1:57 pm, April 20, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 40
       

  • Sequester
    mlliteras
    I would love to know the magnitude of resources that have been exerted planning for a sequester (funding/manpower)? This of course has also taken resources away from the mission. Margaret
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No one noticed
    PAULE
    What if we got ridd of everyone in congress and no one noticed????Nobody notices
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Slight Mea Culpa
    ben
    Sorry, read part of CBO report incorrectly. The FY13 cut will be about $85 billion, not $45 billion. Still nothing near the promised $200 billion promised by Obama.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Move the money
    retiredandworking
    I've heard that Congress could pass legislation that would allow departments/agencies to move their money during sequestration where they cannot now. For example, take the money from supplies or travel and move it to personnel. That would provide more flexibility to agencies to avoid dangerous cuts in critical areas.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To sequester or what not to sequester ...
    Jeremiah
    Among the various "horror story" scenarios being given breathless publicity (akin to a movie blockbuster hypothetically entitled "How the Federal Sequester Caused a Civilization-Destroying Asteroid to Impact the Earth"), it's necessary to bring a little skepticism and soupcon of reality to the table. There's no doubt that agencies will have to engage in some belt-tightening, but to say that a roughly two to three percent cut in overall Federal spending in an annual spending rate (can't call it a budget, as Congress hasn't passed on in over four years) of $3 trillion plus is harsh and severely draconian strains credulity to the ultimate. It appears clear that another version of the venerable Washington Monument Syndrome may be at work here, as agencies issue quasi-hysterical press releases about the impact of a possible sequester on their ability to survive such an Armageddon of spending cuts in their most visible (to the public) programs. As one who worked for Uncle Sam for over four decades - and as I'm sure most other long-time Feds would tacitly at least agree - seriously addressing the high degree of waste and inefficiency in Federal agencies' business practices would save far more than will be accomplished by the planned sequester. Let's calm down and step back from the hype. The bottom line is that our nonsustainable spending rate, if not effectively curtailed, will bring us inevitably to the equivalent of national bankruptcy, with the CBO predicting that, at current spending rates, 70 percent or more of Federal revenues wioll have to be devoted to paying for servicing of our national debt by 2040. The sequester process is indeed a highly questionable "meat axe" approach, but in the absence of a viable alternative "scalpel" methodolgy, it's currently the only serious spending reduction game in town.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }