Quantcast

Tuesday, July 22, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 9 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

In budget fight, sky is falling again

By Calvin Woodward

Associated Press

POSTED:


WASHINGTON >>  President Barack Obama and his officials are doing their best to drum up public concern over the shock wave of spending cuts that could strike the government in just days. So it's a good time to be alert for sky-is-falling hype.

Over the last week or so, administration officials have come forward with a grim compendium of jobs to be lost, services to be denied or delayed, military defenses to be let down and important operations to be disrupted. Obama's new chief of staff, Denis McDonough, spoke of a "devastating list of horribles."

For most Americans, though, it's far from certain they will have a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day if the budget-shredder known as the sequester comes to pass. Maybe they will, if the impasse drags on for months.

For now, there's a whiff of the familiar in all the foreboding, harking back to the mid-1990s partial government shutdown, when officials said old people would go hungry, illegal immigrants would have the run of the of the land and veterans would go without drugs. It didn't happen.

For this episode, provisions are in place to preserve the most crucial services — and benefit checks. Furloughs of federal workers are at least a month away, breathing room for a political settlement if the will to achieve one is found. Many government contractors would continue to be paid with money previously approved.

Warnings of thousands of teacher layoffs, for example, are made with the presumption that local communities would not step in with their own dollars — perhaps from higher taxes — to keep teachers in the classrooms if federal money is not soon restored. Education Secretary Arne Duncan says teacher layoffs have already begun, but he has not backed up that claim and school administrators say no pink slips are expected before May, for the next school year.

To be sure, the cuts are big and will have consequences. Knowing what they will be, though, is far from a precise exercise.

And there is a lot of improbable precision in administration statements about what could happen: more than 373,000 seriously ill people losing mental health services, 600,000 low-income pregnant women and new mothers losing food aid and nutrition education, 1,200 fewer inspections of dangerous work sites, 125,000 poor households going without vouchers, and much more.

"These numbers are just numbers thrown out into the thin air with no anchor, and I think they don't provoke the outrage or concern that the Obama administration seeks," said Paul Light, a New York University professor who specializes in the federal bureaucracy and budget. For all the dire warnings, he said, "It's not clear who gets hurt by this."

The estimates in many cases come from a simple calculation: Divide the proscribed spending cut by a program's per-person spending to see how many beneficiaries may lose services or benefits under the sequester.

But in practice, through all the layers of bureaucracy and the everyday smoke and mirrors of the federal budget, there is rarely a direct and measurable correlation between a federal dollar and its effect on the ground.

That has meant a lot of tenuous "could happen" warnings by the administration, not so much "will happen" evidence.

So it was in Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' letter to Congress laying out likely consequences of the spending cuts for her agency's operations. She said the sequester "could" compromise the well-being of more than 373,000 people who "potentially" would not get needed mental health services, which in turn "could result" in more hospitalizations and homelessness.

Duncan left himself less wiggle room. "This stuff is real," he said last week. "Schools are already starting to give teachers notices."

Asked to provide backup for Duncan's assertion, spokesman Daren Briscoe said it was based on "an unspecified call he was on with unnamed persons," and the secretary might not be comfortable sharing details.

Briscoe referred queries about layoffs to the American Association of School Administrators. Noelle M. Ellerson, an assistant director of the organization, said Monday that in her many discussions with superintendents at the group's just-completed annual meeting, she heard of no layoffs of teachers. While everyone is bracing for that possibility down the road, she said, "not a single one I spoke with had already issued pink slips."

Most school district budgets for the next school year won't be completed for two months, she said, meaning any layoff notices would come in early to mid-May. "No one had yet acted."

School districts in areas set aside for tribal lands or military bases count on Washington for a significant share of their budgets, and are to lose $60 million, or 5 percent of their federal payments, when the sequester starts. Nearly all money to run most of the nation's public schools comes from local sources such as property taxes that are not affected by the federal cuts.

As for the assertion that 600,000 women could be dropped from the Women, Infants and Children Program, that's not to say the rolls would be cut by that number. The actual number is likely to include women who are not enrolled in the program now and could be denied when seeking to join it. Federal officials say the true number will depend on how states can manage their caseloads.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has warned of impending furloughs of air traffic controllers, who may need to take one day off every two weeks, and said air-travel delays are likely across the country. Asked Friday why the airline lobby predicted no major impact on air travel from the sequester, he said, "I don't think they have the information we're presenting to them today."

"The idea that we're just doing this to create some kind of a horrific scare tactic is nonsense," LaHood said. But it's a pressure tactic nonetheless: "What I'm trying to do is to wake up members of the Congress on the Republican side to the idea that they need to come to the table."

However the cuts fall, Light at NYU says the Washington Monument ploy, also known as the Firemen First principle, is at work.

It goes like this: Put someone's budget at risk and the first thing you'll hear is a threat to close a cherished national symbol or lay off firefighters and police, when in fact there are other ways to cut spending.

It so happens the Washington Monument is already closed, for earthquake repair. But Obama indulged in the Firemen First principle quite literally.

He appeared at the White House in front of officers in blue uniforms to warn of the consequences of the sequester. "Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded."

The law gives little flexibility to agencies to protect favored programs, except for big ones specifically exempted from the automatic cuts, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits. FBI and Border Patrol furloughs are expected. Still, the White House has directed agencies to avoid cuts presenting "risks to life, safety or health" and to minimize harm to crucial services.

In the partial government shutdown during his presidency, Bill Clinton and his officials told some tall tales and sketched dark scenarios that didn't come to pass, though some might have if the crisis had lasted weeks or months longer. The shutdown played out over two installments totaling 26 days from mid-November 1995 to early January 1996.

National park properties closed (yes, even the Washington Monument), passport and federal mortgage insurance processing were disrupted and toxic waste cleanup stalled as hundreds of thousands of federal workers went idle, paid retroactively later. But states, communities and private groups stepped up to tide over the neediest, keeping Meals on Wheels rolling with their own resources, for example, until Clinton found emergency money to cover the costs. Warnings that Medicare treatment would be withheld proved unfounded, and veterans got their care.

Contractors, who perform many key services for government, kept working for IOUs. A claim by the government that deportations "have virtually ended" was not so.

The Justice Department told the story of a Florida gas station rejecting the government-issued credit card of a drug-enforcement agent to illustrate the indignity of it all.

But the reality was humdrum: The card had merely expired.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Mary Clare Jalonick, Joan Lowy and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 9 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(9)
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.
hikine wrote:
The Administration has already cut back on medical benefits and education when the budget was alive and well. Same old political rhetoric and scare tactics that never came to be. When will people realize that they're feeding us lies!!!
on February 26,2013 | 12:15AM
MizuInOz wrote:
The answer to the question: "When can you tell that a politician is mis-speaking (aka - prevaricating)?" When his/her/their lips are moving or they are publishing a press release or when they are in front of a camera or... Well, you get the picture. :)
on February 26,2013 | 01:10AM
peanutgallery wrote:
They just raised taes, and now the Dems want to do it again. How much more of this crapola are you going to stand for? Obama has no inclination of leadership, only gamesmanship, and it's old. Really , really old. THe Dems are actually saying that Washington doesn't have a spending problem. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ahhhhhh hahahahaha.
on February 26,2013 | 03:32AM
palani wrote:
The most opaque, irresponsible, and untruthful Administration in history. Elections do have [horrible] consequences!
on February 26,2013 | 03:58AM
serious wrote:
Agreed, we voted them all back!!! The welfare society wins. The Dems think they can spend our money better than we can.
on February 26,2013 | 05:52AM
kgolfinghawaii wrote:
There is not a single cut. They plan to spend $15 billion more next year than this year...how is that a cut? Only in Washington is that a cut. Sure they are reducing the increase by that puny amount of money, but they can deal with that by attrition primarily in the workforce. Then they can change the rules at say the Pentagon and put the money in a bigger pot to allow the leaders there to spend the money where it needs to be spent, not on civilian workers, who cost way more than military members, but on men/women serving. On the things that will keep our ships working, planes flying, defense strong enough to keep anyone from wanting to attack the US. To say, after expanding the budget by over 800 billion in two short years, they can't reduce the increase by a measly 85 billion a year is just insane. Then again half the people in this country are insane for voting this moron back into office. You see the first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. How anyone could believe this man and this party would do anything to actually keep our country from going bankrupt is beyond my ability to understand. They care about power and getting re-elected over and over again. They enrich themselves by being in office then say the problems are caused by the people or those making money. NO the problems we have are almost ALL caused by government. As RR said if you can't be for big government, big taxes and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy....
on February 26,2013 | 04:18AM
Allenk wrote:
Less rhetoric and more solutions. Our leadership in Washington is very suspect.
on February 26,2013 | 07:05AM
ufried wrote:
BREAKING NEWS; president obama to play golf with bubba watson on friday... MSNBC
on February 26,2013 | 07:16AM
tiki886 wrote:
I think the Obama administration is afraid that if the sequestration goes through and no onerous consequences appear to affect the economy and jobs, their credibility will be irreparably damaged and Obama will be exposed as the liar that he is.
on February 26,2013 | 07:42AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs