Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 116 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Abercrombie: 19,000 jobs affected if budget deal isn't reached

By Ken Thomas and Steve Peoples

Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 01:19 a.m. HST, Feb 24, 2013

WASHINGTON >> Washington's protracted budget stalemate could seriously undermine the economy and stall gains made since the recession, exasperated governors said Saturday as they tried to gauge the fallout from impending federal spending cuts.

At the annual National Governors Association meeting, both Democrat and Republican chief executives expressed pessimism that both sides could find a way to avoid the massive, automatic spending cuts set to begin March 1, pointing to the impasse as another crisis between the White House and Congress that hampers their ability to construct state spending plans and spooks local businesses from hiring.

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a former congressman, noted that the cuts — known in Washington-speak as "the sequester" — would affect the jobs of 19,000 civilian defense workers in Hawaii, including Pearl Harbor, site of the surprise attack in 1941 that launched the United States into World War II. Today, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam supports Air Force and Navy missions.

"That will undermine our capacity for readiness at Pearl Harbor. If that doesn't symbolize for the nation ... what happens when we fail to meet our responsibilities congressionally, I don't know what does," Abercrombie said.

The budget fight came as many states say they are on the cusp of an economic comeback from the financial upheaval in 2008 and 2009. States expect their general fund revenues this year to surpass the amounts collected before the Great Recession kicked in. An estimated $693 billion in revenues is expected for the 2013 budget year, nearly a 4 percent increase over the previous year.

"It's a damn shame," said Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat. "We've actually had the fastest rate of jobs recovery of any state in our region. And this really threatens to hurt a lot of families in our state and kind of flat line our job growth for the next several months."

At their weekend meetings, governors were focusing on ways to boost job development and grow their state economies, measures to restrict gun violence and implement the new health care law approved during Obama's first term.

Some Republican governors have blocked the use of Medicaid to expand health insurance coverage for millions of uninsured while others have joined Democrats in a wholesale expansion as the law allows. The Medicaid expansion aims to cover about half of the 30 million uninsured people expected to eventually gain coverage under the health care overhaul.

Yet for many governors, the budget-cut fight remains front-and-center and fuels a pervasive sense of frustration with Washington.

"My feeling is I can't help what's going on in Washington," Gov. Terry Branstad, R-Iowa, said in an interview Saturday. "I can't help the fact that there's no leadership here, and it's all politics as usual and gridlock. But I can do something about the way we do things in the state of Iowa."

Indeed, right now no issue carries the same level of urgency as the budget impasse.

Congressional leaders have indicated a willingness to let the cuts take effect and stay in place for weeks, if not much longer.

The cuts would trim $85 billion in domestic and defense spending, leading to furloughs for hundreds of thousands of workers at the Transportation Department, Defense Department and elsewhere.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the cuts would harm the readiness of U.S. fighting forces.

The looming cuts were never supposed to happen. They were intended to be a draconian fallback intended to ensure a special deficit reduction committee would come up with $1 trillion or more in savings from benefit programs. It didn't.

"We should go back and remember that sequestration was originally designed by both the administration and Congress as something so odious, so repellent, that it would force both sides to a compromise. There can't be any question, this is something that nobody wants," said Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat.

Obama has stepped up efforts to tell the public about the cuts' negative impact and pressure Republicans who oppose his approach of reducing deficits through a combination of targeted savings and tax increases. House Republicans have said reduced spending needs to be the focus and have rejected the president's fresh demand to include higher taxes as part of a compromise.

Governors said they are asking the Obama administration for more flexibility to deal with some of the potential cuts.

"We're just saying that as you identify federal cuts and savings, allow the states to be able to realize those savings, too," said Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican and the association's vice chairwoman.

More From The Star-Advertiser

GOP, Dems' ads take quotes out of context

 Print   Email   Comment | View 116 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.
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Where does he get 19,000? The Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard site references less than 6,000.
on February 23,2013 | 12:37PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
It includes all civilian employees that are paid by the federal government and that includes all the bases on this state. That includes in additional to Pearl Harbor, Fort Shafter, Kaneohe MCBH, Camp Smith, Makalapa, Kunia, Schofield Barracks, Wheeler AAF, NCTAMSPAC, Hickam AFB And some do not work directly on base. So that number sounds just about right.
on February 23,2013 | 01:33PM
Oahuan wrote:
So in other words ALL Federal workers working on Military bases in Hawaii will be laid off? BS. This is Obama's and the democrats striking fear in the public to direct blame.
on February 23,2013 | 01:43PM
Anonymous wrote:
You must have been living in a vacuum the past few weeks or living off ignorance and spouting it: All of them will receive furlough days. And it does have a massive trickle down effect to the entire local economy.
on February 23,2013 | 05:36PM
DAGR81 wrote:
With your iq you'd better remain anonymous.
on February 23,2013 | 10:18PM
lee1957 wrote:
Anonymous has it right, sorry.
on February 24,2013 | 10:26AM
HD36 wrote:
Then it's a phony propped up economy by printing and spending trillions of dollars we don't have and need to borrow to begin with. One that will fail and collapse on an even greater magnitude if we don't take steps in the right direction. And like others have said, these are only cuts to the growth rate of deficit.
on February 24,2013 | 11:30AM
Mensore wrote:
The sequester will impact federal employees that are paid with appropriated funds (and I assume contractors paid with such funds). Non-approproprited fund employees are paid with unit generated funds and should not be necessarily impacted directly by this law. NEX, MCX, AAFES, Hale Koa, Kilauea, Barking Sands (rec) and on-base lodging and MWRs / MCCS are all non-appropriated (NAF) fund organizations. This number also should take into account the non-appropriated, non-federal jobs on bases: banks, restaurants (McDs), etc. When these jobs are subtracted, and you consider active duty will not be significantly impacted, it's seem like Oahu's economy is diverse enough to handle the 10-15% pay cut for this relatively small cohort of the population. For the outer islands it is a whole different story, but those economies are much smaller to begin with.
on February 24,2013 | 11:39AM
Dawg wrote:
Boy are you LOST IN SPACE! hahahaha!
on February 24,2013 | 05:49AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Sounds like we got too many folks feeding from the public trough. These cuts should be much greater, the military should be cut in half. We'd still be spending more than everone else.
on February 23,2013 | 02:53PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
A good start might be the $400 billion flying tax hole called the F-35. Oh sorry, it's not actually flying having been grounded again.
on February 23,2013 | 02:59PM
hawn wrote:
Business 101, fastest and easiest way to reduce cost, cut labor. Fastest and easiest way to become profitable, cut inefficient labor.
on February 24,2013 | 06:49AM
Pocho wrote:
you know what. At least Uncle Abe is saying something to his peers. MORE than Mazie done if you ask me, she just goes with the flow.
on February 23,2013 | 02:29PM
frontman wrote:
Adding people to a work force paid off the backs of taxpayers is not job creation but socialism.
on February 23,2013 | 04:35PM
frontman wrote:
thank you mr. obama
on February 24,2013 | 05:56AM
DiverDave wrote:
Just more Democratic fear mongering.
on February 23,2013 | 12:42PM
RichardCory wrote:
And I'm sure you were onboard with Republican fear mongering after 9/11 and actually believed the lies about Saddam Hussein having WMDs. Always have to be some clown trying to score a political point. Why not just face the facts that no politician is on your side? Republic, Democrat--what's the difference? You'll still be rimmed in the end.
on February 23,2013 | 01:20PM
Graham wrote:
Many Intellegience Depts. from Brittain, Russia, France, Israel, etc. also informed the US that the weapons existed...
on February 23,2013 | 04:18PM
Nevadan wrote:
False statement. The official UN intelligence said there were no WMDs.
on February 23,2013 | 04:54PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
There was WMDs', we gave it to him and he used it on the Kurds.
on February 23,2013 | 06:50PM
hanalei395 wrote:
The Kurds wanted to secede northern Iraq from the rest of the country, so Saddam declared war on them. Like Lincoln declared war on the South. The U.S. agreed with Saddam and gave Saddam the war material.
on February 24,2013 | 09:30AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Uh, 8th grade history time: Lincoln didn't declare war on the south. There was no declaration of war during the civil war. Same with Saddam's war on the Kurds. We did not support it or him.
on February 24,2013 | 09:52AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Lincoln didn't officially declare war on the South, but after Southern soldiers fired on Fort Sumter in April, 1961, this gave Lincoln the excuse to launch the Civil War. And the U.S. did support Saddam against the Kurds. Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq to deliver U.S. made weapons, and he even met and shook hands with Saddam.
on February 24,2013 | 11:10AM
Pacej001 wrote:
The UN probably said the same thing before the extensive, but undiscovered by international inspectors bio weapons program emerged in Iraq after one of Saddam's son-in-laws defected.
on February 24,2013 | 09:50AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Sorry....Ooops..... Fort Sumter in April ......1861
on February 24,2013 | 11:22AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Still no declaration of war by Lincoln. Wouldn't have made sense, declaring war on ourselves (since Lincoln never recognized the independence of the southern states).
on February 24,2013 | 02:36PM
hanalei395 wrote:
"Declared" was my term. Instead of writing out "looking for an excuse to launch a war to preserve the Union" , I thought I'd shorten it. But it came out the wrong way.
on February 24,2013 | 03:03PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Before they were kicked out of Iraq by George Bush so he could start his war, the U.N. weapons inspectors found NO WMD. Saddam let the inspectors in Iraq, in Nov. 2002
on February 24,2013 | 04:15AM
Pacej001 wrote:
The inspectors were hindered at every turn. Also, they failed to find the major Iraqi bio weapons program which only came to light after a defection.
on February 24,2013 | 02:37PM
hanalei395 wrote:
That's a lie. The inspectors went EVERYWHERE, ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME. With NO hindrance. The inspectors even showed up in Saddam's palaces. Saddam did not want to give, in anyway, an excuse for the U.S. to invade. But Bush WANTED HIS IRAQ WAR.....and kicked out the inspectors.
on February 24,2013 | 03:20PM
hanalei395 wrote:
In Oct. 2002, Congress gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq. In the senate.... all Republicans, except one, voted FOR the war. 21 Democrats, one Repub. and one Independant voted AGAINST going to war. Among the Democrats who voted against it, were Sens. Kennedy, Inouye and Akaka. Among the Democrat Sens. who voted for it, were Hillary and John Kerry.
on February 24,2013 | 06:35PM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Fear mongering? Do you doubt that planes took down the twin towers? You are pathetic. No comparison.
on February 23,2013 | 05:33PM
HD36 wrote:
What took down tower 7? No plane hit it, yet it crumbled exactly like the twin towers: like a controlled demolition.
on February 23,2013 | 06:27PM
Kawipoo wrote:
on February 24,2013 | 03:21AM
lee1957 wrote:
Twilite zone or grand conspiracy?
on February 24,2013 | 10:31AM
HD36 wrote:
Supposedly a plane crashed through a hole made at the pentagon about 50 ft wide, came out the other end intact, with a wingspan of over 85 ft.
on February 24,2013 | 12:11PM
kaupena wrote:
Continue printing more money. I wonder when we're going to run out of ink. Pretty soon I think.
on February 23,2013 | 12:47PM
kaupena wrote:
No moa ink, then we sink. Where can I buy a life jacket??
on February 23,2013 | 12:59PM
RichardCory wrote:
Is it really that difficult to type the word "more"?
on February 23,2013 | 01:20PM
lynnh wrote:
Why is there always some jerk who criticizes someones typo? And by the way...at the end of a sentence the quote marks go outside the question mark!
on February 24,2013 | 12:52AM
lynnh wrote:
Why is there always some @#$$ that criticizes typos? Oh... by the way, at the end of a sentence the quote marks go outside the question mark!
on February 24,2013 | 01:03AM
Kawipoo wrote:
The quotes are around more. Exactly where they should be.
on February 24,2013 | 03:24AM
lynnh wrote:
Ink? That's borrowed to!
on February 24,2013 | 12:50AM
hanalei395 wrote:
After going off the gold standard in the 1930's and printing more money, that is what saved America during that time.
on February 24,2013 | 05:02AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Since when does reducing a bloated government not cost jobs? 19,000 seems too high, unless the problem is a lot worse than we thought.
on February 23,2013 | 12:48PM
lynnh wrote:
It's rubbish and a scare tactic.
on February 24,2013 | 12:56AM
HD36 wrote:
I'll be really suprised if these cuts go through. Politicians in general don't have the guts to make the cuts. I see Obama "saving" the nation at the last minute, and of course setting up the nation for a much bigger fall.
on February 23,2013 | 12:50PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
This uncalled for statement by the Governor is why us taxpayers must let sequestration happen. Why? Because nothing going happen. The Feds are reducing about $100 Billion in "Future and additional" spending per fiscal year. The Feds are already spending $3.5 Trillion/fiscal year and the $100 Billion/fiscal year is from the addition and future spending above the $3.5 Trillion the Feds will spend every fiscal year. The Governor is supporting the President in increasing all our taxes again. Pres. Obama already increased our taxes for the Feds to collect $800 Billion/fiscal year from us. Now, they like take more.
on February 23,2013 | 12:59PM
tiki886 wrote:
You're correct. There is no such thing as "CUTS". It is a reduction in the rate of spending. The annual spending by the Feds has been averaging $3.5 Trillion per year. Spending is not going to go lower over the next 10 years.

