Administration warns of impact of broad budget cut
Photo
This photo taken Feb. 22, 2013 shows Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood briefing reporters regarding the sequester, at the White House in Washington. President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans each seem content with the political ground they hold and are prepared to let across-the-board spending cuts take effect on March 1, unlike during earlier rounds of budget brinkmanship that saw last minute frantic dealmaking. This time, there is no market-rattling threat of a US. default to force the two sides to compromise, no government shutdown on the short-term horizon and no year-end deadline to prevent a tax increase for every working American.
WASHINGTON — 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.
Feb 26, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama = spend-aholic.
Feb 26, 2013 at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
There is no budget because if the WH proposed a budget they would not get to spend the ongoing stimulus money that is still there with continuing resolutions to keep spending at the same pace. A budget would never pass with some 700 billion tacked on, and Obama would lose the ability to spend it. If 85 billion in cuts is tragic in Obama’s eyes, why would he produce a budget that would automatically cut 700 billion? He simply will not cut spending. The solution to everything in a liberals eyes is more, bigger, government with less liberty of the people.
Feb 26, 2013 at 7 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Obama pledges to veto effort to undo automatic spending cut."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5...
What the Democrat party always does, is create a mess and then blame Republicans. They are very good at propaganda and with a willing media in their pocket, all systems go for the low information voter, PROARTIST
Sequestration is Obama, it has always been Obama. This is nothing compared to the looming Government shut down at the end of March when we run out of money.
And still no Democrat budget. Why? Why won't they tell us how they plan on spending the tax dollars and borrowed money to cover their spending spree?
Feb 26, 2013 at 6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh and he's off again today. The "Roadshow President" is going to VA to campaign for HIS sequester...only campaign against it , not for it. He got his tax increases, now he needs to do the spending cuts. He sure must have a lot of frequent flyer miles. Why doesn't he stay in DC and work on getting something done. But then again, maybe we are better off when he is not involved.
Feb 26, 2013 at 6:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
I predict Obama will take another vacation starting soon. Golfing with his Hollywood buddies? He may need to stay around the WH tho because of his new program "pay to play"....if the wealthy (that he seems to have utter disgust for usually) donate $500,000 to his organization they get private meetings with Obama.
Feb 25, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
pro, even if you want to ignore the numerious reports of this origninating by the white house fiscal dream team (with support of obama), how can you ignore he signed the bill making this law? Who do you think the buck stops with while running the country?
Feb 25, 2013 at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blame Obama? I think not ...
"I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”
It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...
Feb 25, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
gandie....according to the NY Times the constitution Section 4 that you are referring to would probably not stand up on court as a defense. It was added to the constitution so that should the confederates every regain control of the country, the federal govt would not pay them for their civil war costs. Even Obama has declined to use this section as a vehicle to force his solution to the sequester by arbitrarily raising the debt ceiling, according to the Times. That not withstanding, it is still wrong for this country to incur such horrendous debt without any real serious way to being it down. It is irresponsible.
Feb 25, 2013 at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gandy -- so what you are saying is we need to reduce our expesnes to be in line with our revenues. Sounds good to me. We should actualy come in UNDER our revenues to pay down a portion of the debt.
Feb 25, 2013 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama set the fire on one side of the house, ran to the other side and now is screaming that the house is on fire. You singed the bill Obama, you surely would not have singed something you didnt believe in?? Correct??
This bill has little that takes affect in yr 1, and is a reduction in growth over the years. What is really needed are cuts from current spending levels, not lower rates of increase.
Feb 25, 2013 at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow gandalf..I thought liberals were sensitive and tolerant people who support the mentally ill and you poke fun at them? wow..no wonder people cannot stand bleeding hearts...
Feb 25, 2013 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Citizens Warned About This Administration"
Feb 25, 2013 at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
gandalf did you read it and the question? The amendment doesn't require us to spend more than is taken in...
Feb 25, 2013 at 7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Benghazi Barry is in a pickle now. Instead of cuts to his Czar flunkies, cronies, unions and other taxpayer funded paybacks, he's caught in the pickle jar with his hand on the veto pen against anyone who wanted to stop his sequestration.
Worst President EVER.
Feb 25, 2013 at 6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/24/char...
Feb 25, 2013 at 5:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gandie...where in the constitution does it say borrow money to pay the debt or pay interest or spend more than we take in?
Feb 24, 2013 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Politicians recession. The article ought to mention the impact of continuous borrowing from China.
Feb 24, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
donnaw
What we need is consolidation and streamlining processes. Too much fat and inefficiencies in government. When left up to their own device government agencies waste lots of money.
Feb 24, 2013 at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
I say no new employees for now, for anything.
Feb 24, 2013 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
donna you sure are stretching there aren't ya!
180 new engineering and engineering support positions within the state Department of Transportation.
28 more inspector positions at weight enforcement facilities.
11-employee Office of the Inspector General to combat waste and fraud with the Department of Corrections and ensure the agency meets federal rape elimination requirements.
76 employees within the agency to handle increased sex offender GPS tracking,
61 additional workers at the Department of Revenue to focus on tax collection and fraud prevention
117 are needed to meet mandates under the federal health care overhaul law, 85 are needed to improve Medicaid “integrity and efficiency” and 78 are needed to expand community-based mental health services.
so all those 710 new governments employees are needed because of the new health care laws?
Come on baby, lets do the twist!!
Feb 24, 2013 at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
The proposal to hire 710 workers...is NOT a reality yet. But, by adding more programs to assist in healthcare and training, it is a necessary fact. Aren't a lot of those positions LTE/part time?
Regarding the comment...
"It's essentially rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic," Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said of such a proposal in a recent interview
Who is steering the "Titanic"?
Feb 24, 2013 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Any one else get the sense that LaHoods picture makes him look constipated ?
Feb 24, 2013 at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
And the gazette goes right along with the scare tatics with the headlines in the Saturday paper. To the effect the Rock county airport tower might shut down, shame on you gazette.
Feb 24, 2013 at 6:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ugly for the left when the media starts to actually report the truth on issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/b...
Feb 24, 2013 at 5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
wiggle....yes I am disappointed by Walker hiring more govt workers. I would have made the current govt workers take up the extra work being initiated by the increased work load of Medicaid and Obamacare.
Feb 24, 2013 at 4:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
I am getting tired of the current administration issuing one dire warning or alert over and over. The current administration put in place the policies for these budget cuts almost two years ago. Now this week the sky is falling. Always words but no real action out of this current administration.
Feb 23, 2013 at 11:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Another case of Obama kicking the can down the road. Except now he caught up to the can. Now he has to put up or shut up.
Feb 23, 2013 at 8:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama's sequestration is soon upon us.
Feb 23, 2013 at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Air transportation is a key driver of our economy, and should not be used as a political football," the statement said."
Air transportation has been a key wasteful practice by you Barry the magic president.
Feb 23, 2013 at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
So Donna I take it your upset with Walker for hiring 710 new government employees at the cost of WI tax payers correct?
Feb 23, 2013 at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's really sad that they can't find ways to stop the growth of govt....they are not cutting the current expenditures....just rate of growth for the future. Pathetic on both sides. How about cutting THEIR salaries and benefits?
Feb 23, 2013 at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Obama wanted this in the first place now he blames the Republicans. We must have somebody in the whole government with enough brains to figure out to cut $85 billion out of a trillion dollar plus budget without all of this doom and gloom.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.