Shared publicly  - 
Longer lines at airports; fewer meat inspectors. In warning of the consequences of sequestration, President Obama is choosing examples likely to resonate with voters, but Republicans say this amounts to scare tactics. |  

(Photo: Rick Bowmer/AP Photo)
Brent Alexander's profile photoSteve Brown's profile photoPamela MF's profile photoRobert Cassis's profile photo
Just read that first sentence and got a chuckle.  Fewer meat inspectors at the airports. =)
Quite honestly the government should fix this quick, not because we will miss the services but because we may find out we don't need to pay for them.
Can't cut 2% of PROJECTED spending -- fire all such federal managers for incompetence.
Seems to me that the politicians on both sides are projecting cataclysmic results that will affect front line workers and therefore have the greatest impact on the public.  I've heard nothing about serious curtailment of wasteful processes and spending in the back offices and, oh yeah, there is plenty of that to be cut.
You are all correct.  The private sector has been driving efficiency and reducing costs for years now, out of necessity.  The public sector doesn't even understand that concept.  We could likely get more services with reduced revenue up to a point, but govt doesn't do that to itself.  It only seeks to expand.  There is no incentive system to do otherwise.
Congress (the House and the Senate) implemented budgetary rules decades ago that are a disincentive to government agencies to save money on their budgets.

As a former employee and manager in a government agency I have first hand knowledge of this. We were told that we had to spend every penny of our budget or we would forfeit any savings from next year's budget, and we weren't allowed to move money from one allocation to another. For example: say I had $1,500 in supply money and I needed a new printer, supply money and hardware were in separate budget allocations. This meant I couldn't buy my badly needed printer, and I was forced to order $1,500 worth of supplies I may have been able to do without. Had I not purchased the supplies I would lose the $1,500 from my budget. Knowing that costs were going up and my total budgetary allocation was fixed year to year I spent that money to ensure I could cover costs the following year.

The idiotic policy pertained to every single line item. All of the managers I worked with despised this practice, but we couldn't afford to permanently reduce our allocation year after year.

BTW, the Branch I worked in was so efficient that when we competed for our work with private sector companies we won the competition by a large margin...
+Pamela MF My dad was in the military (O6) and complained bitterly about the exact same thing.
Add a comment...