Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[nsplayr]

Yes, I know it's in the JFTR AF Supp that says they can, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

If it's authorized in the regs you don't have much of a leg to stand on...don't hate the player, hate the game. BAH is authorized too, do you hate on people who accept all of it even if their rent is less than what's authorized?

How about try claiming only 2 missed meals each day versus scamming for all 3.

What's a missed meal?

[afnav]

My fed civ branch chief actually tried to talk me out of leaving my GS-nothing job to go to a contractor position that is immune to political whims and pays more than double my current salary. Too bad, dude. You'll have to come up with your 'bright ideas' on your own now.

Fortunately, the active duty colonel was much more realistic. "Hey, sounds like a good deal to me!"

I've bitten my tongue more times than I can count on the football dog pile on govt civilians. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've decided to remove myself from the argument.

[Tonka]

If it's authorized in the regs you don't have much of a leg to stand on...don't hate the player, hate the game. BAH is authorized too, do you hate on people who accept all of it even if their rent is less than what's authorized?

I'll have to side with FG on this, the regs are broad enough in some cases to allow rationale thought for flexibility...but the more they are abused the more likely the flexibility will be taken away.

Yes it is a small amount, but it is a cultural, mental shift that is important...

http://www.businessinsider.com/ashton-carter-sequestration-defense-pentagon-cuts-employee-2013-2

You can't talk about who needs to make cuts without finding ways for yourself to make cuts.

[BitteEinBit]

If it's authorized in the regs you don't have much of a leg to stand on...don't hate the player, hate the game. BAH is authorized too, do you hate on people who accept all of it even if their rent is less than what's authorized?

Nothing against you personally NS, but this way of thinking is exactly what is wrong with our system. Someone just says "It is authorized in reg, so lets just keep wasting money" instead of saying "It is authorized in the reg, but it is a waste of resources...let's change the reg" There are way too many examples like this..yes, including BAH, GTC spending requirements, transportation requirements, etc. Can't tell you how many times I found airline tickets WAY cheaper than what TMO quotes, yet, we go with the more expensive ticket because "thats what the reg says." The problem is no one wants to change the reg because 1) They get extra money and 2) It requires some work. Until we change that way of thinking, we'll continue to waste dollars and then wonder why we have to furlough people, cut programs, and reduce flying hours. Really, none of this should be a surprise to anyone.

[nsplayr]

Nothing against you personally NS, but this way of thinking is exactly what is wrong with our system. Someone just says "It is authorized in reg, so lets just keep wasting money" instead of saying "It is authorized in the reg, but it is a waste of resources...let's change the reg"

There's a subtle difference here. If someone wants to work to change the reg, great, in this case it sounds like it would make sense, go for it!

But to say "Commanders should never approve this for their people" because it's waste, that's where I disagree. If it's an authorized benefit why should a Commander decide it shouldn't be available to his people because he considers it waste? Stick to what the regs say unless there's a good reason to deviate (and denying HHG storage isn't gonna exactly solve our budget woes) and work to change the system which may actual have a measurable effect rather than a drop in the bucket when one SQ/CC turns off some money to his troops in his little corner of the AF.

Little things add up is true in many regards but I just don't see any reason to deny some benefit for your troops that is legitimately and explicitly authorized just because you don't agree with it. If your case is really so strong that it's waste then working to get the system changed should be that much easier.

Can't tell you how many times I found airline tickets WAY cheaper than what TMO quotes, yet, we go with the more expensive ticket because "thats what the reg says."

I completely agree...airline tickets is one of the most asinine areas I've seen money wasted because I can find litereally the same tickets, Y-coded and everything, on kayak for 25-50% cheaper on a consistent basis. We're paying the premium to Winggate for their "customer service" which it's laughable to even call it that. /rant off

Edited February 23, 2013 by nsplayr

[brickhistory]

My fed civ branch chief actually tried to talk me out of leaving my GS-nothing job to go to a contractor position that is immune to political whims and pays more than double my current salary. Too bad, dude. You'll have to come up with your 'bright ideas' on your own now.

