Will the Government shut down on the 27th of March?

[Neil]

It's shit like that really makes me think that our government is fucking stupid. We've had budget woes for how long now, and they're JUST considering getting rid of the barber shop? Seriously?

You do realize that closing the barbershop gets you about one one-millionth of the way to the goal, right?  It's such a half measure that it's essentially irrelevant.

It would make more sense to eliminate the USAF.

[KRonn]

I read some piece about GOP types - including Michele Bachmann - complaining about the FAA shutting down flight control towers in their districts; those towers were economically positive for the community and important.

That does seem congruent with Raz's point - people are fine with cutting stuff in other peoples districts, but less fine with cuts in their own.

Yes, people never want to cut their programs, just someone elses's. And you can be sure that Dems will yell just as loudly over cuts in their districts. However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about. Making it hurt. And the cuts are mainly in future spending growth. Plus some of the agencies were cutting before sequester hit. Our pols put this through, Congress and the White House. They had a chance to change it and still can if they get a budget done this month, the first one in about five years.

[Admiral Yi]

However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about.

I've heard this line a number of times (mostly from Obama) but never accompanied with any suggestion about what would constitute cutting intelligently.

[KRonn]

However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about.

I've heard this line a number of times (mostly from Obama) but never accompanied with any suggestion about what would constitute cutting intelligently.

I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not.  Lots of those in the know about govt budgeting have ideas of places to cut with the least impact, or what to streamline, eliminate duplicate programs, and more.
Best case would have been for Congress to have put together something in concert with the White House. But of course that never happened hence why we came to such a silly thing as the design of sequester.

[CountDeMoney]

I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not. 

This is true;  apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.

[mongers]

It's shit like that really makes me think that our government is fucking stupid. We've had budget woes for how long now, and they're JUST considering getting rid of the barber shop? Seriously?

You do realize that closing the barbershop gets you about one one-millionth of the way to the goal, right?  It's such a half measure that it's essentially irrelevant.

It would make more sense to eliminate the USAF.

QFT.

[derspiess]

I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not. 

This is true;  apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.

The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.

[Razgovory]

I read some piece about GOP types - including Michele Bachmann - complaining about the FAA shutting down flight control towers in their districts; those towers were economically positive for the community and important.

That does seem congruent with Raz's point - people are fine with cutting stuff in other peoples districts, but less fine with cuts in their own.

Yes, people never want to cut their programs, just someone elses's. And you can be sure that Dems will yell just as loudly over cuts in their districts. However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about. Making it hurt. And the cuts are mainly in future spending growth. Plus some of the agencies were cutting before sequester hit. Our pols put this through, Congress and the White House. They had a chance to change it and still can if they get a budget done this month, the first one in about five years.

This may be true, but Dems aren't the ones devoted the idea of small government.  "Government should spend less in your district", is much less principled then the general "Government should spend less".

[Razgovory]

I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not. 

This is true;  apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.

The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.

And what did they want?

[derspiess]

I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not. 

This is true;  apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.

The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.

And what did they want?

Uh, to give the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit. 

[MadImmortalMan]

I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.

[Sheilbh]

You missed Raz's point, which is a good one.  Tea Partiers thought they could balance the budget by cutting Sesame Street and Food Stamps.  That saves you a little more than Senate hair cuts.

Yep. In the UK and the US the only area of the budget that a majority of voters want to cut is foreign aid. It's also probably the smallest discreet bit of the budget that could be cut.

I've heard this line a number of times (mostly from Obama) but never accompanied with any suggestion about what would constitute cutting intelligently.

Not applying the cuts equally to every department would be a start.

And what did they want?

To embarrass the President. The sequester was never meant to take effect. No-one wanted it it. If the GOP had given the Democrats the power to choose cuts then it would have been a better policy, because the cuts wouldn't necessarily be so stupid. But politically all of the negatives would attach to Obama because he would have to choose what to cut and what not to. So any cuts to defence wouldn't be because of the sequester, but because of the Democratic President, and the same's true for all of the cuts.

Of course it is worth pointing out the cumulative effect of cuts and tax rises in the US is about $2.5 trillion over the next decade, so around two-thirds of what's necessary to stabilise the national debt. Which would be fine. There does need to be some sense of perspective about this.

The real problems, which are largely unaddressed, are the long-term problems particularly the cost of healthcare which is the biggest single problem for public finances in the US (and in my view increasingly for the private sector too). Obamacare has reduced healthcare inflation a reasonable amount but a lot more needs to be done.

[derspiess]

I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.

More likely than what-- doing nothing and letting the cuts happen as planned?

[Admiral Yi]

Not applying the cuts equally to every department would be a start.

That's just another way of saying the cuts aren't intelligent.  Which departments should get more?

[derspiess]

And what did they want?

To embarrass the President. The sequester was never meant to take effect. No-one wanted it it. If the GOP had given the Democrats the power to choose cuts then it would have been a better policy, because the cuts wouldn't necessarily be so stupid. But politically all of the negatives would attach to Obama because he would have to choose what to cut and what not to. So any cuts to defence wouldn't be because of the sequester, but because of the Democratic President, and the same's true for all of the cuts.

Yeah, heaven forbid the president take an opportunity to show some real leadership