroy.
Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-unparalyze-us.html?_r=0
A Grand Bargain now, rather than a meat-ax sequester, would offer stability for the long-term and maybe even a boost for the short term..... If I am right and enough Republicans meet Obama on a Grand Bargain, it would both split the G.O.P. between the sane conservatives and the certifiable crazies and give the president a real foundation for a truly significant second term....giving the president so much more momentum to get the best ideas in his speech — like infrastructure, early childhood education and a trade agreement with the European Union — enacted.
Our choice today is not "austerity" versus "no austerity." There are a lot of good bipartisan packages out there to choose from; we just need one that puts us on a trajectory to shrink our ratio of debt to gross domestic product over time.
You can feel the economy wants to launch, but Washington is sitting on the national mood button. There are many reasons Apple has not spent its cash hoard, but I'll bet anything that one of them is the uncertain economic and tax environment in this country. The problem in Washington is ... contributing to a very negative sense of what's going to happen in the economy. "people have always turned to Washington in times of economic crisis, but now they're losing confidence in the government's ability to reshape the economy, and that affects their buying and investing habits."
Tom Friedman ...I cliff noted this article. Would you agree it's time to move forward or do you prefer the current quagmire?
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/13170_406632319427787_908787846_n.png)
I am sure this list is only a smidgen of the cost to the nation and it's people. Disgusting childish behavior. They waste so much precious time. They get paid to do nothing, but say NO. What a self serving bunch of lying takers. Why do we have to keep paying them?
I think anybody who uses household economics to fight the balanced budget debate and the cut spending approach are clueless. Actually, they are guilty of lazy thinking with no idea of how we grow the economy.
QuoteConsumption Drops, Unemployment Rises, and DC Politicians Are Clueless: Here's Why
Monday, 25 February 2013 11:50
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog | News Analysis
Can we just put aside ideology for one minute and agree that businesses hire more workers if they have more customers, and fire workers if they have fewer customers?
There are two big categories of customer: One is comprised of individual consumers. The other is government.
We tend to think of the government as a direct employer — of teachers, fire fighters, civil servants.
But government is also a major customer of the private sector. It buys school supplies, pharmaceuticals, military equipment, computers. It hires private companies to build roads and bridges, dredge ports, manage data.
One out of every five Americans works for a company whose customer is the government.
Here's the problem: Both categories of customer are buying less.
Individual consumers are buying less because they have less take-home pay. Their wages are dropping (the median wage is 8 percent below what it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation). And their taxes have gone up. The expiration of the Social Security payroll tax cut will shrink the typical paycheck by more than $1,000 this year.
Less take-home pay is causing 45.7 percent of consumers to pull in their belts, according to a survey released Thursday by the National Retail Federation. A quarter of consumers are putting off big-ticket purchases. A third are cutting back on eating out. A fifth are spending less on groceries.
This is why January's retail sales rose at their smallest rate in three months.
What about the other big customer – government? It used to be that when consumers spent less, government stepped into the breach and spent more in order to keep people employed. That's what we were supposed to have learned from the Great Depression.
No longer. Government is cutting back, too. Deficit hawks and government-haters are insisting on it.
Last year, President Obama agreed to $1.5 trillion of spending cuts, which have already begun.
Unless Republicans and Democrats reach a budget agreement before next Friday, another $85 billion of spending cuts go into effect this year. They'll begin almost immediately.
With consumers and government both spending less, businesses won't hire more workers; they'll fire more workers. That's likely to happen in coming months.
Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand all this. But apparently many in Washington don't have half a brain.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14771-consumption-drops-unemployment-rises-and-dc-politicians-are-clueless-heres-why
If the sequestration cuts that the president signed into law go into affect, the following may result from the 1.8% reduction in federal spending:
Old people will be forced out of their retirement homes and many will turn to prostitution.
Janet Napolitano will release millions of illegal aliens from holding cells.
Murderers will be freed from prisons.
Firemen and teachers will roam the streets eating brains.
There will be a drastic reduction in drone attacks against American citizens.
Electric car companies will have to make a profit to survive.
President Obama may be forced to close GITMO.
The Chinese will invade and force us to buy more iPads.
Michelle Obama will be limited to one $20 million dollar vacation a year.
The Kraken will be set free from his watery prison.
Flights will be delayed and those that do fly will crash due to a drastic changes in the navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics related to airfoil design.
The average American will no longer be able to maintain sphincter tension.
Peas will taste like carrots.
All public transit will be required to increase prices by 1.8%.
The evil rich will become invincible and only stoppable by a magic shotgun owned by Joe Biden.
President Obama has proven to be a master at crafting hobgoblins. When a crisis looms, rather than face it head-on, he takes to the campaign trail. He has the power, without lifting sequestration, to divert the cuts to other programs. There is an empty chair somewhere waiting for him.
http://gawker.com/5986069/kate-upton-and-ryan-gosling-explain-the-sequester?tag=explainers
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18fg2fsen2szpjpg/original.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 26, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
http://gawker.com/5986069/kate-upton-and-ryan-gosling-explain-the-sequester?tag=explainers
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18fg2fsen2szpjpg/original.jpg)
Look, pretty white people with giant foreheads!
Quote from: carltonplace on February 27, 2013, 09:31:14 AM
Look, pretty white people with giant foreheads!
They must be smart. Let's make them our leaders.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 27, 2013, 09:32:46 AM
They must be smart. Let's make them our leaders.
GOP tried that unsuccessfully this last go-round.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 26, 2013, 04:35:32 PM
If the sequestration cuts that the president signed into law go into affect, the following may result from the 1.8% reduction in federal spending:
Old people will be forced out of their retirement homes and many will turn to prostitution.
Janet Napolitano will release millions of illegal aliens from holding cells.
Murderers will be freed from prisons.
Firemen and teachers will roam the streets eating brains.
There will be a drastic reduction in drone attacks against American citizens.
Electric car companies will have to make a profit to survive.
President Obama may be forced to close GITMO.
The Chinese will invade and force us to buy more iPads.
Michelle Obama will be limited to one $20 million dollar vacation a year.
The Kraken will be set free from his watery prison.
Flights will be delayed and those that do fly will crash due to a drastic changes in the navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics related to airfoil design.
The average American will no longer be able to maintain sphincter tension.
Peas will taste like carrots.
All public transit will be required to increase prices by 1.8%.
The evil rich will become invincible and only stoppable by a magic shotgun owned by Joe Biden.
Can you pick the only one of those that is false...?? I will tell you - peas will NEVER taste like carrots, no matter what!! And one step beyond that, peas will never be edible!! Cannot imagine who ever thought that up...had to be drunker than the first person to eat an egg! (Ogg and Bogg were sitting around drunk one day at the front of the cave when a chicken came wandering by. Ogg blurrily said, "I dare you to eat the next thing that comes out of that chicken's bu$$...." That's why we have omelets today!!)
Quote from: Townsend on February 27, 2013, 09:37:16 AM
GOP tried that unsuccessfully this last go-round.
Wow! Mitt could have won the election if only he had combed his hair down over his forehead instead of combing it back.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 27, 2013, 09:45:24 AM
Wow! Mitt could have won the election if only he had combed his hair down over his forehead instead of combing it back.
Wow! no
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 27, 2013, 09:45:24 AM
Wow! Mitt could have won the election if only he had combed his hair down over his forehead instead of combing it back.
No, He would have had to hang around Hollywood and spend more time on The View to win.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 27, 2013, 09:54:04 AM
No, He would have had to hang around Hollywood and spend more time on The View to win.
I doubt he would've been accepted in either place.
Quote from: Townsend on February 27, 2013, 09:57:50 AM
I doubt he would've been accepted in either place.
He could have been if he had combed his hair differently.
Quote from: Townsend on February 27, 2013, 09:57:50 AM
I doubt he would've been accepted in either place.
Tru dat!
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Barack-Obama-and-George-Clooney.jpg)
Amazing, and rather childish political stunt. I see this backfiring horribly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/immigrants-released-ahead-of-automatic-budget-cuts.html?hp&_r=1&
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 27, 2013, 10:06:28 AM
He could have been if he had combed his hair differently.
They tried it and failed:
(http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/NRA02.jpg)
pretty, white, giant foreheads
Needed to shave their heads to make foreheads larger. Would've showed tan lines and taken from the prettiness.
Quote from: Townsend on February 27, 2013, 10:21:48 AM
QuoteHe could have been if he had combed his hair differently.
QuoteThey tried it and failed:
(http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/NRA02.jpg)
pretty, white, giant foreheads
Needed to shave their heads to make foreheads larger. Would've showed tan lines and taken from the prettiness.
His hair looks that same as always to me in that picture.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 27, 2013, 10:31:36 AM
His hair looks that same as always to me in that picture.
Yes
Quote from: Gaspar on February 26, 2013, 04:35:32 PM
If the sequestration cuts that the president signed into law go into affect, the following may result from the 1.8% reduction in federal spending:
Old people will be forced out of their retirement homes and many will turn to prostitution.
Janet Napolitano will release millions of illegal aliens from holding cells.
Murderers will be freed from prisons.
Firemen and teachers will roam the streets eating brains.
There will be a drastic reduction in drone attacks against American citizens.
Electric car companies will have to make a profit to survive.
President Obama may be forced to close GITMO.
The Chinese will invade and force us to buy more iPads.
Michelle Obama will be limited to one $20 million dollar vacation a year.
The Kraken will be set free from his watery prison.
Flights will be delayed and those that do fly will crash due to a drastic changes in the navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics related to airfoil design.
The average American will no longer be able to maintain sphincter tension.
Peas will taste like carrots.
All public transit will be required to increase prices by 1.8%.
The evil rich will become invincible and only stoppable by a magic shotgun owned by Joe Biden.
President Obama has proven to be a master at crafting hobgoblins. When a crisis looms, rather than face it head-on, he takes to the campaign trail. He has the power, without lifting sequestration, to divert the cuts to other programs. There is an empty chair somewhere waiting for him.
I was fine with all the other things, but definitely not this being sacrificed due to sequester:
QuoteThere will be a drastic reduction in drone attacks against American citizens.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 27, 2013, 10:52:15 AM
I was fine with all the other things, but definitely not this being sacrificed due to sequester:
Hey, drone pilots gotta eat too.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 27, 2013, 10:52:15 AM
I was fine with all the other things, but definitely not this being sacrificed due to sequester:
There will be a drastic reduction in drone attacks against American citizens.
How about if we keep the drone attacks against American citizens and reduce the attacks against non-American citizens?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 27, 2013, 10:52:15 AM
I was fine with all the other things, but definitely not this being sacrificed due to sequester:
There will also be other important consequences:
Maintenance on the $750,000 soccer field at Guantanamo will end.
The 20 million dollar Indonesian student master's degree program will be defunded.
The government funded study to to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior will end.
The government tattoo removal program in Mission Hills California will no longer be available.
The next Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac bailout will likely be postponed.
The 30 million dollar program to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos will end.
All studies of bovine flatulence will end.
$2.7 million dollars will no longer be available to Chinese prostitutes for alcoholism recovery.
The US postal service will no longer be able to buy group dinners at Ruth's Chris for $13,500 each.
The federal government may have to sell the thousands of empty buildings they spend $25 Billion a year maintaining.
Shipping expenses for the military will be restricted (Last year the U.S. military spent "$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida).
The study to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk will likely be suspended.
The genital-washing program in South Africa will end.
In essence the $150 million dollars an hour that the government spends will be reduced to $146.3 million dollars an hour. OH THE HORROR!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 27, 2013, 10:10:34 AM
Amazing, and rather childish political stunt. I see this backfiring horribly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/immigrants-released-ahead-of-automatic-budget-cuts.html?hp&_r=1&
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/white-house-was-not-involved-in-ices-decision-to-release-158027.html
White House was not involved in ICE's decision to release detainees, Carney says(http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?40,file=66959,filename=backpedaling34.jpg)
CLASSIC! Hannity sounds like Conan...."I'm not a republican"
Meanwhile: "This is the latest Republican push: to claim that these cuts represent a trivial amount of money while also demanding that the president initiate them himself so the GOP won't get blamed when some of its constituents find themselves laid off from jobs or standing in longer lines at the airport. Party of personal responsibility!"
Read more at http://wonkette.com/503220/gop-finger-pointing-blame-gaming-everyone-possible-obama-over-this-sequester-nonsense#tLXMRPYRh8FS3vt7.99
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 27, 2013, 04:46:31 PM
CLASSIC! Hannity sounds like Conan...."I'm not a republican"
Meanwhile: "This is the latest Republican push: to claim that these cuts represent a trivial amount of money while also demanding that the president initiate them himself so the GOP won't get blamed when some of its constituents find themselves laid off from jobs or standing in longer lines at the airport. Party of personal responsibility!"
Read more at http://wonkette.com/503220/gop-finger-pointing-blame-gaming-everyone-possible-obama-over-this-sequester-nonsense#tLXMRPYRh8FS3vt7.99
Even if you agree with Keith Ellison and hate Sean Hannity, you should be totally embarrassed by Ellison's behavior. It was abominable. It was worse than most of you lefties claim O'Reilly and Hannity to be combined. Disgusting....
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 27, 2013, 06:20:03 PM
Even if you agree with Keith Ellison and hate Sean Hannity, you should be totally embarrassed by Ellison's behavior. It was abominable. It was worse than most of you lefties claim O'Reilly and Hannity to be combined. Disgusting....
lol...figgers ;D
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 27, 2013, 06:23:13 PM
lol...figgers ;D
Right back at ya. I expected nothing less from you (and perhaps a few others that have yet to speak).
It's been a few days since this country got sequestered. How many casualties has TNF sustained?
edited.
Quote from: guido911 on March 04, 2013, 10:16:00 PM
It's been a few days since this country got sequestered. How many casualties as TNF sustained?
Are you saying you like this form of management?
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 04, 2013, 10:49:29 PM
Are you saying you like this form of management?
It was your guy's idea in the first place. He's lazy and demonstrates no imagination except for his immaculate creativity in blaming others for his inaction and pure love ups. This is not what leadership looks like.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 04, 2013, 11:51:27 PM
It was your guy's idea in the first place. He's lazy and demonstrates no imagination except for his immaculate creativity in blaming others for his inaction and pure love ups. This is not what leadership looks like.
Yeah, because there's a pant load of leadership in the House going on right now. ::)
Both parties have a smile load of blame to shoulder here. And most know where most of it falls, if you are to believe those blasted polls.
Wait...what?
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 04, 2013, 10:49:29 PM
Are you saying you like this form of management?
I am saying nothing to you.
Just look at all the disasters we are now seeing with sequester.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 27, 2013, 06:20:03 PM
Even if you agree with Keith Ellison and hate Sean Hannity, you should be totally embarrassed by Ellison's behavior. It was abominable. It was worse than most of you lefties claim O'Reilly and Hannity to be combined. Disgusting....
