White House releases state-by-state breakdown of sequester’s effects

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

The White House on Sunday detailed how deep spending cuts set to begin this week would affect programs in every state and the District, as President Obama launched a last-ditch effort to pressure congressional Republicans to compromise on a way to stop the across-the-board cuts.

But while Republicans and Democrats were set to introduce dueling legislative proposals this week to avert the Friday start of the spending cuts, known as the sequester, neither side expected the measures to get enough support to pass Congress.

Lawmakers instead were planning for a lengthy round of political jostling ahead of another budget showdown in late March that could determine whether the $85 billion in cuts to domestic and defense spending stick.

Republicans questioned whether the sequester would be as harmful as the White House predicted and worked on a proposal that could preserve the cuts while giving the administration more discretion to choose how to implement them. Democrats expressed worry that they might be forced to accept the cuts if the public outcry is not loud enough in coming weeks.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/white-house-releases-state-by-state-breakdown-of-sequesters-effects/2013/02/24/caeb71a0-7ec0-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboPNE

[otherone]

1. bring it on!

[grilled onions]

2. Citizens Need To See How It Will Affect Them

We need to see the list of all those who will get hurt by this as well as those who won't. Some tend to think that all means each and every citizen however they keep fighting to save the wealthy the indignity of having to pay more in taxes but think it's more then ok for seniors,the poor etc to get forking out more of what they don't have to start with. While they talk tough about the fact that "a few" will lose their jobs they can feel high and mighty because they know they won't be laid off.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. Looks like a shitload of teabaggers in the comments section of the WaPo article

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Where's the damn document?

I don't see it on WhiteHouse.Gov or in the news article.

[Tumbulu]

6. My question as well!

[Zorro]

17. There's a link in the article

[WRH2]

18. click on the underlined lick in the first paragraph

mostly teachers, cops. meals on wheels and military base funding. Ohio had a big cut in drug rehab funding.

[fivekitten]

20. Link to each state, Tennesse wasn't working.

Huff post had a link to each state:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/24/sequester-states_n_2755181.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Tennessee pdf: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sequester-factsheets/tennessee.pdf

[dballance]

26. Not That I Don't Trust Any of Our Politicians - But I Don't. I think they're Full of It

It would be interesting to take all the dollar figures in those PDFs by state and add them up to see what it actually totals. To find out how close the numbers total up to the $28.7 billion in discretionary cuts that are supposed to be part of FY 2013.

Also, I'm very confused. It seems like everyone has their own set of numbers. Not a surprise from DC is it?

What I find online is that the Defense Department Budget for FY 2013 was slated at $672 billion. The cuts from the sequester are $42.7 billion. That works out to a cut of 6% of defense spending. Yep, cutting 6% of the defense budget in the country with the largest defense budget in the world is all of a sudden going to render us defenseless if you listen to the Chicken Littles of the Defense Department and the congress people whose states greatly depend on defense spending. I don't really buy it. Remember, the GAO can't audit the Pentagon because of: "Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable." Such a thing in a publicly traded corporation would cause investigations and possibly some fines and jail time for the CEO and CFO. But not so with the government.

The Discretionary Spending for FY 2013 is slated at $1.5 trillion. The cuts from the sequester are $28.7 billion. That works out to roughly 2% of the discretionary budget. If the federal government can't find 2% of its budget to cut just by actually taking a hard look at where there is waste and fraud I'd be shocked.

So I think all the people predicting armageddon starting March 1st are full of it. It seems the people of the US have figured this out. One article bemoans the fact that the citizens aren't paying much attention to the impending doom. The politicians in DC have gone to the well one too many times with predictions of doom and gloom and government shutdown and now nothing short of a nuclear blast will likely get the attention of the public.

Not to mention most of the public has had to cut back far more than 2%-6% in their personal budgets. People are not going out to eat, to movies, on vacations; not buying new cars, not remodeling their homes and so on. That's right, the public has had to make choices and cut back. They're generally not sympathetic to the government whining about having to do the same.


links to my sources of data used in this post:
http://nationalpriorities.org/media/uploads/webinars/presidents-budget-fy2013/presidentsbudfy2013final.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12013n
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/gao-audit-federal-government-defense_n_2507097.html

[Zorro]

5. The sequester will fuck up the country

There have been reports that Congress is looking at allowing the administration some leeway in applying the budget reductions. If this legislation passes, it means Congress is cowardly abdicating their fiduciary responsibilities and having Obama determine funding priorities.

