Skip to comments.TRENDING: With deadline looming, White House details cuts [The clown cranks up fear mongering]
Posted on 02/25/2013 5:36:30 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Food safety inspections, early education classrooms and mental health treatment are all at risk if massive forced spending cuts are allowed to take effect at the end of this week, the White House said Sunday.
Those cuts would accompany deep reductions in defense spending including stalling maintenance on Navy ships that are also poised to trigger March 1.
In detailed reports for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, President Barack Obamas budget office spelled out how the cuts which are the result of a stalemate between Congressional Republicans and the White House over reducing the federal deficit will affect localities, putting the stakes of the budget debate in stark terms as Congress returns to Washington after a week-long break.
But some Republicans question whether the Obama administration is simply crafting a doomsday scenario for the indiscriminate cuts to force Congressional Republicans into accepting a deal that includes more tax increases for wealthy Americans, which GOP leaders say is unacceptable. They would rather cut spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which they say are the real drivers of the countrys debt.
Nationwide, the White House said, 70,000 children would no longer have access to Head Start early education programs, and 10,000 teacher jobs would be at risk, consequences that Education Secretary Arne Duncan detailed Sunday...
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Has he closed the Washington Monument yet?
Oh, wait, God did that for him, didn’t he. I would have taken the hint from that earthquake if I were president....
I'm curious if you have any idea what it is like running a small business in this economic environment.
My parents do and luckily are doing very well. I understand not everyone is able to find success but if you work hard and keep up with everything you can be very successful on the outside.
For the lucky ones who still have jobs in the private sector, the paycuts started 5 years ago.
Forcing the President & democrats to govern and then own the hard choices they make is whats really scaring the bee-jeebies out of them.
He’ll, just shut down the E.P.A. and be done with the whole mess.
Well there is one thing you are not mentioning.
Sure we need to counter the leftist propaganda, but there is also the issue of real jobs.
Return American jobs. Now. Not union jobs, but jobs. All sorts of US jobs.
That is what we need, and what we are missing.
By people, you mean federal government employees. Federal government employees earn, on average, 50% more than the taxpayers who employ them. If they actually did take a 20% cut (they won't), this would simply bring them down to "only" 20% more than the taxpayers who employ them.
Federal government employees earn, on average, 50% more than the taxpayers who employ them.
A total crock, but if you insist on believing that then fine. You are including the McDonald’s workers in your scenario. Government Workers are required to have a Bachelor’s Degree now. Take out your McD’s workers and you will find your scenario is WRONG!
Will the usurper make any cuts in his vacations?
What's your basis for excluding some of the non-government workers?
The CBO study shows that federal employees earned an average 16% more in total compensation, meaning pay and benefits, versus workers at private companies. . . .
The CBO study compared workers of similar characteristics, including length of employment, level of education and occupation, based on government household data for 2005 through 2010.
Health and retirement benefits were on average 46% higher for federal workers with a bachelors degree; 71% higher for federal workers with some college; 36% for federal employees with a masters degree; and 72% higher on average for federal employees with a high school degree.
Driving the big 16% swing higher in average total compensation for federal workers are the retiree benefits government workers get. Specifically, the CBO says that federal workers can get both a defined-benefit pension and a defined contribution plan, or 401(k), whereas private sector workers tend to only have 401(k) plans. Workers must contribute a percentage of their own salaries to participate in 401(k) plans while workers do not have to contribute to pension plans. . . .
A USA Today analysis of the federal job for life issue in July 2011 found that in 2010, federal workers enjoyed a 99.43% job security rate, and in many agencies, employees were more likely to die of natural causes than get laid off or fired by the federal government.
The paper also says the federal government fired just 0.55% of its workers in the budget year ending September 2010, versus a rate of firings in the private sector that was about six times higher, at around 3%.
Obama’s instructions: “Find out the most important, useful, and widely publicized things the government does, and announce they will be cut.”
Worthless crap, like studies about God knows what in God knows where, or bridges to nowhere, will continue as planned.
Oh you guys add in the welfare recipients too. That article is a great agenda piece from a very liberal paper who hates all things Department of Defense and military.
The link I posted is from Fox Business - hardly a bastion of liberalism. And the article is based on a CBO study that Republican lawmakers asked for. Here is the gist of the argument against federal workers. It used to be you joined the federal workforce because it was stable and you had little chance of being laid off. The price you paid for that stability was that you got paid less than in the private sector. Now federals never get laid off and get paid a significant amount more than their private sector counterparts.
Showing that no good deed goes unpunished, getting paid more and getting fired less appears to have bred an imperial sense of entitled among federals. Not a good sign in a constitutional republic.