Fortunately, the active duty colonel was much more realistic. "Hey, sounds like a good deal to me!"

I've bitten my tongue more times than I can count on the football dog pile on govt civilians. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've decided to remove myself from the argument.

I don't fault you one bit for seeking better, BUT that "convenience to the government" clause in every contract makes an immediate and tempting target when it gets down to shutting money off.

[matmacwc]

I got word that sequestration is "gaining traction", from a pretty good source. O signed it into law, he had to see it as a possibility of happening and being OK with the outcome. Buddy of mine is getting off AD and hired into a ART billet, he's being told his job is in jeopardy, he already has a separation date. What do you tell people like that?

[joe1234]

I got word that sequestration is "gaining traction", from a pretty good source. O signed it into law, he had to see it as a possibility of happening and being OK with the outcome. Buddy of mine is getting off AD and hired into a ART billet, he's being told his job is in jeopardy, he already has a separation date. What do you tell people like that?

It takes two to tango. 174/242 House GOP, 28/47 Senate GOP voted for the sequester. For them, saving tax cuts for the wealthy were a higher priority than defense.

Look on the bright side, the lack of a safe government job gives your buddy the perfect chance to go test out his true potential as a Randian capitalist!

[RASH]

It takes two to tango. 174/242 House GOP, 28/47 Senate GOP voted for the sequester. For them, saving tax cuts for the wealthy were a higher priority than defense.

Look on the bright side, the lack of a safe government job gives your buddy the perfect chance to go test out his true potential as a Randian capitalist!

If you think all of the Republicans that voted for sequester did so solely to save tax cuts for the wealthy, you're smoking dope.

[nsplayr]

If you think all of the Republicans that voted for sequester did so solely to save tax cuts for the wealthy, you're smoking dope.

The same dope anyone is smoking if they believe any Democrats, including the President, want these cuts to happen.

Almost no one (except a contingent on the right wing of the GOP/libertarian spectrum that is well represented on BO.net) actually wants to see the sequester happen. Now that it's imminent most of the mainstream politicians are all trying to dodge the blame for their own stupidity.

The entire point was the the sequester was supposed to be so ill-conceived it would force Congress to work together and pass something better. Guess everyone who signed on to it underestimated just how stupid Congress could actually be.

Edited February 24, 2013 by nsplayr

[brickhistory]

Obama got his tax hike when the Republicans caved a month or so ago. He gained $600B more in taxes without having to cut a dime.

This cuts $85B.

Pretty good deal for Obama.

And since 1/2 of it comes from defense, he's fine with it.

Bye ICBMs, bye new subs, bye 100K troops. He really doesn't care about you. Actually, doesn't really like you to tell the truth.

I will be directly impacted when sequestration hits.

And I say Bring It.

Then when the government funding showdown happens next month, I say call his bluff again.

We are broke.

[TreeA10]

The Democrats in the Senate have not passed a budget since The One took office. They have "let it ride" using the baseline budgeting rules to get increases in spending without having to actually vote thus gaining plausible deny-ability regarding the debt. Republicans have been beat over the head with blame at every opportunity by Obama and Democrats since Obama took office and have done a piss poor job at getting any traction to get anything done. The sequestration was Obama's idea despite his lies to the contrary. Woodward wrote a great article on it, Google it. This might be the only play the Republicans have and I'm good with it. I'm hoping on March 2nd, when the country realizes it didn't explode overnight, that cuts can actually be made and we'll be okay.

[nsplayr]

The Democrats in the Senate have not passed a budget since The One took office.

Close but not quite, April 2009. Try to be accurate in your criticisms since it literally took me 1 minute on google to figure out the correct answer rather than assume.

They have "let it ride" using the baseline budgeting rules to get increases in spending without having to actually vote thus gaining plausible deny-ability regarding the debt.

Except for the fact that Congress has to vote for appropriations bills which actually authorize the spending of money. You're right that it's politically easier to not have a budget because then no one can saddle you with the negative aspects of the choices you've made (ask Paul Ryan about this) and I'm sure that's part of why they're doing it. The President puts out a budget each year (which means Jack and Sh*t 90% of the time) and it's usually not one of the year's political winners on either side of the Congressional aisle or to the American people.

All that being said, you as a Congressman still vote to spend each and every dollar via appropriations bills, not sure how that provides "plausible deniability" WRT to spending money because you either were a "yay" or not.

The sequestration was Obama's idea despite his lies to the contrary. Woodward wrote a great article on it, Google it. This might be the only play the Republicans have and I'm good with it.

It was his staff's idea to create the sequester to avert a default in 2011, yes. But who's to blame for the Super Committee or Congress at large for not acting to identify smarter, more sensible cuts? That's the bigger question and what's relevant now. I can tell you what the polls say, 49% would blame Congressional GOP, 31% would blame Obama, 11% would blame both. Wanna know why I think a plurality of people think that, because who proposed what in the summer of 2011 is largely irrelevant now, but it's clear who's job it was to avert the sequester (Congress) and they've had about a year and a half to make that happen and they've failed.

This is perhaps the only reason some Democrats won't be terribly upset if we let the sequester happen for a short time to further turn the heat up on the GOP to make concessions and negotiate a better set of deficit reduction measures.

I'm hoping on March 2nd, when the country realizes it didn't explode overnight, that cuts can actually be made and we'll be okay.

It's a soft deadline kinda like the Fiscal Cliff. It doesn't "explode" overnight but it's bad and the longer it goes on the worse it gets. Unlike the hard deadlines like the debt ceiling or a bill to fund the government (which BTW comes due 27 Mar 13), you can go over these deadlines without the effects being immediately catastrophic, doesn't mean that the long-term outcomes wouldn't be bad.

[Day Man]

The President puts out a budget each year...

Paul Ryan, but still...

[BitteEinBit]

Close but not quite, April 2009. Try to be accurate in your criticisms since it literally took me 1 minute on google to figure out the correct answer rather than assume.

So, once in four years?? Awesome record!! I wonder if can get promoted if I do my job once every 4 years....

[nsplayr]

Paul Ryan, but still...

Yep, you mean the Paul Ryan that I mentioned in the previous sentence? He knows, just like the President, that putting out a budget with your name on it doesn't mean jack in terms of actual governing unless it's adopted by both Houses of Congress.

They can be good or bad for political posturing or as a starting point for real negotiations, but on their own, budgets don't mean anything; appropriations bills are where the rubber meets the road.

So, once in four years?? Awesome record!! I wonder if can get promoted if I do my job once every 4 years....

Like I said, there's plenty of room for criticism without resorting to arguments that are untrue (i.e. "They haven't passed a budget since Obama took over!").

Edited February 24, 2013 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

Obama got his tax hike when the Republicans caved a month or so ago. He gained GAINED AND SPENT $600B more in taxes without having to cut a dime.

FIFY

Edited February 24, 2013 by ClearedHot

[nsplayr]

He gained $600B more in taxes without having to cut a dime [in the fiscal cliff deal] over 10 years. This [the sequester] cuts $85B in one year.

FIFY.

Let's talk apples to apples here. If it happens long-term, the sequester = $1.2 trillion over 9 years, revenues raised from the fiscal cliff deal = $600 billion over 10 years. Which sounds larger now? The spending cuts, which are exactly twice as big as the revenues raised.

And all this is on top of the ~$1 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years), and $0 in additional revenues, signed into law in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Edited February 24, 2013 by nsplayr

[Finance_Guy]

I'll have to side with FG on this, the regs are broad enough in some cases to allow rationale thought for flexibility...but the more they are abused the more likely the flexibility will be taken away.

