Tampa Bay is a long way from Washington, D.C., but it’s often clear what happens there has very real, very dramatic impacts on our day to day life.
Case in point: the upcoming “sequester,” which will impose $85 billion in automatic spending cuts on the federal government as of March 1 if a deal isn’t reached, according to The Huffington Post.
Those cuts dig deep into just about every government agency imaginable from the federal to the local level. They affect the military, schools, law enforcement, air traffic control, food inspections and more.
In Florida, the impacts this year alone, according to a document released by the White House (see attached PDF) could be staggering. Here are just a few of the impacts the White House says will hit Florida in 2013:
- Florida will lose approximately $54.5 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 750 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition, about 95,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 130 fewer schools would receive funding
- Funding for Air Force operations in Florida would be cut by about $23 million
- Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 2,700 children in Florida, reducing access to critical early education
- In Florida, approximately 31,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $183.2 million in total
- Florida will lose about $970,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives
The list goes on.
What is the Sequester?
The sequester was agreed to back in 2011 as part of the Budget Control Act. The agreement stated if Congress couldn’t reach a deal to cut spending and reduce the federal deficit on its own, the across-the-board cuts would go into effect, according to Forbes.
Fast forward to 2013 and there’s no deal in sight. The Democrats want to see a combination of spending cuts and tax increases enacted. The Republicans say there have been enough tax increases already and budget woes should be handled through more targeted spending cuts, according to ABC News.
If a deal isn’t struck by Friday, March 1, the sequester kicks in. While it delivers those spending cuts the Republicans want, the sequester was designed to create across-the-board cuts of 10 percent. This means wiggle room to keep spending in certain areas higher won’t be available.
Here’s what we’d like your take on Tampa Bay: What do you think about the proposed spending cuts? What’s your take on government’s failure to reach a compromise? How do you think the sequester could be avoided? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
If spending is not cut, than watch out, "you ain't seen nuttin yet," We will end up paying taxes for everything, even the air we breathe.
.
I'm ok with reducing loopholes in the tax code, but not to keep spending up. Tax reform should be separate and should either go towards paying down the debt, or decreasing marginal rates across the board to spur investment. Did anyone see the latest on taxes...Govt about to rake in record $2.7 Trillion in taxes. Time to reduce spending.
Obama has totally ignored the far left, and is instead pandering to moderate conservatives, centrists, and moderate progressives. Of course he is also ignoring the far right, but so are any Republicans who intend for the GOP to be relevant to America in future elections. As to cutting spending, I'm all for that, but there are smart ways to do it, and very very dumb ways to do it. As a starter, I'd suggest you get a copy of the March 4th issue of Time, where there is a terrific analysis (in a thirty page report) of why US health care costs are so outrageous; just getting costs under reasonable control would do a tremendous amount to reduce spending. And, while I am a retired military officer, and a strong advocate for a vigorous defense establishment, there is a tremendous amount of unnecessary spending - much of it mandated by Congressmen and Senators seeking to keep programs running in their home districts. Many of those pork barrel projects are not even wanted by the generals and admirals. Besides, do we really need a massive deployed force in Europe; those Ruskies ain't comin' across the border, friend, and Germany and France the others in Europe are strong enough to defend themselves, if they'll get off their collective asses and spend what they really need to do that.
Protecting Social Security and Medicare (and that's not to suggest there couldn't be some reforms, by the way, as long as they would not materially affect current retirees or about-to-be's) is not a Far Left issue. Those of us who are centrists, as well as most conservatives and certainly all progressives, want to protect those two essential programs. But you can reform essential programs (as the US has done from time to time) and achieve some savings while protecting the most vulnerable. For easy example, there could be simple reforms, such as means-testing benefits, with triggers that clearly only to the higher end of incomes, and there could be reforms in what the cut-offs are to FICA wages. No, Steve, that's not a Far Left issue, and I never suggested it was. But there are plenty of loony left ideas out there, just as there are plenty of loony right ideas out there. We just witnessed one such demonstration of the loony right in what Rand Paul said and did on the floor of the Senate, only to be later criticized by staunch conservatives McCain and Graham.