Wednesday, July 23, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 10 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Administration warns of impact of broad budget cut


Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — Widespread flight delays and shuttered airports, off-limit seashores and unprotected parks.

The Obama administration is painting a dire portrait of the many ways the public will feel the effects of automatic federal spending cuts due to begin March 1.

The grim picture is emerging as the White House and lawmakers count down the days until the government is forced to trim $85 billion in domestic and defense spending with hardly any leeway to save some programs from the budget knife.

In detailing the costs of the cuts, President Barack Obama is seeking to raise the public's awareness while also applying pressure on congressional Republicans who oppose his blend of targeted savings and tax increases to tackle federal deficits.

"I've been very clear that these kinds of arbitrary, automatic cuts would have an adverse impact on families, on teachers, on parents who are reliant on Head Start programs, on our military readiness, on mental health services, on medical research," Obama said Friday. "This is not a smart way for us to reduce the deficit."

Just in case those consequences didn't capture the public's attention, the White House also had Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood spell out the impact on travelers, a frequent-flier nightmare of 90-minute airport waits, limited flights and closed regional airports. Republican lawmakers dismissed LaHood's warnings as "exaggerations."

But LaHood said the cuts would require slicing more than $600 million from the Federal Aviation Administration, resulting in furloughs of one day per pay period for a majority of the agency's 47,000 employees.

"Once airlines see the potential impact of these furloughs, we expect that they will change their schedules and cancel flights," LaHood said.

Moreover, he said, the Transportation Department is looking "to likely close" air traffic control towers at 100 airports that have fewer than 150,000 flight operations per year.

"We're talking about places like Boca Raton, Fla.; Joplin, Mo.; Hilton Head, S.C.; and San Marcos, Texas," he said. All in all, nearly two-thirds of the airports are concentrated in three states — California, Florida and Texas.

But in a statement, Airlines for America, an industry group, said the organization, the FAA and airline carriers would be meeting soon to plan for potential cutbacks. "Air transportation is a key driver of our economy, and should not be used as a political football," the statement said.

Paul Rinaldi, the president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said the reductions will not just inconvenience passengers, it will also affect local economies and result in more lost jobs. "The fact that they will not just be furloughing critical FAA personnel but closing air traffic control towers means the system will be even more compromised than anticipated," he added.

Still, top Republicans on congressional transportation and aviation panels accused the administration of unnecessary alarm.

"Before jumping to the conclusion that furloughs must be implemented, the administration and the agency need to sharpen their pencils and consider all the options," the lawmakers said in a joint statement issued by Rep. Bill Shuster, chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Sen. John Thune, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; and Frank LoBiondo, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation.

Throughout the administration, agency heads have been depicting an onerous after-effect to the cuts. The federal government is required to spell out the consequences to federal workers, but the details are also designed to warn lawmakers that the cuts could have a fearsome result: angry constituents. Some of the warnings:

— Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week said that automatic cuts, known in Washington budget language as a sequester, would harm the readiness of U.S. fighting forces and he said the "vast majority" of the Defense Department's 800,000 civilian workers would have to lose one day of work per week, or 20 percent of their pay, for up to 22 weeks, probably starting in late April. The biggest potential losses, in term of total civilian payroll dollars, would be in Virginia, California, Maryland, Texas and Georgia, according to figures provided by the Pentagon.

— On Friday, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said cuts of more than $300 million to his agency would mean less money to solve outbreaks, fight hospital infections and keep illnesses overseas from making their way here. For instance, Dr. Tom Frieden said, the cuts could limit the agency's investigation of a tuberculosis outbreak in Los Angeles.

— At the National Park Service, employees would be furloughed, hours would be cut and sensitive areas would be blocked off to the public when there are staff shortages, according to a park service memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The giant sequoias at Yosemite National Park in California would go unprotected from visitors who might trample their shallow roots. At Cape Cod National Seashore, large sections of the Great Beach would close to keep eggs from being destroyed if natural resource managers are cut. Programs on the chopping block include invasive species eradication in Yosemite and comfort stations on the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi.

Gettysburg would decrease by one-fifth the number of school children who learn about the historic battle that was a turning point in the Civil War. And in Yosemite, park administrators fear that less frequent trash pickup would potentially attract bears into campgrounds.

Over the years, budget threats have inevitably resulted in grim warnings, no matter which administration, about calamitous consequences. Many have been avoided; others have been short-lived. But Obama administration officials say they are not exaggerating or bluffing.

The cuts, with few exceptions, are designed to hit all accounts equally. The law gives Obama little leeway to ease the pain.

Even if granted flexibility to apply the cuts with more discretion — a legislative step Republicans say they might pursue — White House officials say that would still require severe reductions.

"It's essentially rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic," Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said of such a proposal in a recent interview.

LaHood, in response to a question, denied that he was simply describing a worst-case scenario that would scare the public and put pressure on Republican lawmakers.