Yes...in the RWRE MurdochianFantasyWorld, reality is disgusting.... I guess you really don't watch Hannity much...he is so much worse than that Ellison guy, it is truly amazing when he says anything about another persons bad manners or obnoxiousness. But I guess one has to be the champion at that kind of thing to recognize all the nuances....and he is almost as good as O'Reilly at bad manners, obnoxious, disgusting and despicable.
State National Guard employees to get furlough noticeshttp://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20130306_11_A1_Moreth85748 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20130306_11_A1_Moreth85748)
QuoteMore than 1,000 Oklahoma National Guard employees will receive furlough notices this week, warning that they could see essentially a 20 percent reduction in pay between April and September. The notices will inform federal technicians of the Oklahoma National Guard that furloughs would start in 30 days and would include one day a week until September, or about 22 days, said Guard spokesman Maj. Geoff Legler. The furloughs are part of broad federal budget cuts that went into effect Friday known as the sequester.
Sequester-related education cuts hitting schools on reservations, military baseshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/sequester-related-education-cuts-hitting-schools-on-reservations-military-bases/2013/03/05/0887fed4-8506-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?wprss=rss_politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/sequester-related-education-cuts-hitting-schools-on-reservations-military-bases/2013/03/05/0887fed4-8506-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?wprss=rss_politics)
QuoteThe Window Rock School District, in the heart of the Navajo nation in Arizona, is proposing the unthinkable: closing three of its seven schools as a result of the federal sequester.
The schools are among 1,600 public schools on Native American reservations and military bases that are feeling the impact of federal cuts now, months before the rest of the country's classrooms see the effect of reduced dollars from Washington.
"We may have to close those schools — we don't have any other avenues at all," Superintendent Debbie Jackson-Dennison said, adding that she will cut five administrators, 25 support staff and 35 certified teachers by the end of May.
School bus routes, vital in a large rural setting, will be reduced beginning this month, guaranteeing some children will ride an hour to and from school. The school closures are expected by Aug. 1, creating overcrowding in remaining schools, she said.
The worst part, Dennison said, is that congressional lawmakers don't seem to care. "You get a feeling that this doesn't really matter," she said Monday during a meeting of representatives from schools on Native American reservations and military bases in Washington.
Leaders of schools on other reservations and military bases said they already reduced their current school budgets in anticipation of the sequester, letting job openings go unfilled, trimming professional development, dropping bus routes, cutting guidance counselors.
Lacking local tax dollars
The federal sequester requires the Department of Education to cut $1.9 billion in aid to the nation's 15,000 school districts, money used to help educate poor and disabled children from kindergarten through 12th grade. Most districts have already received their federal dollars for the current school year; any impact from sequestration would affect the next school year.
Public education is largely funded by state and local governments; the federal government pays about 10 percent of the costs. Federal dollars are largely concentrated on poor children and those with disabilities, and the amounts are determined according to the number of children in each category in every state.
But two exceptions are schools on Indian reservations and military bases, which receive a larger share of their funds from Washington as compensation for the fact that they can't raise funds from local property taxes. For example, the federal government pays 60 percent, or $14.7 million, of Window Rock School District's $24.3 million annual budget.
Those 1,600 schools are feeling an immediate impact as federal payments are cut, and their pain will soon be shared by the rest of the country, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told their representatives Monday. "You guys are the leading edge of this," he said. "I honestly never thought that we'd be in this situation. I'm stunned that we are here."
In addition to funds for poor and disabled children, schools on federal lands receive a third stream of money known as Impact Aid. Under the sequester, they are seeing cuts to all three categories.
"Impact Aid was set up to protect you from the vagaries of the budget," Duncan told the school officials. "And now you're taking the brunt of this. You shouldn't have to be in that position. . . . You guys are getting the triple whammy."
Children who attend school on military bases and on Native American reservations deserve better, Duncan said. "These are children who deserve the best education possible," he said.
Resolving the sequester is "not rocket science," Duncan said. "They could come together in a couple of hours and do this. What it takes is courage and compromise on both sides. When you have intransigence . . . children get hurt."
Verlon Jose, president of the Baboquivari Unified School District, which runs five schools on reservation land near Tucson, said the cuts were taking place at time when his high school graduation rate had improved from 39 percent in 2009 to 72 percent in 2012. The cuts jeopardize those gains, he said. "It will be difficult if not impossible to sustain the level of services and support our students need," Jose said.
Mea culpa for 'pink slips'
Duncan offered a mea culpa of sorts Monday, saying that he misspoke on national television last week when he said that teachers were already losing jobs as a result of the budget sequester.
"When I said 'pink slips' that was probably the wrong word," Duncan told reporters at a news conference related to the sequester. "Language matters, and I need to be very, very clear."
In discussing the cuts to federal aid to schools on "Face the Nation" last Sunday, Duncan said "there are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can't come back this fall."
Pressed to identify districts that have begun laying off staff, Duncan singled out Kanawha County, a community in West Virginia. But school officials in that county said that while the cuts in federal aid added to their financial burden, they were going to have to cut jobs regardless of the sequester because of other financial issues.
Republicans seized on Duncan's comments as evidence that the Obama administration was overstating the impact of the sequester.
"We had a little drama," Duncan said Monday. "Got it. Lesson learned."
The dust-up is distracting from what Duncan called the real problem — the impact of the sequester on education. "If more political leaders had a chance to talk to real people, to real kids, I think it would change things. We need to get the heck out of Washington."
Here is our president.
The administration is telling agencies who attempt to do their jobs by managing the 2.8% decrease in spending by becoming more efficient and cutting cots, not to bother, because it does not support the political agenda.
In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.
"We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that 'APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.' So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be," Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/#ixzz2MrocoD4U
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Any environmentalists out there???
Crickets
Crickets
Crickets
The administration is willing to allow unnecessary damage to the environment to prove a point for political gain.
Any liberal government accountability hawks out there??
Crickets
Crickets
Crickets
The administration is TELLING agencies to avoid efficiency and accountability to prove a point for political gain.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 07, 2013, 09:20:00 AM
The administration is telling agencies who attempt to do their jobs by managing the 2.8% decrease in spending by becoming more efficient and cutting cots, not to bother, because it does not support the political agenda.
In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.
The administration is TELLING agencies to avoid efficiency and accountability to prove a point for political gain.
The article doesn't link the email. Do you have a copy of it?
Quote from: Townsend on March 07, 2013, 09:25:19 AM
The article doesn't link the email. Do you have a copy of it?
http://griffin.house.gov/sites/griffin.house.gov/files/email.pdf
Quote from: Gaspar on March 07, 2013, 09:20:00 AM
The administration is telling agencies who attempt to do their jobs by managing the 2.8% decrease in spending by becoming more efficient and cutting cots, not to bother, because it does not support the political agenda.
In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.
Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.
The administration is TELLING agencies to avoid efficiency and accountability to prove a point for political gain.
And then there's this:
The Most Convoluted Sequester Controversy Known to Man?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/the-most-convoluted-sequester-controversy-known-to-man/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/the-most-convoluted-sequester-controversy-known-to-man/)
QuotePeel back the layers of any sequester story, and you'll get some tears.
In perhaps the most convoluted back-and-forth yet regarding whether the Obama administration has overstated the effects of automatic spending cuts, the Department of Agriculture says an employee's email has been misinterpreted and taken out of context by congressional Republicans and news reporters.
The story began with a leaked email which seemed to indicate USDA had told one of its workers to make the sequester cuts as painful as promised, dismissing his request for leeway to spread the cuts out and avoid furloughing his employees.
Republican Reps. Tim Griffith and Kristi Noem reportedly circulated the email, which came from a USDA field worker named Charlie Brown, who works for the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in Raleigh, N.C.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was asked about it Monday before the House Agriculture Committee.
Brown's email seemed to indicate that USDA shut down an appeal for budgetary leeway, telling him that USDA had already told Congress the sequester would mean cuts to services, and "you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."
Rep. Griffith posted the entire email on his House website.
USDA released a statement that "Several reports yesterday misrepresented a USDA effort to explain the impacts of budget cuts to an employee in USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)" and explaining the saga in detail.
An agency official told USDA's side of the story in a conversation with ABC News on Wednesday. An official said that USDA not only granted the requested spending leeway, it had already planned to avoid the furloughs.
According to an email chain obtained by ABC, a USDA budgeting official relayed Brown's request that cuts to aquaculture services — that is, help in farming fish — be spread out over 24 states, instead of eight. When the agency wrote back to Brown, an official told ABC News, USDA actually told him that it already planned to spread the cuts out over 24 states, and that in effect USDA intended to do what he suggested. This move will, in fact, avoid furloughs to APHIS staff, the USDA official said.
Here's how USDA responded to Brown's inquiry:
We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.
In other words, USDA says, Brown had already gotten his wish, according to the official. He thought the cuts would happen over eight states, and he wanted to spread them out over 24. USDA told him it already wanted to do that. For some reason, a budgeting official warned Brown not to contradict the impact of avoiding furloughs and spreading cuts as he seems to have desired.
Where the story gets even stickier, though, is that USDA insists this has nothing to do with the sequester. The "notification to Congress," the official told ABC, was for the agency's FY2013 budget request.
That request never really amounted to anything. USDA had planned to cut funds, the official said, but it never got the chance to, as Congress continued to fund USDA at previous levels through a continuing resolution. Now that the sequester is happening, those advertised cuts (and their "impact") will apparently go into effect as part of USDA's sequester plan. Still, the official said, USDA hasn't advertised the relevant "impact" to Congress in sequester-related terms — it hasn't told Congress about them at all since last year — rendering the imputation of a political motive spurious.
That's USDA's side of the story: a misinterpreted email, leaked and taken out of context, leading to erroneous news reports that President Obama has falsely amplified sequester pain in a ploy to raise taxes. Based on the email chain, it checks out. A USDA official relayed Brown's question — asked on a conference call — about "spread[ing] the aquaculture cut in the ER to all States instead of the specific 8 Aquaculture States."
Brown has not returned requests for comment from ABC News, seeking to clear all this up. In his leaked email to colleagues, he specifically referenced a question about the sequester — not about FY2013 budget cuts. More would become clear with information from APHIS on the cuts, their implementation, and how USDA's response was received; APHIS directed ABC News to the main USDA office, in response to an email sent from ABC to Brown.
Meanwhile, the USDA's ominous-sounding warning not to "contradict" the impact of spending cuts has resonated with journalists and Republicans on the hunt for signs that the administration has refused to defray some of the sequester's most deleterious impacts as political gamesmanship continues in Washington.
If nothing else, the controversy has spread awareness of aquaculture.
Woo, we can make up some serious smile, can't we?
Quote from: Townsend on March 07, 2013, 10:19:46 AM
And then there's this:
The Most Convoluted Sequester Controversy Known to Man?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/the-most-convoluted-sequester-controversy-known-to-man/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/the-most-convoluted-sequester-controversy-known-to-man/)
Woo, we can make up some serious smile, can't we?
Do you have a copy of the entire email?
A little humor to help us get through this living nightmare we are all living through because of the sequester. The unimaginable horror pushed by Obama and others is playing out before us.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2013/03/09/saturday-night-funny-video-obama-s-decision-pardon-sequester-and-send-i
I like the last person's answer.
I am writing this while in the midst of the sequester... our office is in shambles.... I am not sure *static*... impending doom *unintelligible screams*... HELP HELP...
Okay, seriously. Yes, I have many friends who are being furloughed. Most are from the DoD and a few other agencies. But let's get real, these people can say that they want to spread the cuts as much as possible to reduce the impact, but these are the exact type of cuts that would take place if there budgets are permanent. They are not going to cut programs or terminate contacts, because doing so costs money, and in some cases it will cost more to terminate than it would to just let it run its course. And even more so, they are not going to terminate big contracts because those big contracts equal big money to PAC's and to campaigns. Cutting the street level bureaucrat is the easiest and most effective way to 1)make a point 2)make small reductions in budgets.
I am not a fan of Colburn, but I do agree with him that there are many programs out there that should be cut off at the knees. Also, i went through some of the previous budget numbers and something that really made me a little sad is that we have a 10:1 ratio on defense to education spending. And for a matter of reference, in 2009 the budget for congress was 4.4B compared to 13.9B for education. I am not really sure what to think about that.
I can't believe this is what it took, but some amazing things are coming out of Sequestermegeddon.
1. People are really talking about meaningful cuts and government waste.
2. The masses are beginning to realize that life on earth does not really end when politicians claim it will.
3. President Obama has begun to attempt a relationship with members of congress, taking them to lunch and hashing out differences. If only he had engaged them more like this over the past 4 years, perhaps we would be in a very different place. I think perhaps with this approach, he may also present his first intelligible budget proposal in the next few months.
4. The American people are starting to realize that there is a stark disconnect in priorities between themselves and their elected officials.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2013, 10:48:40 AM
4. The American people are starting to realize that there is a stark disconnect in priorities between themselves and their elected officials.
Just the slow ones.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2013, 10:48:40 AM
I can't believe this is what it took, but some amazing things are coming out of Sequestermegeddon.
1. People are really talking about meaningful cuts and government waste.
2. The masses are beginning to realize that life on earth does not really end when politicians claim it will.
3. President Obama has begun to attempt a relationship with members of congress, taking them to lunch and hashing out differences. If only he had engaged them more like this over the past 4 years, perhaps we would be in a very different place. I think perhaps with this approach, he may also present his first intelligible budget proposal in the next few months.
4. The American people are starting to realize that there is a stark disconnect in priorities between themselves and their elected officials.
Stuff like this isn't going to happen until you have a situation like one we are in. We, the royal "we", have pretty much hit rock bottom. As much as I hate the "tea party", I agree with them standing up for what they believe. However, there needs to be a point when you begin to actually negotiate rather than just saying "no". Let's try a metaphor... We have a glass and it must be filled with liquid so that we can be properly hydrated. You want to get a smaller glass without taking anything into consideration, but someone else wants to go back to the tap to fill it up more, without taking anything into consideration. The glass is almost half way full, and if we compromised, we could get a slightly smaller glass and a little bit more liquid from the tap. We see how close we are to filling it, rinse and repeat until we have enough to fill the glass and have made the least amount of impact to both sides.
If you fail consistently, it is probably a good idea to change your tactics.
I have no doubt that this new Reagan approach in engaging your opposition to seek common ground rather than campaigning to the public will produce the more mature and reasonable results he needs. Up to this point he has reminded me of a child, who when he dosen't get his way, complains to others about how unfair, mean, and wrong other people are.
Perhaps he has come to the end of the blame game?. . . or it could be that he is just tired of all the travel. Either way, what he is doing represents real leadership, and he should be commended and praised for that.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2013, 12:12:57 PM
If you fail consistently, it is probably a good idea to change your tactics.
Look out for the end run.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2013, 12:12:57 PM
If you fail consistently, it is probably a good idea to change your tactics.
I have no doubt that this new Reagan approach in engaging your opposition to seek common ground rather than campaigning to the public will produce the more mature and reasonable results he needs. Up to this point he has reminded me of a child, who when he dosen't get his way, complains to others about how unfair, mean, and wrong other people are.
Perhaps he has come to the end of the blame game?. . . or it could be that he is just tired of all the travel. Either way, what he is doing represents real leadership, and he should be commended and praised for that.
It isn't just the president, but I understand what you are saying. I really believe they realized that they have been in a no win situation and it is time suck it up and get it done. The president was re-elected and there isn't much you can do about it now. End of blame game? I wish, but I doubt it. From either side. Reduction in the pointless bickering that the American people are getting tired of? Absolutely, or at least I can hope.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 11, 2013, 12:47:56 PM
Look out for the end run.
Well, I considered that, but that would really make him look childish. I can't see a scenario where he could win by playing yet another game.
Popular stipend stripped for many U.S. military service membershttp://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/popular-stipend-stripped-u-military-members-112819475.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/popular-stipend-stripped-u-military-members-112819475.html)
QuoteJohn Harrison was halfway to a bachelor's degree but financially strapped when Marine recruiters began calling him in 2007.
His wife, Amanda Harrison, recalls their pitches: "Hey, there's all these different ways to finish your degree and you don't have to go into a lot of debt to do it."
That was perhaps true until last week, when the Marines told Sgt. Harrison, 26, that his college tuition would no longer be paid.
"I was furious," Amanda said. "So many of us cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for our service members to go to school."
The Army, Air Force and Coast Guard followed suit by also suspending tuition assistance to tens of thousands of active-duty troops. A Navy spokesman told Yahoo News on Wednesday that possible changes to its tuition program would be announced by the end of the week.
The plans reimburse service members $250 per semester hour, up to $4,500 a year, for off-duty college tuition.
The military immediately blamed $85 billion in sequestration spending cuts that went into effect March 1.
"Targeted cuts in benefits help preserve the essential programs that support the health, welfare, and mission readiness on our Marines and Sailors," the Marines' Shawn Conlon said in an email to Yahoo News.
"The Army understands the impact of this decision and will re-evaluate the decision if the budgetary situation improves," callers to the Army's education hotline now hear.
These are hollow words to Amanda, whose husband wants to be an intelligence analyst.
"I couldn't sit by and let this happen," said Amanda, 25.
She launched a petition on Change.org asking the U.S. Congress, military and other federal leaders to "Please honor your promise and restore funding to the military tuition assistance program."
The movement has collected more than 10,000 signatures in a week, making it one of the site's fastest-growing campaigns. Strangers have contacted Amanda to express their support.
"My son is in the Marine Corps and his desire is to go to college and get a degree in criminal justice when he gets out," Barbara Wing of Nebraska wrote on the petition site. "He is serving this country for less money than he could earn otherwise and honestly, this was one of the reasons that he enlisted, to have help with college."
The Army, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard are encouraging service members not to be deterred. They have made counselors available to discuss other education programs and funding.
"No tuition assistance: no problem," a news article published by the Marines, left Amanda annoyed.
"Budget cuts are going to hurt everybody, but to say it's not a problem is trying to bury your head in the sand," she said.
The article suggested financial aid and GI Bills, but Amanda said training schedules and deployments prevent many soldiers from maintaining required course loads to keep some loans deferred.
The education cuts come at a time when joblessness among veterans is at 9.4 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than the rest of the country.
Amanda fears this dilemma will worsen if her husband and his fellow service members can't finish their degrees.
"This is the first time that a lot of these young men and woman have had the opportunity to go to college," she said. "I can't even describe how important this is."
Quote from: Townsend on March 14, 2013, 10:50:33 AM
Popular stipend stripped for many U.S. military service members
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/popular-stipend-stripped-u-military-members-112819475.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/popular-stipend-stripped-u-military-members-112819475.html)
I know this sucks, but as long as they make the GI Bill usable while on active duty, this should negate the whole thing.
Sequester to Affect Emergency Unemployment Benefitshttp://publicradiotulsa.org/post/sequester-affect-emergency-unemployment-benefits (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/sequester-affect-emergency-unemployment-benefits)
QuoteFederal Emergency Unemployment Compensation is the latest casualty of the sequester.
Oklahomans receiving these benefits, which are awarded after a person has exhausted regular state unemployment insurance benefits, will soon see them cut.
The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission's John Carpenter says the EUC benefits will be cut by 10.7 percent.
The cuts will go into effect March 31, and will affect all current and future beneficiaries.
He says about 5,500 Oklahomans currently receive the EUC benefits.
"The number is low right now because this program's been going on for a while and also because the economy has just been improving," Carpenter said.
The program began in July of 2008. Last year, the second and third tiers of the EUC benefits were eliminated, and the maximum number of weeks a person could receive them was reduced.
Currently, eligible claimants can receive EUC benefits for a maximum of 14 weeks.
"Some of these people are able to find jobs and move off the benefits or exhaust the benefits," Carpenter said.
Still, he called the cuts to EUC "not helpful."
Administrative funding to the OESC will also be reduced, though Carpenter says that shouldn't cause furloughs or layoffs at the agency itself.
Additionally, "This is not going to affect anyone receiving the regular state unemployment benefits," Carpenter stressed. "The money that pays the extended federal benefits actually comes from the federal government; it doesn't come from the trust fund that Oklahoma uses to pay its unemployment benefits."
You can visit the OESC's website to calculate your reduction in benefits.
I'm guessing there will be something called an "Inhofe".
AIR TRAFFIC TOWER CLOSURES WILL STRIP SAFETY NEThttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/air-traffic-tower-closures-will-strip-safety-net (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/air-traffic-tower-closures-will-strip-safety-net)
QuoteHICAGO (AP) — The planned shutdown of up to 238 air traffic control towers across the country under federal budget cuts will strip away an extra layer of safety during takeoffs and landings, leaving pilots to manage the most critical stages of flight on their own.
The towers slated to close are at smaller airports with lighter traffic, and all pilots are trained to land without help by communicating among themselves on a common radio frequency. But airport directors and pilots say there is little doubt the removal of that second pair of eyes on the ground increases risk and will slow the progress that has made the U.S. air system the safest in the world.
It's not just private pilots in small planes who stand to be affected. Many of the airports in question are serviced by major airlines, and the cuts could also leave towers unmanned during overnight hours at some big-city airports such as Chicago's Midway and General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee. The plans have prompted airlines to review whether the changes might pose problems for commercial service that could mean canceling or rescheduling flights.
Without the help of controllers, risk "goes up exponentially," said Mark Hanna, director of the Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Ill., which could see its tower close.
As part of the spending cuts that went into effect this month, the Federal Aviation Administration is being forced to trim $637 million for the rest of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. The agency said it had no choice but to subject most of its 47,000 employees, including tower controllers, to periodic furloughs.
Representatives of the FAA declined to discuss the effect of the cuts with The Associated Press. In two recent speeches and testimony before Congress, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta stressed that safety remained the agency's top priority. But many in the aviation sector are frustrated that the political brinkmanship in Washington has affected such a sensitive area of aviation.
Jim Montman, manager of the Santa Fe Municipal Airport, which is on the list for tower closures, said the absence of controllers raises the risk of midair collisions "or some sort of incident where somebody lands on the wrong runway. ... That critical link is gone."
Hundreds of small airports around the country routinely operate without controllers, using procedures in place since the earliest days of aviation. Pilots are trained to watch for other aircraft and announce their position over the radio during approaches, landings and takeoffs.
But past crashes, however rare, have exposed weaknesses in that system.
On Nov. 19, 1996, a 19-seat United Express flight landing in Quincy, Ill., collided with another twin-engine turboprop that was taking off. They slammed into each other at the intersection of two runways, killing all 14 people aboard the two planes.
The National Transportation Safety Board concluded the probable cause was a failure of the pilots in the outbound flight to monitor the radio frequency for air traffic and to properly scan for other planes.
"If a tower was there, it's highly likely that that accident would have been prevented," said Hanna, who became director of the Quincy airport about two years after the crash and before moving to the job in Springfield.
The air traffic control facilities that could be closed were chosen because they are at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations per year. They are located in nearly every state.
The first round of closures is expected to target 173 of those towers that are run by third-party contractors, rather than FAA staff. That process could start early next month.
Those airports had until Wednesday to put forward arguments for why their towers should stay open, but the bar is high and few are thought to be likely to escape the cuts. A final decision on the list is set for Monday.
The airports can choose to pick up the cost to keep their towers open, but few are expected to be able to afford that.
Beyond the airfields, some mayors are concerned about the impact on tourism if tower closures lead to the loss of passenger service. And there are worries of other effects, including whether medical helicopter pilots might stop using airports without tower controllers.
Rep. Aaron Schock, an Illinois Republican whose district includes the Springfield airport, said the FAA's operational budget has grown about 40 percent over the past decade and there's no reason it can't operate safely under the automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration.
"Any action by the Obama administration that does jeopardize safety is more evidence that the White House is implementing the sequester in ways to only score political points," Schock said.
Robert Poole, an aviation expert at the Reason Foundation think tank, said the effect could be minimal for some small airports that have been overdeveloped as a result of politicians bringing money home from Washington.
In addition to round-the-clock tower closures, overnight shifts could be eliminated at 72 control facilities, including at much larger airports such as Midway, which sees an average of 50 flights daily between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., nearly all of them passenger flights operated by carriers that include Southwest and Delta.
That raises the possibility that full-size jetliners could be landing there without any help from controllers.
Airlines have yet to say whether they will continue offering service to airports that lose tower staff.
"It's premature to discuss flight cancellations, as the earliest any furloughs would occur is April 7," said Katie Connell, spokeswoman for the industry group Airlines for America. "We are working with the FAA to minimize any impact to passengers and shippers."
Chicago pilot Robert McKenzie, who has a commercial license but primarily flies a small Cessna, has a lot of experience landing at smaller airports without control towers.
Doing so involves a lot more concentration, he said. Pilots have to watch for other aircraft, take note of weather conditions, look for debris on runways and make calls over the radio — all while operating their own plane.
Pilots have a very good track record of doing that safely. "But it never hurts to have somebody else out there helping you watch," McKenzie said. "It's a nice safety net to have."
McKenzie, a lawyer specializing in aviation matters, says the loss of towers is of concern to the Illinois Pilots Association, where he sits on the board of directors.
Most troubling, he said, would be the loss of towers at airports such as Springfield and Santa Fe, which are used by a mix of small private planes and larger passenger aircraft that often converge on airfields at different speeds and using different procedures. Controllers keep those planes safely separated and sequenced for landings.
Tower controllers also play a big role in keeping aircraft from taxiing across active runways, something that has been a key FAA focus for years.
"When you're at an uncontrolled field, avoiding that problem is entirely dependent on other pilots not making mistakes," McKenzie said. "There's nobody there as a backup."
Quote from: Townsend on March 22, 2013, 02:35:17 PM
I'm guessing there will be something called an "Inhofe".
AIR TRAFFIC TOWER CLOSURES WILL STRIP SAFETY NET
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/air-traffic-tower-closures-will-strip-safety-net (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/air-traffic-tower-closures-will-strip-safety-net)
Quote from: Townsend on March 22, 2013, 02:35:17 PM
I'm guessing there will be something called an "Inhofe".
AIR TRAFFIC TOWER CLOSURES WILL STRIP SAFETY NET
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/air-traffic-tower-closures-will-strip-safety-net (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/air-traffic-tower-closures-will-strip-safety-net)
Let me summarize the article: "It's really not that big of a deal unless you are about to lose your job with the FAA."
No doubt government cuts hurt, but looking at how much debt we've piled up, we've simply been putting off the inevitable for a long time.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2013, 03:09:24 PM
Let me summarize the article:
Summarizations will defer per your thoughts on politics at the time you read the article. That will always happen.
It was actually my chance to make fun of Inhofe.
Quote from: Townsend on March 22, 2013, 03:18:05 PM
Summarizations will defer per your thoughts on politics at the time you read the article. That will always happen.
It was actually my chance to make fun of Inhofe.
Actually, I'm surprised Inhofe didn't come out saying cuts to FAA were off limits. Everyone is a conservative until you start cutting things which interest them or keep them in power.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2013, 03:23:20 PM
Actually, I'm surprised Inhofe didn't come out saying cuts to FAA were off limits.
He tried to keep the tower cuts from happening.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2013, 03:23:20 PM
Everyone is a conservative
Fiscally, maybe.
Socially? No.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2013, 03:09:24 PM
No doubt government cuts hurt, but looking at how much debt we've piled up, we've simply been putting off the inevitable for a long time.
And of course, you do realize that cuts alone won't get it done...there will have to be revenue increases! And since we have proven that tax cuts don't generate more income, but less, that means the Bush wealth transfer will have to end.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 25, 2013, 09:51:54 PM
And of course, you do realize that cuts alone won't get it done...there will have to be revenue increases! And since we have proven that tax cuts don't generate more income, but less, that means the Bush wealth transfer will have to end.
But you can't tell the conservatives that. Not when their golden boy Ryan has the infallible plan..
Oklahoma Labor Department will close Tulsa officehttp://newsok.com/oklahoma-labor-department-will-close-tulsa-office/article/3771575 (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-labor-department-will-close-tulsa-office/article/3771575)
QuoteState Labor Commissioner Mark Costello on Tuesday blamed federal budget cuts caused by sequestration for the pending closure of the state Labor Department's Tulsa office. About 20 percent of the Labor Department's annual budget comes from federal funds, Costello said. The agency, with about 78 full-time employees, oversees areas from locksmiths to workers' compensation enforcement and child labor laws. Its federal funding will be cut by about $481,000 next year due to sequestration, he said. The department will shut the office at the end of May and has offered 11 workers there the option of taking a buyout or relocating to Oklahoma City.
Nonprofit Center discusses effects of federal budget cutshttp://enidnews.com/localnews/x1221099853/Effects-of-federal-budget-cuts-The-Nonprofit-Center-to-host-educational-session (http://enidnews.com/localnews/x1221099853/Effects-of-federal-budget-cuts-The-Nonprofit-Center-to-host-educational-session)
QuoteThe effects of federal budget cuts will be one of the topics discussed April 5 at an educational session for area nonprofit agencies. Center for Nonprofits spokesperson Julie Rogers said most nonprofits already report rapidly increasing demand, and that will increase as the federal cutbacks continue. Among the programs that will be affected is the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. Cuts in the WIC program will have a ripple effect, she said. As people deal with cuts, they will turn more to nonprofits for services. In addition, Rogers said, $298,000 statewide will be cut from senior meals, and 12,000 unemployed Oklahomans will no longer receive assistance.
I do not know if this true, accurate, or not, but I heard several talking heads rambling on about this. I am looking at this purely for the humor.
QuoteOnly one employee in the entire federal government lost a job due to sequestration, according to a government audit that found the only permanent cut came at the U.S. Parole Commission, which eliminated one position.
Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said Wednesday that the audit — performed by the Government Accountability Office and released last month — shows that the worries over sequestration's impact on jobs was overblown.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/#ixzz31Bu9LWBz
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Quote from: guido911 on May 08, 2014, 11:52:01 PM
I do not know if this true, accurate, or not, but I heard several talking heads rambling on about this. I am looking at this purely for the humor.
Government is a morphallactic. Jobs are never actually lost.
We should have congressional hearings about it.
Nah, no one died. Sequester was a drop in the bucket for government.
The day before yesterday, the president ordered a new fleet of helicopters to transport him from the south lawn to his bi-weekly golf outings at Andrews, with a total cost of as much as $20 billion. The hydra will always continue to grow.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7p_3gFNjI5g/TwDdh8I0hYI/AAAAAAAAH18/hSZp4D0MSv4/s1600/obama-golf-koolau.jpg)
http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5280
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/09/obama-s-new-helicopter-fleet-could-cost-20-billion.html
He does have a good sense of humor:
"Even President Obama seemed bewildered by the runaway program. "The helicopter I have seems perfectly adequate to me," Obama said. "Of course, I've never had a helicopter before. Maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."'
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 09, 2014, 09:33:03 AM
We should have congressional hearings about it.
What differnece does it make?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 09, 2014, 10:18:02 AM
The day before yesterday, the president ordered a new fleet of helicopters to transport him from the south lawn to his bi-weekly golf outings at Andrews, with a total cost of as much as $20 billion.
Read the whole story. These helicopters were ordered in 2002 under then president George Bush.
Your hatred of golf and obsession with Obama seems to have clouded your ability to read even the stories you post.
QuoteSo many requirements were piled on the Kestrel program that it was decided the helicopters would need new engines, gear boxes, and drive trains just to lift everything, not to mention a 180-pound President of the United States. The program quickly became so expensive each helicopter—then estimated to cost about $400 million in 2009 dollars—rivaled the cost of Air Force One, the president's Boeing 747 jumbo jet.
[Emphasis] Christie or Hillary presidency will require more modifications to the chopper. I keed.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 10, 2014, 06:21:34 AM
Read the whole story. These helicopters were ordered in 2002 under then president George Bush.
Maybe you should try reading the article for once as well.... The Bush program was cancelled in 2009... This is an entirely new set of helicopters..
The Daily Beast reported Friday that the 23 or more new choppers based on the Sikorsky S-92 medium helicopter will be delivered, but not until 2022.
That means Obama, whose administration has green-lighted the expense, will likely never ride in the shiny new aircraft.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/09/obama-s-new-helicopter-fleet-could-cost-20-billion.html
Quote from: Gaspar on May 09, 2014, 09:30:57 AM
Government is a morphallactic. Jobs are never actually lost.
This is factually untrue. Total government employment in may 2010 was within a hair's breadth of 23 million people. As of the last stats, the government now employs a total of 21,869,000 people. I'm sure the slightly over 2 million people who no longer have jobs would disagree with you about government jobs never being lost.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 11, 2014, 08:33:32 AM
Maybe you should try reading the article for once as well.... The Bush program was cancelled in 2009... This is an entirely new set of helicopters..
The Daily Beast reported Friday that the 23 or more new choppers based on the Sikorsky S-92 medium helicopter will be delivered, but not until 2022.
That means Obama, whose administration has green-lighted the expense, will likely never ride in the shiny new aircraft.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/09/obama-s-new-helicopter-fleet-could-cost-20-billion.html
Ouch.
Show me the link to Obama. Remember, gaspar started this thread saying these were to take Obama on golf outings.
This program was started under Bush, cancelled by the Department of Defense under Obama, and now restarted under the Department of Defense. It will never be used by Obama.
From wikipedia...
In April 2002, the Department of Defense (DOD) initiated the VXX program to develop a new presidential/VIP helicopter transportation system. The helicopter program was assigned to the United States Navy. A delivery date of 2011 was set.[9] The White House asked the Secretary of Defense to accelerate the development of the new aircraft in November 2002, and DOD said it would have a new aircraft ready by the end of 2008.[5] To do so, DOD asked companies bidding on the aircraft design to begin development and production at the same time.[9]
Specifications for the new aircraft were kept secret. Industry publications and testimony at congressional briefings revealed, however, that the helicopter was to be 64 feet (20 m) long, carry 14 passengers, be able to carry several thousand pounds of baggage and gear, and have a greater range than the VH-3D or VH-60N. The helicopter's defensive capabilities were to include a radar jamming and deception system to ward off anti-aircraft missiles, and hardening of key electronics against nuclear electromagnetic pulse. It also was to include an encrypted telecommunications system and videoconferencing.[8]
Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky Aircraft competed against one another for the contract. Lockheed partnered with AgustaWestland, a joint British and Italian aircraft company, and offered a version of the AgustaWestland AW101. Sikorsky proposed using its S-92.[10] The Navy awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin in January 2005,[11] to develop and build 28 helicopters.[10] The helicopter was designated VH-71 Kestrel.[5] Five of the initial less-sophisticated VH-71 version were due for delivery in 2010, with 23 of the upgraded version due for delivery in 2015. The goal was to retire all VH-3Ds and VH-60Ns along with the five initial VH-71s at that time, leaving the Marine One fleet with 23 helicopters.[8]
By March 2008, the $6.1 billion cost of the 28 helicopters had skyrocketed to $11.2 billion. Members of Congress were shocked to discover that each VH-71 would cost $400 million—more than a single Air Force One Boeing VC-25 airliner. Lockheed Martin blamed the Navy for the cost overruns, saying that more than 1,900 extra requirements were added to the project after the contract was signed. The Navy said no extra requirements were added. It blamed having to redesign the VH-71 to Navy standards, and an incomplete understanding by the Navy and Lockheed Martin on just how much retrofitting the civilian aircraft would need to meet the White House's specifications.[8]
In June 2009, the VH-71 program was canceled due to these cost overruns.[11] By this time, cost estimates had ballooned to more than $13 billion.[9] The Government Accountability Office issued a report in March 2011 that pointed to three sources for the cost overruns. First, asking for development at the same time as production led to extensive retrofitting of built models. Second, a full-scale review of the system's requirements did not occur until four months after production started. Only then was it discovered that the VH-71's design could not meet the system's needs. Third, DOD and the White House asked for excessive combat and communications capabilities.[9]
Immediately after the program's cancellation, however, the Marine Corps started the program again.[11] This time, instead of development and production running concurrently, the Corps created an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) which more clearly outlined the aircraft's requirements. DOD approved the ICD in August 2009, naming it the VXX Helicopter Replacement Program.[11] The Navy asked private industry in February 2010 for an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) to meet the aircraft's mission needs. Among the options the Navy suggested were purchasing a single aircraft, but developing two variations on it. A second option raised by the AOA was to buy two different aircraft—one a "civilian" version with a bathroom, executive suite, and galley, and one a "military" version with complete command and control capabilities. The AOA drew interest from more than two companies, unlike the previous competition. These included Boeing, which told the press that either its CH-47 Chinook or Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey could meet the AOA's requirements. Since the AOA contemplated a much longer development and production process, the Navy said it intended to spend $500 million to keep the VH-3Ds and VH-60s flying.[12] The company also said it could adapt the VH-71, should the Navy and Marine Corps wish to proceed with that as the base aircraft.[13]
DOD waived the requirement that companies develop a prototype on July 10, 2013. The department's analysis showed that the cost of producing a prototype was unlikely to generate any benefits. The department also said that it was proceeding with VXX development using an in-production aircraft with existing, proven systems.[14] A draft request for proposals was released on November 23, 2012.[15]
By August 2013, all interested companies (including Northrop Grumman-AgustaWestland and Bell-Boeing) had withdrawn from the VXX bidding process except Sikorsky Aircraft. Sikorsky had partnered with Lockheed Martin, and said it intended to use its S-92 as the base aircraft.[15] A new deadline of 2020 was established for the 23-helicopter fleet to be in operation.[15]
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2014, 05:43:20 PM
Show me the link to Obama. Remember, gaspar started this thread saying these were to take Obama on golf outings.