I sense this is a political trap, because however the administration prioritizes, the Republicans will be able to criticize the decisions to cut budgets of programs deemed to have a lesser priority.

It would be the equivalent of giving the President line-item veto power.

[cstanleytech]

7. Easy way to counter though is for the Whitehouse to go tell congressional republicans to

F themselves and to do their jobs as defined by the constitution they so like to wrap around themselves come election time.

[garthranzz]

8. Unless the President is given line-item veto and

it proves Constitutional, Obama should veto any legislation that "gives him leeway" undefined - because it's probably unconstitutional and will surely be challenged by someone. Or should be.

[TeaPotty]

11. I read somewhere that this idea is DOA

Giving Obama the ability to decide how he cuts could mean he will cut mostly from RED states.

Republicans certainly don't want that...

[daybranch]

15. Cut from Red states?

Where is the evidence of the President favoring blue states over red? Because red state governors refuse to cooperate in stimulus, medicaid, high speed rail etc. their economies will suck. It is not about the President favoring blue states, it is about him doing what he can and the red states being unaccounable to their people and the people's needs. If anything the governors of their states continue to doom them to declining employment and tax breaks for the rich within their states and the result of that is certainly not the President's fault nor is it war on red states by blue states.
It is so hard as a resident of a blue state to listen to the poor ignorant people of West Virginia , and Kentucky talk about how we want to destroy their jobs in mining etc. If they understand how much we do not want them to suffer and at the same time we do not want to kill our planet, much like the mining companies have kiled so much of their states. The republican concept of us versus them has been all too successful.
President Obama is president of all the people. Indicating only red states would be cut is certainly inconsistent with both the statement and the facts. However as the red states per capita by virtue of being more poor receive more benefits each now, they will unfortunately suffer more per person. In Georgia and Kentucky in particular military cuts if they extend to military or DOD civilian personnel will hurt. I doubt military cuts much affect West Virginia but the point is, that it is not red versus blue but the current situations which matter.

[WRH2]

19. hmmm, good idea

don't know if that will win hearts and minds. but could be used to fight GOP patronage and earmarks.
somehow, I like the idea of starving them out

[WRH2]

21. hmmm, good idea

don't know if that will win hearts and minds. but could be used to fight GOP patronage and earmarks.
somehow, I like the idea of starving them out

[daybranch]

16. Nope

it would be the equivalent of forcing him to name the targets but the power will still come from the US House. Obama would just be labelled a traitor to his people, exactly what repubs are trying to push and failing to get. The more they can divorce President Obama from progressives, liberals and moderate democrats and moderate republicans, the more likely they are to destroy support for him and his agenda as well as chances for election of a democrat again. Sorry. It will not happen. This President thinks.

[magical thyme]

32. an easy way for the President to deflect criticism by the GOP for his choices

is to simply do what is right for the country.

Give him a line item veto. I can live with that, and will enjoy the GOP's howls of protest when he selectively cuts military waste and corporate welfare.

[wasserman]

9. I have zero prob with cutting the MIC by 50%

[Angry Dragon]

10. 'Neither the House or Senate is planning to be in session when the sequester hits on Friday.'

I dare anyone to tell me that Congress gives a damn what happens in this country ...........

[Witan00]

22. Oh, I'm sure that, deep down, Congress really does give a da....

Nope. Couldn't say it I tried, but just couldn't do it.

[Angry Dragon]

23. Welcome to DU

I see that my welcome comes a little late

[FarCenter]

12. The three richest counties in the nation are Loudon, Fairfax and Arlington in northern Virginia

It's time for the beltway bandits to tighten their belts!

[abelenkpe]

13. Wow

"Neither the House or Senate is planning to be in session when the sequester hits on Friday."

[Leontius]

14. This is complete bullshit by both parties

it's freaking $85 billion out of an almost $2 trillion budget. I don't think anyone is honest about how you do this without "destroying" or "endangering" government svcs.

[Hugin]

24. Thanks for posting this.

I've X-linked it to the Economics Group.

[DeSwiss]

25. Chaos is required.........

...for the veils to fall.

[dotymed]

27. I remember when "w"

was trying (hard) to get a line item veto. We fought him tooth and nail because that kind of power in the executive office is unacceptable.
If we allow Obama to have this power, it will only be a matter of time before an "r" regains the presidency. Do we want him/her with that power?
We must restore Glass-Steagall, The Fairness Doctrine, end citizens United, re-vamp our electoral process and much more. This will only happen if a huge group (like Occupy was becoming) of citizens demand these actions, from the streets probably..
America is not the country of 30 years ago.

[Purplehazed]

28. The people predicting Armageddon aren't really full of it...

sort of.
There is a crisis looming but its because incompetent bungling managers of federal programs are blindly slashing their spending. It is probably closer to the truth to say that federal budgets are out of control before one word from the GOP that spending is out of control.

Do a search for federal wasteful spending and read to your hearts content.

Include the GAO report http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-628T "Agencies reported improper payment estimates of $72 billion for fiscal year 2008"

[John2]

29. The President can't

do anything because the Congress legislates and controls the purse. This Bob Woodward is continuing to put out straw man arguments attaching blame to the President and trying to alleviate that Republican Gang in Congress. Now he suggests the President presented this idea to the Republicans and they willingly went along with a gun barrel at their heads.

Since when has this Republican Party ever went along with an idea from this President? The President can only sign or veto whatever they legislate. The media pundits trying to lay blame at only the President's feet by citing Mr Woodward forgot one thing. We have Boehner on tape saying he got over 90 percent of what he wanted with that sequestrian deal. Let the media pundits including Scarborough, Crowley and Woodward explain themselves out of that. That applies to Mr McCain also with his remarks, the sequestrian was all the President's idea. I don't know why anyone keep listening to these clowns because none of them have any credibility whatsoever. Our entire problem is the Republicans. A majority of them don't need to be in the Government making any decisions for this country. I would do nothing until the midterms and clean them out. The only people need a pink slip are certain obstructionists in Congress that having power went to their heads. The American public just have to be patient and have the final say. Just look at certain Republican Governors trying to change themselves right before the Midterms. The midterm elections will send a clear message to the Republican Party if the electorate gets in line. That message will be Don't mess with the Electorate! Once these Politicians get this message, I doubt the American people would see obstruction again in the near future for awhile.

[classykaren]

30. Florida

I just looked up my state. Over 7,000 people on Aids medicine will be dropped. 125,000 families will have section 8 housing cancelled .college work study programs gone.

[John2]

31. Just keep this

in mind when Woodward and all those media pundits keep trying to lay blame on President Obama. Whatever the Congress legislates, they can repeal. The President can either sign or veto it. The Congress is the only body has the power to legislate laws. The sequestrian law belongs to only Congress, when all is said and done. This is just smoke and mirrors. So when those cuts take effect, blame Congress.

[Purplehazed]

35. The President signed it

he shares the responsibility.

[DCBob]

39. he shares the responsibility for the original legislation but..

he will not share the responsibility for letting it go into effect.

[magical thyme]

33. here is the link, which is not real obvious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/sequestration-state-impact/

Looks like Maine's biggest and worst hit is clean air and water, which is disturbing.

Is this true of other states?

[Purplehazed]

37. Maine loses more than that

Maine will lose:

1.4 million for clean air and water.

47.1 million in lost salaries to DOD workers.

Not mentioned are the contracts the the Navy has already canceled or will not enter into for the rest of the year ranging from custodians to pier repairs. Delayed contracts to Bath Iron Works etc.

[firenewt]

34. As I stated in a different thread "If a states' Congressional delegation does nothing to prevent

the sequester, the citizens of the involved states should start across the board recall procedures."

Impractical, but I still think it's a good idea.

[brooklynite]

36. More like "impossible"

There is no Constitutional provision for recall of a Federal Elected Official.

[firenewt]

38. Oh well, chalk up another one to old and dumb.

[proud patriot]

40. woa Ca is hit super hard ... yikes

[and-justice-for-all]

41. So does the deficit matter or not?

Here we are in a situation where there are major spending cuts, sacrifices being made in order to reel in that evil deficit that so many people do not want to leave to our children, or some such shit like that.

I am not so convinced that the deficit is that much of a priority as some lead us to believe, if it was, then these sequestration would not be such a big damn deal. With some it is the domestic cuts that are concerning, while for others it is the defense cuts. As bad as it may seem, I think that it may be worth it to get the pentagon under control, which is the primary contributor to the deficit to begin with.

[hughee99]

42. Who could have seen this coming when they decided to punt 2 years ago? n/t