"What I'm trying to do," he said, "is wake up members of the Congress with the idea that they need to come to the table so we don't have to have this kind of calamity in air services in America."


Cone reported from Sacramento, Calif. Associated Press writer Joan Lowy and AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.

Follow Jim Kuhnhenn on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jkuhnhenn

 Print   Email   Comment | View 10 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
poidragon wrote:
The GoP it seems are willing to allow the ship of state to sink with all hands aboard, just to get their point across that they do not care about the country or it's citizens and will go down as the party of 'NO,' to keep their ridiculous promise to Grovelling Norquist. These politicians, who are supposed to be representing the will of the American people across the Nation, are not considering the vested interests of the American people; well if they do not care for us, why are we tolerating the GoP and the republican party? The GoP must remember, they need the American people to keep their political ideologies alive and thriving, but as the country is in such dire straits, do we really need the GoP? No, not really, we can get the job done, without all the BS and other problems perceived, coming from the Republican party............................think about it
on February 23,2013 | 02:56AM
palani wrote:
It is Obama who is acting irresponsibly with his hysterical and false rhetoric. After, all, the very modest reductions in the growth of spending for the remainder of this fiscal year will be made at his discretion. The sequester was his idea, according to respected Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.


on February 23,2013 | 04:07AM
palani wrote:
To keep things in proper perspective, suppose you received a $100 per month raise last October. If the terms of the sequester were applied, starting in March, your raise would be reduced by less than $2. How is that "draconian"?
on February 23,2013 | 04:42AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Challenge accepted. Thought about it. You are beyond clueless to the extent that we need to come up with an entirely new word. Cluevacuum might do it. The sequester was Obama's idea, as documented by Palani, and the Republicans were given the typical Obama "take it or leave it style. Why did the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations reach that state? Because the saintly Obama doubled back on a deal he'd agreed to with Boehner on spending cuts and tax revenue increases by raising his tax increase amount significantly. Negotiations broke down over that, Obama proposed sequester in 18 months (to get by the election) and here we are. Obama's idea, Obama's fault, Obama, Obama, Obama.----------- And where are we? We're reading the statements of doom in the press and the Whitehouse based on a cataclysmic cut in total federal spending, in 2013, by the pants-wetting, earth-shaking, end-of-life-as-we-know-it amount of ONE POINT FIVE PERCENT.------ True, this barbarous amount is focused in discretionary spending, leaving our slowly bankrupting entitlements to decline unmolested, but even so the cuts will be to a discretionary spending total which has grown by 84% since Obama took office. These Ghengis Kahn -like cuts will not even be cuts, in the long run, but will amount to a "reduction in the rate of increase" in discretionary spending. Get it? The cuts aren't even cuts, they lead to slower GROWTH in Federal spending. So, to sum up, the President and the press are selling a load of BS and you low info voters are buying it.
on February 23,2013 | 07:28AM
frontman wrote:
A 59 Billion dollar cut in a 3,76 TRILLION budget should not even be felt, unless obama wants to punish his supporters. There is no real cut anyway . Only a slowing of future spending. This is obama's wet dream, his, and now he will hurt America to speed his socialist agenda.
on February 23,2013 | 05:57AM
entrkn wrote:
All this mayhem and suffering caused by Republicans trying to keep tax breaks for the wealthy few who should have never ever gotten any tax breaks in the first place...
on February 23,2013 | 07:23AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Totally and completely false. First of all, a $53 billion cut out of $3.5 trillion amounting to "mayhem" is beyond ridiculous. Second, this whole thing was Obama's idea, included in the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations AT HIS INSISTENCE. If you actually want to know the facts of the sequester, read the Washington Post summary of why we are facing mandatory spending cuts: [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-sequester-looming-idea/2013/02/18/id/490832]
on February 23,2013 | 07:51AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Apologies. Here is the link to the Washington Post article by Bernstein: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html
on February 23,2013 | 08:53AM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
Yes, both sides of the political aisle have a hand in this whole mess. On the one side the Democrats have been spending with no restraint all these years. On the Republican side we went to wars that we had no business being on on borrowed money and to this day continue to pay for and their efforts to help the rich keep as much of their money as possible at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Then we have Congress that gave themselves raises and then gave themselves the most ultimate of all perks, lifetime membership to the military hospitals when most of them have never served in the military. All they have to do is serve one term and they can get medical attention for life. Further, they legistate a law against insider trading but exempt themselves from it. And the list goes on.
on February 23,2013 | 09:24AM
Anonymous wrote:
Agree overall, but a couple of points. War's can't be budgeted. And Afghanistan was not a war of choice, unless we should have just pretended 9/11 was a "man-caused disaster". Yes, Bush did cut taxes, but tax revenues weren't so bad until the little bump in the road. Even deficits were declining. Bush's big bads were lack of spending control and the Medicare drug benefit. Iraq? Big mistake, but going in it seemed necessary. Question is what now.
on February 23,2013 | 02:10PM
Breaking News