First, you should never cite wiki, it is often full of errors and teachers would look down on you. (Plus it is the lazy man's way to get around doing their own research.)
Second, the program was cancelled previously and return to life under Obama... Um. from the article "That means Obama, whose administration has green-lighted the expense, will likely never ride in the shiny new aircraft."
Quote from: TeeDub on May 12, 2014, 07:55:42 AM
First, you should never cite wiki, it is often full of errors and teachers would look down on you. (Plus it is the lazy man's way to get around doing their own research.)
Second, the program was cancelled previously and return to life under Obama... Um. from the article "That means Obama, whose administration has green-lighted the expense, will likely never ride in the shiny new aircraft."
From "ouch" to:
(http://media.giphy.com/media/tGHO9KqVTgYYU/giphy.gif)
Please explain how this program in any way helps Obama.
If not, then post all the pictures you want. You are just proving your inability to actually think.
By the time these choppers finally are delivered, the existing fleet will be nearly 50 years old. I still don't see the need for 20-25, but that's how the Pentagon likes to spend our money.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2014, 09:08:52 AM
Please explain how this program in any way helps Obama.
If not, then post all the pictures you want. You are just proving your inability to actually think.
How this helps Obama? I'm sure if you followed the money it does... Unfortunately I don't have any pictures of large bundles of cash left under people's desks.
A one bidder contract, from a company with a "rich" history? Obama's administration restarted the program? You could be right, this is probably legitimate.
1986 http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/19234
1992 http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921231803FSupp428_11187.xml/DOOLEY%20v.%20UNITED%20TECHNOLOGIES%20CORP.
1992 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bribery-case-against-westland-to-go-ahead-1555985.html
2013 http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/bribery-scandal-could-leave-indias-president-stran.aspx
You are accusing President Obama of taking a bribe? Wow. How irresponsible.
You sure put the "you" in innuendo.
I can't discuss this any more if you are going to fight in the gutter.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 12, 2014, 10:23:12 AM
How this helps Obama? I'm sure if you followed the money it does... Unfortunately I don't have any pictures of large bundles of cash left under people's desks.
A one bidder contract, from a company with a "rich" history? Obama's administration restarted the program? You could be right, this is probably legitimate.
1986 http://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/19234
1992 http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921231803FSupp428_11187.xml/DOOLEY%20v.%20UNITED%20TECHNOLOGIES%20CORP.
1992 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bribery-case-against-westland-to-go-ahead-1555985.html
2013 http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/bribery-scandal-could-leave-indias-president-stran.aspx
President Obama's currency is political. Money has little meaning for politicians at his level. The UTC PAC gave $1.6 million dollars to campaigns in 2012, both R & D. Much of that money came from Sikorsky execs. They expect contracts like this in exchange. This makes them exempt to Sequesterization as long as they have willing players in the WH and congress.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2014, 10:31:23 AM
I can't discuss this any more if you are going to fight in the gutter.
How can you fight about politics anywhere else? There isn't a moral high ground (or at least very little) anywhere in our government, irregardless of Political affiliation.
The fact stands that the president's administration green lighted the program, and while he may not get to ride on them, they are ridiculously expensive ways to travel to golf, the Hamptons, or anywhere else for that matter.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 12, 2014, 11:06:54 AM
How can you fight about politics anywhere else?
It's pretty simple. Don't make smile up out of whole cloth.
Please TeeDub, continue.
Show one piece of evidence. Just one.
TeeDub, the Donald Trump of TulsaNow.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2014, 11:18:46 AM
Please TeeDub, continue.
Show one piece of evidence. Just one.
TeeDub, the Donald Trump of TulsaNow.
Isn't the fact they were ordered proof enough? They fact a new contract was gifted after Obama halted the previous program should stand on its own.
No. If you gonna call someone a criminal, you kind of need some evidence.
I ate pasta for lunch, I must be Italian.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 12, 2014, 10:23:12 AM
A one bidder contract, from a company with a "rich" history? Obama's administration restarted the program? You could be right, this is probably legitimate.
Much like Halliburton no-bid contracts meant nothing to Dick Cheney....
This helicopter thing was going on way before Obama and will continue way after. You really scored a big fat goose egg on that one.....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 12, 2014, 12:31:25 PM
Much like Halliburton no-bid contracts meant nothing to Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, or Dick Cheney....
This helicopter thing was going on way before Obama and will continue way after. You really scored a big fat goose egg on that one.....
FIFY
Yup! Massive spending on things like this happen under all administrations, and will continue, unless of course people become upset with it. The great thing about President Obama is that he could murder puppies and his myrmidons would celebrate it.
Of course he would kill the puppies with drones. . ."Because it's the right thing to do."
You guys sure make up smile about Obama. No wonder some people get turned off by our forum.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2014, 01:18:52 PM
You guys sure make up smile about Obama. No wonder some people get turned off by our forum.
I'm relatively new on here compared to a lot of you all, and while I'm not really "turned off" by threads like this (as useless as they are), I've wondered since I joined up why there is even a National Political section on this Forum? This is, I thought, "Tulsa Now", not "US Politics Now". This forum is great when it sticks to Tulsa-related, or even state-related, topics. This other stuff, while sometimes amusing given the payers involved, no doubt does alienate some people and is by-far the most irrelevant content on the forum.
New, but plenty wise.
Quote from: rebound on May 12, 2014, 02:17:28 PM
I'm relatively new on here compared to a lot of you all, and while I'm not really "turned off" by threads like this (as useless as they are), I've wondered since I joined up why there is even a National Political section on this Forum? This is, I thought, "Tulsa Now", not "US Politics Now". This forum is great when it sticks to Tulsa-related, or even state-related, topics. This other stuff, while sometimes amusing given the payers involved, no doubt does alienate some people and is by-far the most irrelevant content on the forum.
I'm going to guess that many moons ago, there was serious thread drift due to someone bringing national/international politics into the forum. Thus, the creators made a politics section.
Some have made a wise choice to skip these sections. Others have stepped into the quicksand and wallowed. I'm guilty of wallowing in political threads like an '80's super model in pudding
Quote from: Gaspar on May 12, 2014, 01:02:46 PM
FIFY
Yup! Massive spending on things like this happen under all administrations, and will continue, unless of course people become upset with it. The great thing about President Obama is that he could murder puppies and his myrmidons would celebrate it.
Of course he would kill the puppies with drones. . ."Because it's the right thing to do."
Mote in other's eye,....beam in own....
You do remember that Baby Bush was the direct proximate cause of killing over 4,000 of our kids....in a misguided, imperialistic-voyeurism adventure in Iraq!? And his myrmidons are still trying to sell that bill of goods....
Quote from: TeeDub on May 12, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
They fact a new contract was gifted after Obama halted the previous program should stand on its own.
Gifted? Clearly the Bush administration's plan was failing, so it was ended. That did not remove the need for replacement helicopters, assuming that Bush wasn't buying them solely for graft, anyway, so the Obama administration let bids again. After a while, most of the bidders left, two combined their bid into one, and that's what we're going with because that's all that the private sector is offering and we still (apparently) need new helicopters.
Where is the corruption in that?