And if the sequestration takes place, do you believe spending will drop from $3.5 Trillion per year minus $100 Billion per year?

on February 23,2013 | 02:55PM
lynnh wrote:
Can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but even with the cuts the government budget will spend multiple tens of billions more than they did last year. So where is this mythical $100 billion in cuts?
on February 24,2013 | 12:57AM
Waterman2 wrote:
You know when Abbie is lying right......sure sign is when his lips are moving.
on February 23,2013 | 01:03PM
peanutgallery wrote:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah aaaaaahhhhh ahahahahahahaha!
on February 23,2013 | 01:43PM
mattjd33 wrote:
I GUARANTEE that no matter what happens with the budget there will NOT be 19,000 jobs in Pearl Harbor affected. This scare tactic has been going on for almost 30 years by BOTH parties. We are witnessing a clown show that has nothing to do with our economy or our budget, but rather a political party shoot out aimed at setting the stage for the 2014 elections.
on February 23,2013 | 01:48PM
false wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on February 23,2013 | 02:04PM
honolulugal wrote:
It does. What do you think the state Govenors are talking about? So you can be happy now.
on February 23,2013 | 02:27PM
false wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on February 23,2013 | 03:18PM
connie wrote:
Sad to say, the first to go in the State will be the ones with the least amount of seniority. Deadwood carries a lot of weight in the form of seniority, sink to the bottom of the pool and stay there. The young, best brightest floating on the top of the pool will be skimmed off and removed. And, yes, the fallout will hit the State govt. in the form of decreased revenue.
on February 23,2013 | 06:02PM
false wrote:
Ohhh! Abercrombie and the Crisis Club.... Stop the presses.
on February 23,2013 | 02:19PM
Anonymous wrote:
Want to know what's really scary? Even if the sequester goes into effect, the federal government will still spend more this year than it did last year.
on February 23,2013 | 02:35PM
poidragon wrote:
Hey, Neil: instead of accusing Washington of breaking the system, you had better take a look at your own legislative proposals and State spending habits, first and foremost! We can all see that the future is going to be fiscally bleak, but you seem to think that the State's coffers are your piggybank to spend on anything you want, guess again, fool! At the very least Governor Lingle had the foresight to cut spending and hold the line on fiscal responsibility, which you do not seem to have mastered; what with your depleting of the State's hurrican fund and other 'rainy day accounts,' since you took office! You better tend to your own kuleana first, before picking a fight with Washington, as Hawaii no longer has 'good ole' Uncle Inouye to lean on any more!
on February 23,2013 | 02:43PM
aomohoa wrote:
Seems to me they are cutting everything but entitlements like welfare!
on February 23,2013 | 02:50PM
cojef wrote:
The spin is on, everything gets cut. Only thing is that more mileage is gotten for your spin if you talk about jobs. Spin equate to threat of losing jobs. Essential jobs required for public safety will continue, so furloughs will be in force. Your health insurance and pension rights will be protected, unless you actually lose your job.
on February 23,2013 | 04:13PM
tiki886 wrote:
There is no such thing as "CUTS". It is a reduction in the rate of spending. The annual spending by the Feds has been averaging $3.5 Trillion per year. Spending is not going to go lower over the next 10 years.

If the sequestration takes place, do you believe spending will drop from $3.5 Trillion per year minus $85 Billion per year?

on February 23,2013 | 02:51PM
connie wrote:
Yes. And its going to hit our youth in the form of no jobs and no future.
on February 23,2013 | 07:40PM
Kawipoo wrote:
There will be no future if we do not reduce spending.
on February 24,2013 | 03:40AM
paradiddle wrote:
on February 23,2013 | 07:47PM
WEATHER wrote:
Abercrombie is referring to the number of DOD civil service employees employed in the state of Hawaii. You can google the number for the state...the total number of Hawaii federal employees (DOD plus DOT plus DOJ plus DOI plus DOC, etc) is in the 25,000 range. Whatever the number is, the plan in the DOD is for virtually all civilians tobe furloughed one day a week for 22 weeks...running from late April to the end of September. DOD, plus other federal agency civilians similarly furloughed, will take a 20% cut in pay for the last 5 months (late Apr-Sept) of the fiscal year. So that's equivalent dollar-wise to about 4,000 people (20% of 20,000) being out of work during those 5 months in Hawaii. That's just civilian federal employee paychecks. It does not include furloughs in commerical companies with federal contracts who have already decided they must also furlough their private company employees...as reported by SA. Again, those job impacts (and more) are on top of the federal employee impacts. The SA Saturday headline story downward revised state growth this year by about .8% points for the year (from 3.4% to 2.8%). That looks reasonable based on the numbers above and BTW, that sudden drop of .8% points is a 23.5% reduction (.8/3.4) in the state growth figure. That's the reality of this trickle down Budge Control Act (BCA) meat axe. When passed by the House, the Senate, and signed by the President in 2011, all four of our federal elected officials at the time (Inouye, Akaka, Hanabusa, and Hirono) voted for the BCA that mandated the sequestration looming in a matter of days.
on February 23,2013 | 03:56PM
WEATHER wrote:
Minor correction...the SA report is .8% points (from 3.4% to 2.6%, not 2.8%). It still gives the math of a 23.5% reduction in the state growth figure.
on February 23,2013 | 03:59PM
frontman wrote:
Adding people to a work force paid off the backs of taxpayers is not job creation but socialism.
on February 23,2013 | 04:35PM
connie wrote:
Happened before, will happen again.
on February 23,2013 | 07:41PM
hanalei395 wrote:
During the 1930's, socialism saved America. The dams, roads, hospitals, schools, military bases, housing areas, high-rise buildings, conservation areas, etc. ....etc.... are still around.
on February 24,2013 | 04:27AM
serious wrote:
Yes, the WPA and CCC programs--that's what Obama should have done with that initial stimulus package rather than putting more people on welfare.
on February 24,2013 | 05:50AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Republicans who were against the stimulus bill, later showed up for the ribbon cutting at the completed work projects, ...... roads, highways, etc.
on February 24,2013 | 06:03AM
Anonymous wrote:
FDR's policies during the 1930's prolonged the depression. Stacking rocks in the middle of Montana didn't save anything.
on February 24,2013 | 07:34AM
hanalei395 wrote:
That's a lie. The Great Depression was in the 1920's and came to a head on Oct. 29, 1929. It receded after FDR was elected. The American people rewarded him by re-electing him three more times.
on February 24,2013 | 08:16AM
lee1957 wrote:
Is that why the decade of the twenties was called the roaring twenties, because of the Great Depression?
on February 24,2013 | 10:36AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, the market crashed in 1929. You got that part right, but wrong on the rest. The depression, actually a couple of deep recessions lasted through the thirties. FDR most definitely did prolong the thing by his endless experimentation with this or that economic policy, attempts at price control, by raising taxes at the wrong time (leading to another recession) and by labor policies which jacked up the cost of labor. He was backwards and upside down on nearly every economic policy he tried. The WPA and CCC programs gave a lot of unemployed men something to do, but did nothing to revive the economy. A little thing called WWII did revive it, leaving us as virtually the only industrial nation on the planet that had not been severely damaged. Not only did FDR screw up the economics, he screwed up politically, actually trying to add a number of justices to the supreme court in order ram his socialist policies through, like the draconian price control scheme he tried which was found to be unconstitutional. On top of that, he proposed an economic bill of rights which would have destroyed our constitution. Aside from his very able war time leadership, he was the worst, most destructive president in our history, until now, that is.
on February 24,2013 | 02:49PM
hanalei395 wrote:
frontman ... If you don't want socialism ... don't leave your house. When you do, you're entering socialism. If you don't leave your house, don't call 911 if you need help.
on February 24,2013 | 06:36AM
soundofreason wrote:
"19,000 jobs affected if budget deal isn't reached">>> America affected if not. Got it yet? NOT and endless supply of money.
on February 23,2013 | 04:45PM
soundofreason wrote:
They would be part of the 800,000 "furlough". Not as bad as they are pitching it. One day off in 5......until September.
on February 23,2013 | 04:48PM
hanabatadayz wrote:
pearl harbor can afford the layoffs..they don't do anything all day anyway besides wait for the lunch bell to ring
on February 23,2013 | 05:01PM
Mana07 wrote:
I'm sure you have no idea what goes on at Pearl Harbor. What do you do all day?
on February 23,2013 | 08:15PM
serious wrote:
Remember when the feds were going to close Pearl because of inefficiency? But Linda rescued them.
on February 24,2013 | 05:52AM
NITRO08 wrote:
Linda didn't do anything it was Dan that saved the shipyard get your facts right!
on February 24,2013 | 06:16AM
hawn wrote:
And that is what Dan was good at, Pork Barrel Spending which is what Pearl Harbor is
on February 24,2013 | 06:44AM
serious wrote:
My facts are right!!! Dan did nothing but go along to get along. Jones Act? He was so paid by the shipping industry--the heck with the citizens of HI!!
on February 24,2013 | 08:23AM
honomukeiki wrote:
How come a 2.5% cut in PROJECTED spending will result in all of this doom and gloom? The proposed cut just means that the federal government will not grow as much as the tax and spending crowd in DC want it to balloon . . . again. This is just another scare tactic employed by the current administration.
on February 23,2013 | 05:04PM
connie wrote:
Government growth comes in the the ability to backfill open positions with a younger 20-something year old. Cutting funds means a hiring freeze and no new jobs. The Government is looking to get younger, but can't because older workers are hanging on and seeing their adult children return to the house. May not be scary for those already working. But plenty scary for youth trying to get started in life.
on February 23,2013 | 08:01PM
hikine wrote:
Obama wants to borrow trillions of dollars to balance the budget which is deceiving because it'll place additional TRILLIONS of dollars that was 'borrowed' in his first four years! Obama doesn't want to cut back on spending and has a devil may care attitude of tax payers monies (what's left of it). This is just another political scare tactic to get what Obama wants without question! Stop the runaway spending!
on February 23,2013 | 06:36PM
LanaUlulani wrote:

Here go Abercrombie and Obama and the other politrickans PREYING on the elderly and on fear.

THEIR budget deal should not be reached because THEIR budget deal INCREASES their spending and INCREASES OUR TAXES.

They should CUT their spending and CUT our taxes. Thus... NO DEAL !


on February 23,2013 | 07:11PM
SteveToo wrote:
As I under stand the cuts are NOT SPENDING CUTS, but cuts in the INCREASED SPENDING the democrats want. So we will still spend more money in 2013 than in 2012 if the sequestration takes place.
on February 23,2013 | 07:51PM
Anonymous wrote:
Actually, it will bring our spending BACK to 2011 levels.
on February 24,2013 | 05:37AM
soundofreason wrote:
and even at 2011 levels, another 1 trillion in our deficit will still be produced.
on February 24,2013 | 05:47AM
sailfish1 wrote:
Just get the remaining government workers to work the full 8 hours a day and all the work will get done. The U.S. has too many government workers with not enough work to go around. Time to cut the FAT!
on February 23,2013 | 08:00PM
HD36 wrote:
True, and do they really nead a cost of living allowance paycheck? I don't mind paying for the government workers but not at the expense of my own standard of living.
on February 23,2013 | 09:02PM
NITRO08 wrote:
No but you depend on the government worker every day to do his or her job with out you even knowing they are helping you. WAKE UP!
on February 24,2013 | 06:30AM
HD36 wrote:
Actually, I don't depend on the government worker. Despite the overwhelming army of government workers we must support, I'm still independent. Go back to sleep.
on February 24,2013 | 09:18AM
NITRO08 wrote:
Yes you do. So the people that is maintaining and overhaul the defense weapons ship's, subs air craft, tanks don't support you everyday wake up!
on February 24,2013 | 10:22AM
HD36 wrote:
True, to a certain extent. We just don't need to be the policeman of the world. We already spend more on military than all other countries combined and yet we're the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. How many times can we blow up the world?
on February 24,2013 | 12:13PM
connie wrote:
I know what you're saying. But tell those who wait in line 4-5 hours to get a driver's license, or sit in the Social Security office for hours, or sit and wait for their county permit to put an extention on their house for an aging parent, those who wait two hours in the rain for their Handi-Van, those who wait for months to get a stream cleared, only to see it flood when the big rain comes. Not even going to mention the roads (oops, I just did). I agree with what you're saying. I think there's too many bosses and not enough workers.
on February 23,2013 | 09:03PM
Kawipoo wrote:
Thats because government created all permitting and regulations which requires people to wait in line anyway. Government is into everything and should focus on infrastructure and let people be more responsible and less reliant on the nanny state.
on February 24,2013 | 03:44AM
NITRO08 wrote:
I just went to the SS office took only 45 min. also went to pick up my license took approx. 30 min.
on February 24,2013 | 10:24AM
lynnh wrote:
If in fact people do get cut, it still won't add up to all the hours that were paid for leaning on shovels!
on February 24,2013 | 01:02AM
Manoa_Fisherman wrote:
Chicken's coming home to roost!
on February 23,2013 | 08:54PM
Steve96785 wrote:
Wasn't King Neil part of the Congress that created the sequestration bill? Did he swallow the Kool-Aid that the Dems were passing around at the time that this would force everyone to compromise rather than let the cuts take place? Now, where are the Dems willing to compromise? Welfare payments? No way! Social Security provisions to keep the system solvent? Not on our watch! Refusing to give illegal immigrants full social benefits and free tuition? No, that would be unfair and cost them future votes! Changes to insurance and law suits that could help keep down medical costs for everyone in this country? No way! Granted, it would really help if we just went to a simplified tax code so that we don't have over 40% of the public paying no taxes at all while feeding at the government trough. Can't do that either. Maybe if any of these compromises were put on the table by Obama and the Dems in Congress, the Republicans would be willing to raise some of the tax rates?
on February 23,2013 | 09:14PM
Kawipoo wrote:
Totally agree!
on February 24,2013 | 03:26AM
Coldwater wrote:
LOL at you Governor Neal, if you really cared you would call for the canceling of the rail.
on February 23,2013 | 11:17PM
tiki886 wrote:
Sequestration is going to reduce the budget by $1.2 Trillion over 10 years. But the feds are currently spending $3.5 trillion annually. 10 years times $3.5 Trillion = $35 Trillion.

$1.2 Trillion reduction over 10 years = 3.4% of the $35 TRILLION!!!!

Does anyone reeeally believe the Feds will keep their spending below $3.5 Trillion each year?

on February 24,2013 | 12:11AM
tiki886 wrote:
Sequestration is going to reduce the budget by $1.2 Trillion over 10 years. But the feds are currently spending $3.5 trillion annually. 10 years times $3.5 Trillion = $35 Trillion.

$1.2 Trillion reduction over 10 years = 3.4% of the $35 TRILLION!!!!

Does anyone really believe the Feds will keep their spending below $3.5 Trillion each year?

on February 24,2013 | 12:11AM
nj24 wrote:
January 1, 2013 all tax payers got hit with a 2.2% decrease of their wages. The tax vacation on SS was taken away. It was expected so everyone sucked it up and we all moved on. The Federal Government have baseline budgeting which increases all the Federal Budgets by 5% each year. The sequestration cuts will reduce the Federal Budget by 2.3%. If the budget goes up 5% every year and will be cut by 2.3% from sequestration; the Federal Budget is not being cut. The Federal Budget will just get a smaller increase. So why is there panic about shutting down the government? It's was expected so SUCK IT UP and let's move on like all the tax payers did 01/01/2013.
on February 24,2013 | 12:21AM
lynnh wrote:
Can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but even with the cuts the government budget will spend multiple tens of billions more than they did last year. The cuts will bring the targeted areas back to what their budget was before Obama took office. This is fact and you can read it yourself right off the government's website. So sick of all the bull being slung by Obama and his liberal cohorts to try and strike fear into the star-struck, unread masses. Cuts are necessary no matter what for this bloated government, and Obama refuses to make one. He got what he wanted earlier this year by raising taxes, not only on the rich, but on everyone with the promise cuts would be coming. He lied through his teeth once again.The sequester was his and Reed's idea, of which he said, and I quote "it will never happen...it is a scare tactic." Well mister "whatever you are," you're are certainly not presidential, it looks like your scare tactic is going to happen.Why? Because you refuse to cut one penny. If the republicans cave and give into raising taxes even more there will be hell to pay.
on February 24,2013 | 12:49AM
lynnh wrote:
Why is there always some @#$$ that criticizes typos? Oh... by the way, at the end of a sentence the quote marks go outside the question mark!
on February 24,2013 | 12:54AM
Anonymous wrote:
This is a little misinformed at 19,000. The sequester will impact federal employees that are paid with appropriated funds (and I assume contractors paid with such funds). Non-approproprited fund employees are paid with unit generated funds and should not be necessarily impacted directly by this law. NEX, MCX, AAFES, Hale Koa, on-base lodging and MWRs / MCCS are all non-appropriated (NAF) fund organizations.
on February 24,2013 | 02:01AM
NITRO08 wrote:
The majority is working with appropriated funds.
on February 24,2013 | 06:35AM
HD36 wrote:
The contractors who get paid from the government constitute one of the biggest forms of welfare for the rich.
on February 24,2013 | 09:27AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Lost me there. Almost all contract employees get middle class wages.
on February 24,2013 | 09:54AM
HD36 wrote:
I'm all for defending our borders. Just not being the policeman of the world and spending more on our military than all other major countries combined. I think we can blow the world up more than once already. Each taxpayer is now indebted over $140,000.
on February 24,2013 | 11:45AM
HD36 wrote:
Lockheed Martin , 70% over budget on F-35.
on February 24,2013 | 12:16PM
Breaking News
Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout