jump to navigation

SEQUESTRUTIN AND THE SMOKIN MIRRORS SENSATIONALISM March 3, 2013

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

A civilian employed by the Army, said, “I can’t say if this is happening in all branches of the military, but here’s what’s happening here. They are giving us ‘forced furloughs’ amounting to two days off every two weeks, without pay.”

In other words, these support-level workers will take a 20% reduction in salary without having their pay rate reduced.

Some won’t get to choose the 2 days of unpaid leave they are forced to take off, and they will not be able to file for unemployment benefits, because they are still employed.

The Masses are dismissing the sequester as “only” a 2% cut in the government’s budget.

But it appears it will be paid disproportionately by the little guys just trying to make ends meet. For some a 20% cut in pay for someone making $50,000 is significant for them!

Poloticians,  yeah! I said it, may still work out a deal if the sequester causes a stink. We have a better plan…

Things you can do… Avoid ill effects of Sequestration In Your Life

One thing that is abundantly clear in all of this fiscal cliff and sequestration drama. Anyone who relies on the government for their livelihood had better help yourself and start your own business and protect you and yours.

Jobs and entitlements can come and go, and your so-called Congress can axe them at any time.

It granted a large increase in the spending limit in exchange for future budget cuts.

Republicans “are unwilling to sign onto a plan in which 50 percent of the savings would come from tax increases. While concerned about the impact on defense, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said the military’s worries are “not desperate enough to raise taxes” when there are other options.” – See more at: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Joint-Chiefs-Assess-Impact-of-Sequestration

Here’s what the Commander in Chief said about it at that time: “Is this the deal I would have preferred? No. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.” -President Barack Obama

He was right: there was a huge incentive for both sides to get a better deal.

The law said that if the two parties couldn’t come up with a better solution, two things would happen:

1. The borrowing limit would automatically increase by another $1.2 trillion.

2. Automatic, across-the-board spending cuts called a “sequester” would kick in

Conservatives did not want to raise the debt ceiling any more, and liberals did not want social programs slashed, so it seemed like the strong-handed tactic might actually work.

But lawmakers failed to act in 2011 … and then waited until December of 2012 before they even started looking at a possible solution.

Economists sounded the first warning. They claimed that if the sequester, combined with the mandatory tax-hikes, actually took effect, it could cause irreparable harm to the already-fragile economy. They warned it might push the U.S. off the brink of recovery into a new recession.

That’s why many began calling it the “Fiscal Cliff.” And it turned into quite a circus.

Politicians pointed more fingers. News media fanned the flames. It was a frenzy.

The average citizen didn’t have a clue what the so-called “fiscal cliff” was all about, but at least he knew it was serious business… and that something had to be done soon. Or bad things would happen.

Here’s what did happen: in the wee hours of January 1, 2013 … Congress saved the day!

Sort of.

They passed a hefty tax increase for the wealthy, and allowed a significant tax increase to creep back into 86% of the American working public’s paychecks.

But that was only half of the “cliff” problem.

They simply kicked the other half (the sequester part) down the proverbial road. The automatic budget cuts were delayed until March 1,2013. Legislators claimed it would give both sides time to craft a “more equitable” plan rather than relying on sequestration.That’s because most elected officials loathe a government spending sequester.

Why? Because it’s a brute-force budget-balancing tactic that hasn’t been used since 1987. Besides …

To Do Business by way of Sequestration Is the “DUMBASS” Way…

Say you ran a small business with about 12 people you that employ. A couple of them were intelligent workers that brought tremendous worth to your organization and increased its profitability. Two of your employees were slackers who seriously underperformed in their duties. The rest were average workers.

The bad economy was affecting your business and forced you to make a 20% cut in your payroll. Which of these two scenarios would be smarter:

1. Fire the two underperforming employees, eliminating 20% of your workforce, or
2. Slash 20% of all 10 employees salary on an equal basis

A wise business owner would never pick #2 and punish his star employees in order to be “fair” to the slackers. That’s plain silly.

But that’s what a government sequester is all about: Every department pays equally. Across-the board cuts without taking into consideration the value of the program.

At least, that’s what we were led to believe.

And that’s why leaders on both sides of the political aisle where screaming and making threats about the dire effects of the sequester earlier this year.

Conservatives groused about how the sequester would harm our national security and gut our military.

Liberals whined that it would leave grandma out on the street without a blanket.

“Unfair” was the battle cry sounded on both sides. But neither side was right, because the reality is …

The Sequester Has Plenty of Loopholes

It turns out the “across the board cuts” politicians were threatening weren’t really across the board.

The Congressional Research Service released their official report last month called “Budget Sequestration and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules.”

The large document identifies certain programs that are 100% exempt from sequestration. These exceptions were squeezed into the the dark corners with fine print in the original “Budget Control Act” Obama signed into law back in August, 2011.

There are plenty of full exemptions from the sequester, including:

  • Social Security and Medicaid benefits
  • Refundable tax credits to individuals
  • Food Stamps
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
  • Supplemental Security Income

In other words, none of these political “hot-button” items will be affected at all. They’re exempt.

And, oh yea, all of the Congress’s special pension and insurance payments? Yup. Exempt. Go figure!

Another one of those exemptions is: “Compensation for the President” (Page 19)

The bill cited a constitutional provision which prevents the President’s salary from being reduced while he’s in office.

So Who WILL Pay for the $85 Billion in Cuts?

With so many exemptions, you may wonder who’s going to bear the brunt of the $85 billion in cuts that will kick in tonight at midnight.

The answer isn’t totally clear just yet, but one thing is clear: the military is on the hook for 50% of the sequester.

This hasn’t gotten a lot of press, because another one of the “exempt” items is military pay. In other words, the sequestration law does not permit anyone employed by the military to have their pay cut.

That’s why many analysts were predicting HUGE layoffs in the military, especially among its civilian workers.

We couldn’t find any good recent info on that,

The nice lady, a civilian employed by the Army, said, “I can’t say if this is happening in all branches of the military, but here’s what’s happening here. They are giving us ‘forced furloughs’ amounting to two days off every two weeks, without pay.”

In other words, these support-level workers will take a 20% reduction in salary without having their pay rate reduced.

They won’t get to choose the 2 days of unpaid leave they are forced to take off, and they will not be able to file for unemployment benefits, because they are still employed.

Many are dismissing the sequester as “only” a 2% cut in the government’s budget.

But it appears it will be paid disproportionately by the little guys just trying to make ends meet. A 20% cut in pay for someone making $50,000 is significant for them!

Politicians may still work out a deal if the sequester causes a stink. We have a better plan…

Advertisements

Women Be Warned: Silence Gives Consent March 22, 2012

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Republicans running for elective office at the state and national levels infuse their campaign rhetoric with cries to “Get government out of the way!”  They decry the Affordable Healthcare Act,  derisively referred to as “Obamacare”, claiming that it puts government between you and your doctor. Yet, state legislature after state legislature  is introducing bills that puts state government between women and their doctors, like the ultrasound bill recently introduced and signed into law in Virginia. Granted, legislators backed off the transvaginal ultrasound mandate and revised the bill to require  the “less intrusive” abdominal ultrasounds, but the fact that an ultrasound is MANDATED still makes the law intrusive…it takes away the woman’s right to make that decision with her doctor. Is this not putting government between a person and their doctor?

The House Oversight Committee in Congress recently held a hearing on the Affordable Care Act focusing on the requirement for employers to provide contraception as part of their healthcare plans and they deliberately excluded women from testifying in the process. There were four Congresswomen on that panel and only two of them took a stand and walked out…why did the other two stay? No female witnesses were allowed to testify yet two women stayed on that committee…did they not feel the same outrage that Eleanor Holmes Norton and Carolyn Maloney felt?

White Republican males are engaging in warfare against women’s health at all levels of government and women, as a group, are strangely silent. Many of these republicans (lowercase letter used deliberately) are presumably married to women, have daughters and most importantly, were carried for nine months in the womb of a woman…how could they be so disdainful of women? What makes them think that it’s ok for them and the government they so eloquently rail against when undermining Obama, to make these decisions for women?

The way to put an end to all of this nonsense is for the wives (and girlfriends) of these anti-women legislators to “hold an aspirin between their knees” and refuse  access to their vaginas! Let’s see how long they continue this assault on women’s health when they’ve gone a few weeks without p****, including that which they pay for!

Posted by guest blogger, Bridget Foster

 

 

 

 

 

That an electio… February 2, 2012

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

That an election of any type can be purchased by an individual or a group of individuals on the behalf of another individual, is an immorality of this electoral system. Buying elections today has become as common as what Pete Rose did in baseball or Marion Jones did in track and field. The effect that the big money spent on campaigns has on this “democracy” and the voting public is the same effect Congressman Bill Brewster’s union-busting “right-to-work” legislation had on Oklahoma unions. Super pacs from every industry (except of course, labor) contributed to his campaign coffers, buying his influence. It raises the same rhetoric: why are the Republicans hell bent on this path? Is it for the good of the country, to maintain their status quo or to satisfy those on the right? It’s all about power and control…so you gotta wonder: when all this super pac money is flowing in, who’s deciding the election? The answer is the elections are decided by the one who has the most money, regardless of where that money comes from. When these GOP candidates receive wads of money from who knows where, it is no longer an election by the people, for the people…it is an election by the haves and have mores for the haves and have mores.

 

Pelosi August 24, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

Hello Browneyed girl ! very interesting point you make… why Pelosi refused to allow impeachment? Well, it’s nothing short of her saving the hides of the majority of congress, being brought up on charges, as well; Because they ‘ve allowed this administraion to do whatever they wanted…Because they all had a common goal and that was, and is, to…Have this war with Iraq and Afghanistan to control their oil and resources for their own selfish and personal gains, and to hell with the people and the Constitution. and what Bill of Rights?

B

%d bloggers like this: