Sandhusker
Well-known member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/leaked-email-adds-fuel-to-claims-white-house-playing-politics-over-impact-cuts/....
hypocritexposer said:And OT is "giddy" about cuts in meat inspection spending.
peas in a pod
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during a House hearing Tuesday, was asked by South Dakota Republican Rep. Kristi Noem about the Brown email.
Vilsack said he was unaware of the email, but denied the administration has a policy of being inflexible and maximizing the cuts’ impact.
“I wouldn’t say that we’ve said no to flexibility,” Vilsack said. “But there are certain circumstances where we don’t have flexibility.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/leaked-email-adds-fuel-to-claims-white-house-playing-politics-over-impact-cuts/....#ixzz2MoGeZGOV
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:And OT is "giddy" about cuts in meat inspection spending.
peas in a pod
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during a House hearing Tuesday, was asked by South Dakota Republican Rep. Kristi Noem about the Brown email.
Vilsack said he was unaware of the email, but denied the administration has a policy of being inflexible and maximizing the cuts’ impact.
“I wouldn’t say that we’ve said no to flexibility,” Vilsack said. “But there are certain circumstances where we don’t have flexibility.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/leaked-email-adds-fuel-to-claims-white-house-playing-politics-over-impact-cuts/....#ixzz2MoGeZGOV
From what I'm hearing of those in the know on federal budgeting/accounting he may be right....
I've had little experience with federal budgets- but have worked for years with state and local budgets thru the school board, being a state/federal grant administrator, and being a county official...
And I know many line items cannot be transferred by the Administrative branch from one fund to another (ex. funds lined out for vehicle purchase cannot be used for salaries- and visa versa ) ... That is the hold the legislative branch keeps over government to keep an administrator from going off the course.... To get many of these funds transferred or authorized to be used for something else- even in local and state government- almost "takes an act of Congress" and as we know- that is the reason we are in this position- The DO NOTHING Congress....
The other issue -- how the cuts are applied -- is trickier. And this is where the accusation that the Obama administration is merely playing politics rings true. Both Democrats and Republicans have decried the indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts. And there’s no denying that the sequestration mechanism is bad policy. But the cuts don’t have to happen that way.
First, the administration probably has the authority to reduce spending in more intelligent ways. This makes its doomsday scenarios completely disingenuous. Jim Capretta and Tevi Troy conclude in a piece published yesterday by the National Review Online that the administration “has the capacity to adjust some, although certainly not all, of the ways in which the sequester is applied.” That means the president could reduce spending that is nonessential and administrative in nature rather than cutting services or other more significant government functions. Additionally, as Capretta and Troy note, Congress has given federal agencies the ability to transfer appropriated money between accounts, which offers the administration yet another way to ensure that cuts are applied more thoughtfully.
hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:And OT is "giddy" about cuts in meat inspection spending.
peas in a pod
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during a House hearing Tuesday, was asked by South Dakota Republican Rep. Kristi Noem about the Brown email.
Vilsack said he was unaware of the email, but denied the administration has a policy of being inflexible and maximizing the cuts’ impact.
“I wouldn’t say that we’ve said no to flexibility,” Vilsack said. “But there are certain circumstances where we don’t have flexibility.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/leaked-email-adds-fuel-to-claims-white-house-playing-politics-over-impact-cuts/....#ixzz2MoGeZGOV
From what I'm hearing of those in the know on federal budgeting/accounting he may be right....
I've had little experience with federal budgets- but have worked for years with state and local budgets thru the school board, being a state/federal grant administrator, and being a county official...
And I know many line items cannot be transferred by the Administrative branch from one fund to another (ex. funds lined out for vehicle purchase cannot be used for salaries- and visa versa ) ... That is the hold the legislative branch keeps over government to keep an administrator from going off the course.... To get many of these funds transferred or authorized to be used for something else- even in local and state government- almost "takes an act of Congress" and as we know- that is the reason we are in this position- The DO NOTHING Congress....
You're not listening...
What has changed since last year, to require additional spending.
Why can they not keep the same number of people working, as they did last year?
The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year, so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.
But that’s misleading, because large parts of the federal budget are exempt from the sequester cuts — including such “mandatory” programs as Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and food stamps. The sequester cuts are split between defense and nondefense spending. They include cuts to discretionary defense spending (such as weapons purchases and base operations, but not military personnel) and to both discretionary and nondiscretionary domestic programs (everything from airport security to education aid to research grants). Cuts to those programs will be much deeper than 2.3 percent.
According to a February report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester includes $42.7 billion in cuts to discretionary defense spending, a 7.9 percent reduction; $28.7 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, a 5.3 percent reduction; $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts, a 2 percent reduction; and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts, a 5.8 percent reduction.
Claims that the sequester only cuts 2.4 percent (or 3 percent) of the federal budget ignore that the sequester does not apply to the entirety of the federal budget. Rather, it mostly targets discretionary defense spending and domestic spending. Those programs will see budget reductions more than two to three times higher than the amount claimed by the Public Notice ad and some Republicans.
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:From what I'm hearing of those in the know on federal budgeting/accounting he may be right....
I've had little experience with federal budgets- but have worked for years with state and local budgets thru the school board, being a state/federal grant administrator, and being a county official...
And I know many line items cannot be transferred by the Administrative branch from one fund to another (ex. funds lined out for vehicle purchase cannot be used for salaries- and visa versa ) ... That is the hold the legislative branch keeps over government to keep an administrator from going off the course.... To get many of these funds transferred or authorized to be used for something else- even in local and state government- almost "takes an act of Congress" and as we know- that is the reason we are in this position- The DO NOTHING Congress....
You're not listening...
What has changed since last year, to require additional spending.
Why can they not keep the same number of people working, as they did last year?
The cuts vary across the board...Some areas get little or no cuts-- some areas are cut 8 or 9%...
BUT since these cuts didn't go into effect until March 1st- they are already 1/3 of the way (4 months) thru the budget year- much of those salary budgets have already been spent- so it makes the salary line items that much bigger of a cut ...
The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year, so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.
But that’s misleading, because large parts of the federal budget are exempt from the sequester cuts — including such “mandatory” programs as Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and food stamps. The sequester cuts are split between defense and nondefense spending. They include cuts to discretionary defense spending (such as weapons purchases and base operations, but not military personnel) and to both discretionary and nondiscretionary domestic programs (everything from airport security to education aid to research grants). Cuts to those programs will be much deeper than 2.3 percent.
According to a February report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester includes $42.7 billion in cuts to discretionary defense spending, a 7.9 percent reduction; $28.7 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, a 5.3 percent reduction; $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts, a 2 percent reduction; and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts, a 5.8 percent reduction.
Claims that the sequester only cuts 2.4 percent (or 3 percent) of the federal budget ignore that the sequester does not apply to the entirety of the federal budget. Rather, it mostly targets discretionary defense spending and domestic spending. Those programs will see budget reductions more than two to three times higher than the amount claimed by the Public Notice ad and some Republicans.
hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:You're not listening...
What has changed since last year, to require additional spending.
Why can they not keep the same number of people working, as they did last year?
The cuts vary across the board...Some areas get little or no cuts-- some areas are cut 8 or 9%...
BUT since these cuts didn't go into effect until March 1st- they are already 1/3 of the way (4 months) thru the budget year- much of those salary budgets have already been spent- so it makes the salary line items that much bigger of a cut ...
The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year, so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.
But that’s misleading, because large parts of the federal budget are exempt from the sequester cuts — including such “mandatory” programs as Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and food stamps. The sequester cuts are split between defense and nondefense spending. They include cuts to discretionary defense spending (such as weapons purchases and base operations, but not military personnel) and to both discretionary and nondiscretionary domestic programs (everything from airport security to education aid to research grants). Cuts to those programs will be much deeper than 2.3 percent.
According to a February report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester includes $42.7 billion in cuts to discretionary defense spending, a 7.9 percent reduction; $28.7 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, a 5.3 percent reduction; $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts, a 2 percent reduction; and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts, a 5.8 percent reduction.
Claims that the sequester only cuts 2.4 percent (or 3 percent) of the federal budget ignore that the sequester does not apply to the entirety of the federal budget. Rather, it mostly targets discretionary defense spending and domestic spending. Those programs will see budget reductions more than two to three times higher than the amount claimed by the Public Notice ad and some Republicans.
answer the question if you are so well informed.
What has changed since 2012, to warrant increased spending?
Why does it cost more to inspect meat in 2013, than it cost in 2012?
I thought you were the one whining about all the costs of everything going up-- gas, travel, vehicles, paper, computers, food, etc., etc.... If that cost goes up for the man on the street- it also increases for government....
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:answer the question if you are so well informed.
What has changed since 2012, to warrant increased spending?
Why does it cost more to inspect meat in 2013, than it cost in 2012?
I thought you were the one whining about all the costs of everything going up-- gas, travel, vehicles, paper, computers, food, etc., etc.... If that cost goes up for the man on the street- it also increases for government....
hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:answer the question if you are so well informed.
What has changed since 2012, to warrant increased spending?
Why does it cost more to inspect meat in 2013, than it cost in 2012?
I thought you were the one whining about all the costs of everything going up-- gas, travel, vehicles, paper, computers, food, etc., etc.... If that cost goes up for the man on the street- it also increases for government....
What if the economy is sluggiish and there are less inspections, due to the amount of meat processing?
You still haven't answered the question.
What changes have happened, since 2012, to increase the "needed" taxpayer spending on meat inspections, in 2013?
2.4% decrease in an increase is a 5-6% decrease?Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:I thought you were the one whining about all the costs of everything going up-- gas, travel, vehicles, paper, computers, food, etc., etc.... If that cost goes up for the man on the street- it also increases for government....
What if the economy is sluggiish and there are less inspections, due to the amount of meat processing?
You still haven't answered the question.
What changes have happened, since 2012, to increase the "needed" taxpayer spending on meat inspections, in 2013?
But there isn't the same amount... They will have approximately 5-6% less in their salary budget for the rest of the year-- which means they have to cut....
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:I thought you were the one whining about all the costs of everything going up-- gas, travel, vehicles, paper, computers, food, etc., etc.... If that cost goes up for the man on the street- it also increases for government....
What if the economy is sluggiish and there are less inspections, due to the amount of meat processing?
You still haven't answered the question.
What changes have happened, since 2012, to increase the "needed" taxpayer spending on meat inspections, in 2013?
But there isn't the same amount... They will have approximately 5-6% less in their salary budget for the rest of the year-- which means they have to cut....
hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:What if the economy is sluggiish and there are less inspections, due to the amount of meat processing?
You still haven't answered the question.
What changes have happened, since 2012, to increase the "needed" taxpayer spending on meat inspections, in 2013?
But there isn't the same amount... They will have approximately 5-6% less in their salary budget for the rest of the year-- which means they have to cut....
To state that, you would have to first know the projected increase in spending over last year.
What was the projected increase, (baseline budgeting), before the expected cut?
Just answer the question, the same way you would answer to your bank manager, if you were asking for an increase in your line of credit.
What is the reason for the needed increase in spending over 2012?
Oldtimer said:You would have to ask Vilsack-- but being a government administrator who went thru several years of budget cuts- I can tell you they can disrupt your whole operation- and prioritizing is not fun- but necessary...Also cutting back on or cutting out a project that is one of your antithesis legislator/commissioners pet projects often is the fastest way to wake them up :wink: ....
hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:You would have to ask Vilsack-- but being a government administrator who went thru several years of budget cuts- I can tell you they can disrupt your whole operation- and prioritizing is not fun- but necessary...Also cutting back on or cutting out a project that is one of your antithesis legislator/commissioners pet projects often is the fastest way to wake them up :wink: ....
What cuts? If budgeted spending has increased by 7%, over last year's actual spending, 5% less in projected/budgeted spending, a "cut", over 2012 actual spending?
What has changed since 2012, to warrant a 2% increase in budgeted 2013 spending?
If you have been involved with budgets, you are aware there is a difference between actual and budgeted, are you not?
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:You would have to ask Vilsack-- but being a government administrator who went thru several years of budget cuts- I can tell you they can disrupt your whole operation- and prioritizing is not fun- but necessary...Also cutting back on or cutting out a project that is one of your antithesis legislator/commissioners pet projects often is the fastest way to wake them up :wink: ....
What cuts? If budgeted spending has increased by 7%, over last year's actual spending, 5% less in projected/budgeted spending, a "cut", over 2012 actual spending?
What has changed since 2012, to warrant a 2% increase in budgeted 2013 spending?
If you have been involved with budgets, you are aware there is a difference between actual and budgeted, are you not?
In Montana- since all unspent funds are taken away from your budget and put back into the general fund-- usually budgeted is actual...
I talked with a Governor once about trying to get the law changed where if you saved money in your budget- you could carry it over to next year and use it without being penalized by having your budget cut that amount... He convinced me that the last thing we needed was another law- and said that good legislators, commissioners, councilmen would reward you that way for saving money...
Problem is he wasn't aware of how many bad legislators, commissioners, councilmen existed.... :wink:
hypocritexposer said:Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:What cuts? If budgeted spending has increased by 7%, over last year's actual spending, 5% less in projected/budgeted spending, a "cut", over 2012 actual spending?
What has changed since 2012, to warrant a 2% increase in budgeted 2013 spending?
If you have been involved with budgets, you are aware there is a difference between actual and budgeted, are you not?
In Montana- since all unspent funds are taken away from your budget and put back into the general fund-- usually budgeted is actual...
I talked with a Governor once about trying to get the law changed where if you saved money in your budget- you could carry it over to next year and use it without being penalized by having your budget cut that amount... He convinced me that the last thing we needed was another law- and said that good legislators, commissioners, councilmen would reward you that way for saving money...
Problem is he wasn't aware of how many bad legislators, commissioners, councilmen existed.... :wink:
What is the reason for the increased bugeted spending in 2013, over 2012, when it comes to meat inspections?
You are starting to look very stupid, by trying to protect yourself, from looking stupid.