The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: Sequester!!!!

  1. #81
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,405

    Default

    Maybe the Rs are not as dumb as they often appear? The House passed the continuing resolution to keep the govt from shutting down at the end of the month. At first I thought that was another white flag they were waving. However, the result of passing the continuing resolution means that those sequester budget cuts now have "flexibility" so that each dept affected can put the cuts where they will inflict the LEAST pain, rather than the WH hopes of inflicting the MOST pain. Now the dept heads (a lot of whom would be partisan appointees) will have to take responsibility for how they handle their depts' cuts in spending? With this kind of flexibility, will the voters allow Napolitano to release more detainees without taking more flak for doing so?

    Also, since the WH announced that the POTUS' budget would arrive at Congress on 3/25 (when Congress starts its spring recess on 3/22), this will give the Senate plenty of time to vote on the CR. My best guess would be that the Senate doesn't want a govt shutdown to loom as they head home for their vacations?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,405

    Default

    From National Review ... seems that almost the entire sequester 5% cut (in its category) was taken care of by cancelling the WH tours. The WH could have apportioned things differently, had they so desired.
    It appears that the amount of money saved by cancelling public tours of the White House is roughly equal to, if not dramatically less than, the cost of one of President Obama’s vacations.

    NBC News reported Thursday that halting tours of the White House, a measure the Obama administration has blamed on the spending reductions mandated by sequestration, would save about $74,000 per week, or nearly $2 million over the remainder of the fiscal year.


    Those savings are roughly half the cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation to Hawaii last year, which was thoroughly documented by the watchdog website Hawaii Reporter. They estimated the total cost of that trip was “at least $4 million,” although the true cost could be nearly five times that much.


    The president is reportedly planning a jaunt to Martha’s Vineyard in August, a repeat of a trip he made in 2011, when he spent eleven days at a $50,000-per-week beachfront rental property. US News & World Report pegged the cost of that trip to taxpayers as being in the “millions.”
    Last week, Senate Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) estimated that Obama’s recent golf outing with Tiger Woods cost taxpayers “over a million dollars,” which was “enough money to save 341 federal workers from furlough.”
    The White House has repeatedly insisted that cancelling the tours (beginning March 9) was unavoidable as the administration seeks to implement mandatory budget cuts. “We very much regret having to take this action, particularly during the popular Spring touring season,” the White House said in an e-mail to congressional staff earlier this week.
    When asked about a group of Iowa sixth-grader petitioning the White House to reverse its decision, press secretary Jay Carney told reporters it was “extremely unfortunate” that administration was compelled to cancel the tours. The group was scheduled to tour the White House on March 16.


    The Office of Management and Budget has calculated that the administration must implement a 5 percent reduction to the $16 million budget authority for the Executive Residence at the White House, the operating expenses of which include providing for “the public appreciation of and pride in the White House, its history, and display of its contents to annual visitors.” This portion of the federal budget is also responsible, according to the White House, for the “official entertainment expenses of the President.”


    No word yet on how much those expenses will be cut due to sequestration.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #83
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,405

    Default

    If you'd like to see what is being cut from where
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...tionreport.pdf
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #84
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,405

    Default

    http://townhall.com/columnists/byron...476/page/full/
    This is pretty dispicable ... there is a method for the various departments to put the sequester cuts wherever they want to that would cause the least pain: all they have to do is ask Congress to allow the reallocation of funds. The dept heads were even sent a letter by Issa's House Committee asking them to do this; "just ask & we'll approve" the reallocations.

    But none of the depts responded! Not one!

    This should be remembered when elections come around!
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Wade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    Are all the department heads Dems, Republicans or a little of both?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    http://townhall.com/columnists/byron...476/page/full/
    This is pretty dispicable ... there is a method for the various departments to put the sequester cuts wherever they want to that would cause the least pain: all they have to do is ask Congress to allow the reallocation of funds. The dept heads were even sent a letter by Issa's House Committee asking them to do this; "just ask & we'll approve" the reallocations.

    But none of the depts responded! Not one!

