REUTERS/U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Andrew Johnson/Handout
The U.S. Navy’s renowned flight demonstration squadron has cancelled its flying season due to federal spending cuts.
On the downside, no more fancy Blue Angels for you fans of fancy air shows. On the upside, a little peace and quiet come Fleet Week time for the rest of us.
“America’s fiscal union: The red and the black” | The Economist
The sequester is here! And this map is probably a good indication of what it means for you. The “redder” your state, the most likely you’ll be negatively affected by the sequester. Why? Because “redder” states get more money from the federal government than they send back in taxes.
I currently live in Mississippi. We’re going to be hit especially hard. Because, as this map shows, Mississippi runs a 254% deficit (as of 2009) in federal transfers. The state gets an estimated $2.47 for every federal dollar sent.
Basically, think of the “redder” states as on a form of federal-to-state welfare. And since the cuts are going to all kinds of programs and services, they’ll likely hit those state hard. That means states like Mississippi will have two options: 1) Kick in more state revenue to make up for cut programs. 2) Lose the benefits of those programs. Since the many of the “redder” states are poorer than the “bluer” states (e.g. the median household income in Mississippi is $36,656 compared to $69,272 in Maryland), option #2 would simply mean falling further behind in terms of poverty, education, and health. But option #1 means collecting more taxes to make up the differences. And since states collect taxes less efficiently than the federal government, often through less progressive taxes, and will have to negotiate prices for goods and services from a weaker position, the pocketbook impact of taxes would be high.
So let’s get our sequester on! Let’s find out just how little federal government voters really want.
Feels like everyone’s heads have been spinning, to the point of fatigue, on the matter of the budget sequestration that went into effect with President Obama’s signature Friday night. It’s a nice change of pace, instead of arguing political benefits and machinations, to start getting some practical information about what sequestration will mean for the states.
President Barack Obama will meet with top congressional leaders on Friday to discuss the deep, automatic U.S. government spending cuts slated to go into effect that day, congressional and White House officials said on Wednesday.
Obama is set to meet with Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader.
The meeting would be the first between the leaders this year, despite weeks of haggling over whether and how Washington could avoid the cuts known as the “sequester,” which the White House has warned will cause damage to U.S. economic growth.
Considering he has yet to meet with Congressional leaders this year, and scheduled a post-sequester meeting two days before the cuts are triggered, does this seem like a gamble by the President to lay blame for the sequestration at the feet of Republicans to anybody else?
We have moved a bill in the House twice. We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something.
President Obama has said that unless he gets a second tax hike in eight weeks, he will be forced to let criminals loose on the streets, the meat at your grocery store won’t be inspected and emergency responders will be unable to do their jobs. These are false choices. We are faced with the negative effects of the sequester because Democrats have not been able to take even the smallest step towards controlling spending.Rep. Eric Cantor • Painting President Obama as the primary cause of the looming sequester, and resulting budget cuts, which will take effect if Congress doesn’t act by next week. While neither party is particularly popular at the moment, a recent Pew/USA Today poll shows that the GOP is currently eating much of the public blame for the sequester debate, which we don’t imagine sits well with the House Majority. source
Last week, Republicans and Democrats talked about remembering 9/11 and unity all across the nation, and all that patriotic stuff, and now we’re getting this thrown on our lap.John Feal, founder of the FealGood Foundation advocacy group • Responding to the news that more than $38 million in previously approved spending, from the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, could be cut as a result of budget sequester legislation passed last summer. John Feal, a construction worker who lost half his foot in the Ground Zero cleanup efforts, is particularly incensed because the funds were already paid for by leveling a new 2 percent tax on certain foreign companies that receive federal contracts. “This is unacceptable,” said Feal, adding, “[It’s] just another slap in the face from Washington, D.C.” source
» A new study with broad ramifications: The results of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s study may seem obvious, but the debate on whether or not to cut funding for Medicaid has long rested on whether experts thought low-income people would actually use the public form of medical insurance. The new study proves this is the case, and does it in an interesting way — rather than comparing the insured to the uninsured (a common tactic used before), the study treated Medicaid the same way researchers might treat a drug. The result? Fellow researchers are hailing the study as “historic” and say it’ll shape national health care debates for years to come.
Proposed House Cuts Are Tiny Slice of the Budget Pie
The White House released their own box chart infographic to explain where they want to spend the whopping $3.7 trillion in President Obama’s proposed budget. But here’s another, slightly more focused, and certainly more pointed, infographic from Elefint Designs. This one is focused on what is needed to balance our gargantuan national check book.
An image which, again, makes the complaints about large paychecks for public broadcasting executives seem outright foolish.
The reporter...
I can’t add much to what’s already been (and will be) ...
One of the perks of being an early employee...
Over the last 90 days, the Digg...
#FMMDI (at 30 Rockefeller Plaza)
Thanks. I guess my thoughts are as follows:
1. I think...
» Only one silo gets the cuts: Obama wants to effectively limit all non-security discretionary spending for the next five years, an area which only accounts for 12 percent of federal spending, at the cost of doing something about defense spending or programs like Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security – which, as popular as they are, account for huge chunks of the pie. The cuts are also much lower than what Republicans want, although they’re also hoping to avoid defense spending cuts, even though that’s a huge chunk.
» Here’s the interesting part: Despite those numbers, the cuts to defense spending actually net about $165 billion more in savings than the non-defense cuts. Why? Simple: We spend a crapload of money on defense. (Bonus chart with more information here.)
» About those tax increases: They would extend a series of temporary tax increase implemented in 2009, which are set to expire in July. Californians are set to vote on the increases in June. And other changes are recommended too – certain services could be transferred from state local governments (such as prisons), and services for the poor are among the ones getting cut the most. However, K-12 schools will be protected from cuts (and just about nothing else).
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
