The entire sequestration amounts to a cut of about 2.3%. If there is 5% waste or duplicative agencies, if you cut half of that you would not have to close anything. A lot of audits put waste and redundancy is some programs and agencies at 25% or higher. Look at the most reasonable estimates of waste and fraud in Medical or food stamps.
Do you really believe that they can't trim 2.3% of the federal budget without any harm?
Of course, if you believe the federal goverment works at 100% efficiency, then this was necessary. If you really believe the government works at 100% efficiency, then the Republicans were mean to insist on a 2.3% cut.
(Besides, it isn't a real cut. It's a cut of growth. Anything they could do last year they have the money for this year. They just don't get an increase.)
The law that created the sequester did not give any options. Everything must be cut, except a for a few protected items. They can't eliminate one program in order to save a couple of others. All are to be cut across the board.
The "across the board" cuts are departments and agencies, etc.
They are not specific purchases and expenses. In other words if the Department of Widget inspection got $100 million last year, it will get $98 million this year. However, if they purchased 100 pens and 100 pencils, that does not mean they have to buy 98 of each this year. They could by 100 pens and 96 pencils. There is nothing in the law that mandates the purchases be equally cut.
In this case, the White House has 3 full time caligraphers. It could put one on half time, and use that money for kids to see the White House. In today's age of printers where a home computer can do a pretty good dollar bill, having three caligraphers is a nice, frivilous touch.
Once again, do you believe that the White House operates at 100% economic efficiency? If that is the case, they have to cut the program. If they have 90% efficiency, if they cut half the waste they could save the program.
Posted By: Makwa
The law that created the sequester did not give any options. Everything must be cut, except a for a few protected items. They can't eliminate one program in order to save a couple of others. All are to be cut across the board.
Your numbers should really be: the budget for last year was 100 and the budget for this year was 104. Now it will only be 102. Still an increase.
As far as Makwa's incorrect thinking that all cuts must be "across the board", there is plenty of evidence that this administration has instructed agencies and departments to not make cuts in a manner that would contradict their prediction of pain and misery for the users of federal discretionary spending.
Yes, you are right that it really is a reduction in growth and not a cut. But that would be a little complex for some people to understand.
In any event, a good executive faced with a 2% cut could balance things so there are no cuts in services.
Posted By: ed2000
Your numbers should really be: the budget for last year was 100 and the budget for this year was 104. Now it will only be 102. Still an increase.
As far as Makwa's incorrect thinking that all cuts must be "across the board", there is plenty of evidence that this administration has instructed agencies and departments to not make cuts in a manner that would contradict their prediction of pain and misery for the users of federal discretionary spending.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