    This should be remembered when elections come around!
    I hate rude behavior in a man, won't tolerate it. Captain Woodrow Call

  6. #86
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,405

    Default

    Wade, I would imagine there may be a mix of party affiliations, but also good chance that the people at the top of the food chain (who hold the power) are partisan appointees.

    There was a published email that indicated the WH policy was to create the most pain possible. You'd think that there would be at least one of them (of whatever party) that has a remnant of conscience to do their best for the citizenry who pay their salaries.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #87
    Senior Member Wade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    [QUOTE

    There was a published email that indicated the WH policy was to create the most pain possible. You'd think that there would be at least one of them (of whatever party) that has a remnant of conscience to do their best for the citizenry who pay their salaries.[/QUOTE]

    AGREED!!!!
    I hate rude behavior in a man, won't tolerate it. Captain Woodrow Call

  8. #88
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,405

    Default

    Rep. Frieden (R-MD), House Appropriations Committee, questioned Harris, head of CDC on the effect of sequester cuts of $30 million which the POTUS contended would cause great damage to childrens' vaccination programs. Here is the transcript from the Washington Examiner:
    HARRIS: Dr. Frieden, I have a great deal of concern about a document that my office got from the White House that talked about the cuts that were going to occur due to Republicans and affecting children. And I’m going to read their quote about vaccines for children. It says, in Maryland, about 2,050 fewer children will receive vaccines due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $140,000. Did the CDC assist the White House in preparing that estimate?FRIEDEN: I would have to get back to you on that.
    HARRIS: You as the director don’t know if you assisted the White House in preparing an estimate that was distributed to every member of Congress?
    FRIEDEN: On that specific number, I would have to — to give you…
    HARRIS: OK, let’s — let’s forget the number. Let’s forget the idea of how vaccines for children are going to be affected by the sequester. Is this the vaccine for children program?
    FRIEDEN: No, it is not, sir.
    HARRIS: Which program is it? Is it 317?
    FRIEDEN: Yes, it is, sir.
    HARRIS: And what did the president’s budget do to 317, the president’s prospective budget for 2013?
    FRIEDEN: The precise numbers I would have to get back to you.
    HARRIS: Does $58 million cut sound familiar?
    FRIEDEN: Yes.
    HARRIS: And what was the sequester cut?
    FRIEDEN: Again, the precise numbers…
    HARRIS: Does $30 million sound familiar?
    FRIEDEN: I would…
    HARRIS: You think that’s around ballpark, isn’t it? So actually, the president cut the program twice as much in his budget. Can I assume that the president’s proposed cut would have reduced funding to 4,100 children in Maryland?
    FRIEDEN: As per the justification that was published with that, we’ve looked at ways that we can run the program more efficiently by helping state and local health departments recoup dollars, for example, for insured patients.
    HARRIS: And you can’t do that under a sequester, but you can do it under the president’s budget? Is that my understanding of your testimony today?
    FRIEDEN: I would have to get back to you on that.
    HARRIS: So let me get it — let me get it straight. Under the president’s cut of $58 million to the 317 program, you think you could get around that to avoid cutting vaccines to children, but under a sequester, that the president blames on Republicans, you don’t know if you can do that?
    FRIEDEN: We’re going to do everything we can to limit any damage that occurs because of the across-the-board cut, but it reduces our flexibility significantly.
    HARRIS: Is it your testimony that under the president’s proposed cut of $58 million in his budget to the 317 program you could have avoided cuts to vaccines to children in Maryland?
    FRIEDEN: We believe that we could have maintained vaccination levels, yes.
    HARRIS: Very interesting. I yield back the balance of my time for now.
    This guy sounds as muddled as Hagle did in his confirmation hearing.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #89
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Rep. Frieden (R-MD), House Appropriations Committee, questioned Harris, head of CDC on the effect of sequester cuts of $30 million which the POTUS contended would cause great damage to childrens' vaccination programs. Here is the transcript from the Washington Examiner:

    This guy sounds as muddled as Hagle did in his confirmation hearing.
    He knew the answer, he just refused to say it... He was determined to defend Obama.
    Bill Davis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •