Werthless wrote:The DoD employs 790,000 civilians? Wow.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm guessing there will be lots of exceptions among the civilian employees regarding furloughs and such.

thephan wrote:

As part of its planning for sequestration, the Department of Defense said it's getting rid of tens of thousands of temporary employees, and on Friday, it made clear that should the automatic budget cuts occur, the remainder of the civilian workforce would face furloughs of one day per week without pay for the rest of fiscal year 2013.

That is a 20% pay cut, which you can lump onto the fact that these workers have not had a raise in years. You can clearly see why Government does not try to recruit the best and brightest, because those workers are not dumb enough to take a job that cannot pay the bills. A GS13, which is a reasonable position (top end of the scale is GS15) gets $73-93K which is potentially adjusted down to $58.4K - 74.4K with the proposal. It is really messy sorting out what a level equals, but 13 is essentially a PhD with specialization in a needed field (12 is "just" a PhD), so that is 12+ years equivalency with advanced education or something like 16 years service if you manage your career. I throw that out to give the idea that we are talking salary for someone ~38-40 living in a rather expensive area.

A Pentagon memo earlier this month gave defense components the go-ahead to terminate temporary hires and stop renewing term employees. Ashton Carter, the author of that memo, told Pentagon reporters on Friday that has largely happened. Forty-six thousand temporary workers have already been let go in anticipation of sequestration

Carter said furlough notices had not yet been issued to the department's 790,000 full-time civil servants, but DoD would have no other option if the department continues for the balance of the year without an approved budget and if sequestration takes effect.

he Army's going to have to take 30 percent of base budget O&M out in order to protect their share of OCO, and that 30 percent is going to have to come out essentially in the last four months of the fiscal year," said David Berteau

OCO is war funding accounts. O&M means that nothing will really get repaired in the US. Pretty scary.

I do not have anything that would be an accurate gauge of the blow to contractors, but it is very easy to assume that this is impact millions of households directly and then millions more in economic trickle down assuming that there is even a leak to be found dripping.

So I say to our representatives: Go - Fight - LOSE.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Basically the Army isn't going to be able to produce much operational or strategic depth outside of what is slated to go to Afghanistan. So if something blows up in Korea or Iran or South Pennsyltucky, don't figure on Army forces getting there quickly.

Currently, parents of children who receive welfare benefits through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program can see their benefits cut by 20 percent if their child doesn't show up for school. Campfield's proposal goes a step further and requires students make "satisfactory academic progress."

If they don't, recipients could see their checks slashed by 30 percent.

“The misconception is that I’m cutting lunch programs or that this is going to hurt the handicapped or cut into programs for special-needs kids,” Campfield said. “It’s not.”

"Satisfactory academic progress" would be measured based on whether a student is advancing through grade levels and how they do on standardized testing.

“Nothing motivates people like money,” Campfield said. “We have done very little to hold parents accountable for their child’s performance. It’s unacceptable to have this generational cycle of poverty continue.”

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Awesome! If the kids get bad grades, we'll deprive them of the basic nutritional needs that facilitate brain development! That'll do it!

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department ignored its own guidelines on executive pay at firms that received taxpayer bailouts and last year approved compensation packages of more than $3 million for the senior ranks at General Motors, Ally Financial, and American International Group, according to a watchdog report released Monday.
The report from the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said the government’s pay czar signed off on $6.2 million in raises for 18 employees at the three companies. The chief executive of a division of AIG received a $1 million raise, while an executive at GM’s troubled European unit was give a $100,000 raise. In one instance, an employee of AIG’s Residential Capital was awarded a $200,000 pay increase weeks before the subsidiary filed for bankruptcy.
‘‘We expect Treasury to look out for taxpayers who funded the bailout of these companies by holding the line on excessive pay,’’ said Christy Romero, special inspector general for TARP. ‘‘Treasury cannot look out for taxpayers’ interests if it continues to rely to a great extent on the pay proposed by companies that have historically pushed back on pay limits.’’
The inspector general’s report accuses Patricia Geoghegan, Treasury’s acting special master for compensation, of side-stepping protocol that let pay packages at the midpoint of comparable firms.

Executives, the report contends, got pay bumps in 2012 for leading their bailed-out companies in profitable directions. But they also got raises when their units performed poorly: An executive at Ally’s residential mortgage unit saw his paycheck rise in 2012 even though Treasury knew that division of the bank was about to file for bankruptcy. The executive, Treasury said, was deemed “critical to successful restructuring.”

Another executive, at GM, saw a $50,000 pay increase not because of good performance, Geoghegan is quoted in the report as saying, but because “GM wanted to retain the employee and ‘do a little extra for him.'"

AIG was not the only company to fight the Treasury when the agency did put limits on executive pay. According to the report, the CEO of General Motors went straight to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner at some point in 2012 to ask that his company no longer be subject to the restrictions imposed by the pay czar. Geithner declined to entertain the request.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) warned President Barack Obama that he "might as well take a four-year vacation" if the Senate fails to pass real filibuster reform -- and the plan being unveiled Thursday by Senate leaders doesn't qualify, the veteran lawmaker said.

"It's a baby step. Really, it's a baby baby step," Harkin told reporters Thursday before heading into a caucus meeting on the filibuster plan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had threatened action to change the rules, but the deal coming out Thursday only ends filibusters at the start of debates and not on the bills themselves or other steps along the way.

A group of lawmakers led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) had hoped to re-institute the talking filibuster, in which a lawmaker who wanted to obstruct something would have to take to the floor to sustain an objection instead of literally phoning it in. Harkin also wanted to decrease the size of the majority needed to end filibusters in increments over an eight-day period.