Yes it is a small amount, but it is a cultural, mental shift that is important...

You can't talk about who needs to make cuts without finding ways for yourself to make cuts.

Thanks Tonka...

Why do you want to screw over the working man? Sure there's plenty of waste to go around, but there are much worse examples in contracting and the general budget (use or lose).

So if I get furloughed, I'm not getting screwed over??? It is time to share the wealth if this deal goes down. And reading the other posts, I guess I need to clarify the JFTR. The JFTR only authorizes the payment IF the commander and TMO approve, it is not an automatic. So this conditional entitlement, if approved, creates a duplicate entitlement IMO. I have presented this messed up entitlement to the AF Per Diem Committee points of contact when THEY asked for ideas to reduce travel dollars which stemmed from an OMB Memo. People need to keep in mind entitlements are for an intended purpose to reimburse for costs and not create a windfall of money for those concerned. BAH is to pay for a place to live and put your stuff. If you still receive BAH and don't have a mortgage or rent payment, then fine you are making out, but don't then go ask for Uncle to pay for your storage of your stuff too. Let's hope the JFTR gets changed, but I highly doubt it, but you never know.

When the I-TDY requirements/entitlements first came out in 2005, if single members wanted the AF to pay for HHGs storage while deployed, the member had to submit a justification to AF/A1PA as to why their BAH would not cover the payment of storage. A year later AF removed that requirement because the Army wasn't doing it that way. But you know what the Army did, if they paid for your Storage, then you lost your BAH. AF didn't look at that part of it. That makes sense too, if you don't have a mortgage or rent payment, AF pays your HHGs storage, and you reside in Gov't QTRs at the deployed location, then why should you get BAH.

And one last point on this is when the commander does approve the payment, that comes out of his pot-o-money which will take away from other unit requirements. So commanders need to make a decision and say, well, do I pay for Major Snuffy's HHG storage when he gets BAH too, or do we buy those flat screen TVs we need for the break-room. I'd just hope if you see your unit scrimping to buy things needed for the mission, then the CC needs to to deny this entitlement. It just doesn't make sense to forego certain things to try and line the pockets of the "working man".

[TreeA10]

So, once in four years?? Awesome record!! I wonder if can get promoted if I do my job once every 4 years....

Damn, I made an error and was only correct 3 out of 4, or 75%. Guess the political professor does not believe in partial credit. 75% of rounds on target is still a kill so I'll take it.

[BitteEinBit]

Damn, I made an error and was only correct 3 out of 4, or 75%. Guess the political professor does not believe in partial credit. 75% of rounds on target is still a kill so I'll take it.

I think 75% is still passing on your PME tests....you're promotable!! 75% also good enough for the PT test...you passed!

Nothing wrong with 75%...if 75% wasn't good enough, they would make it a failing grade. Don't worry though..the way things are going this year, I think your grade will improve to 80% (1 out of 5)!

[HU&W]

Sequestration cuts and their effects, as described by the White House.

[TreeA10]

Got a 95% on my last PT test. First time I didn't score 100. Promotions aren't a factor since I retired a year ago so I'll need to find some other form of harrassment and abuse to fill in the deficit. Conversing with liberals who use illiberal logic seems to be working.

[Vetter]

I wonder how much it cost Michelle Obama to attend the Oscars tonight? Who picked up the tab?

Edit - I'm an idiot...didn't notice it was via VTC. My bad. Nonetheless, I still think its inappropriate.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Vetter

[Butters]

I wonder how much it cost Michelle Obama to attend the Oscars tonight? Who picked up the tab?

Did you watch the Oscars? Since when did she "attend" the Oscars.

Appearing via streaming video from the White House

I do not think is costs much to stream video.

Not an Obama fan, but you should try to get your facts straight. When you get them wrong it makes you look like a liberal A-Hole.