Sunday April 28, 2013, 7:55 am
Baggage at airport waits for next flight, Photo Credit: alter net
As they were rushing to board their flights home for the weekend, Senators and members of Congress pushed through a bill to allow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to reshuffle funding in order to avoid the flight delays caused by FAA furloughs due to the sequester.
Unfortunately for millions of Americans who cannot afford to get on a plane, Congress has yet to repeal the disastrous and devastating cuts to important programs for the poor, mothers, children, and many others.
A flight delay is inconvenient, not being able to receive your cancer treatment is a matter of life and death. Here's 12 important programs that Congress has so far refused to save from the sequester's automatic cuts, even though they've been in place for nearly 2 months. By contrast, the FAA furloughs caused flight delays for just four days.
1. Long-term unemployment: There are 4.7 million Americans who have been unemployed for longer than six months, but sequestration cut federal long-term unemployment insurance checks by up to 10.7 percent, costing recipients as much as $450 over the rest of the year. Those cuts compound the cutseightstates have made to their unemployment programs, and 11 states are considering dropping the federal program altogether because of sequestration — even though the long-term unemployed are finding it nearly impossible to return to work.
2. Head Start: Low-income children across the country have been kicked out of Head Start education programs because of the 5-percent cuts mandated by sequestration, as states have cut bus transportation services and started conducting lotteries to determine which kids would no longer have access to the program, even though the preschool program has been proven to havesubstantial benefits for low-income children. In all, about 70,000 children will lose access to Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
3. Cancer treatment: Budget cuts have forced doctors and cancer clinics todeny chemotherapy treatments to thousands of cancer patients thanks to a 2 percent cut to Medicare. One clinic in New York has refused to see more than5,000 of its Medicare patients, and many cancer patients have had to travel to other states to receive their treatments, an option that obviously isn’t available to lower-income people. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) proposed restoring the funding, but the legislation so far hasn’t moved in Congress.
4. Health research: The National Institutes of Health lost $1.6 billion thanks to sequestration, jeopardizing important health research into AIDS, cancer, and other diseases. That won’t just impact research and the people who do it, though. It will also hurt the economy, costing the U.S. $860 billion in lost economic growth and at least 500,000 jobs. Budget cuts will also hamper research at colleges and universities.
5. Low-income housing: 140,000 low-income families — primarily seniors with disabilities and families with children — will lose rental assistance thanks to sequestration’s budget cuts. Even worse, the cuts could likely make rent and housing more expensive for those families, as agencies raise costs to offset the pain of budget cuts, and sequestration will also cut from programs that aid the homeless and fund the construction of low-income housing.
6. Student aid: Sequestration is already raising fees on Direct student loans, increasing costs for students who are already buried in debt. The budget cuts reduce funding for federal work study grants by $49 million and for educational opportunity grants by $37 million, and the total cuts will cost 70,000 college students access to grants they depend on.
7. Meals On Wheels: Local Meals on Wheels programs, which help low-income and disabled seniors access food, have faced hundreds of thousands of dollars in cuts, costing tens of thousands of seniors access to the program. Many of those seniors have little access to food without the program, but Congress has made no effort to replace the funding.
8. Disaster relief: The Federal Emergency Management Administration will losenearly $1 billion in funding thanks to sequestration, jeopardizing aid for families, cities, and states right as the spring storm season begins. The aid package Congress passed for Hurricane Sandy relief will also see more than $1 billion in reductions.
9. Heating assistance: The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) helps nearly 9 million households afford their heating and cooling bills. Sequestration will cut the program by an estimated $180 million, meaning about400,000 households will no longer receive aid. These cuts come on top of $1.6 billion in reductions since 2010.
10. Workplace safety: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has long suffered from a lack of funds, which means its staff is so stretched that many workplaces go without an inspection for 99 years. The fertilizer plant that exploded in West, Texas, for example, hadn’t had a visit from OSHA since 1985. That will get worse, as sequestration will cut the agency’s budget by $564.8 million, likely leading to 1,200 fewer workplace inspections.
11. Obamacare: Sequestration cuts a number of important programs in the Affordable Care Act: $13 million from the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program, or CO-OPs; $57 million from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program; $51 million from the Prevention and Public Health Fund; $27 million from the State Grants and Demonstrations program; and $44 million from the Affordable Insurance Exchange Grants program, or the insurance exchanges.
12. Child care: Child care costs can exceed rent payments or college tuition and waiting lists for getting assistance are already long. Yet sequestration will reduce funds even further, meaning that 30,000 children will lose subsidies for care. For example, Arizona will experience a $3 million cut to funding that will force 1,000 out of care.
****Check out links within article at VISIT SITE***
This brings home the truth that most of the Congress does or does not do, has nothing to do with our daily lives. A slight delay in flights home and how quickly they react to smooth things out. Not for you nor the workers involved this was 100% self motivated. Inconvenience as Senator? Perish the thought, there's a law for that.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 11:22 am
Well, now! You have President Obama to thank for the sequester. After all, it was Obama's decision to sign on the dotted line for this in order to get is tax hike. Of course, our liberals really don't want to talk about Obama being at fault. Perhaps all of you thought Obama could say, "hey, guys, I didn't mean it....I know I got the tax hike and this was what I promised, but, man, it's killing me in the press....and I really intended to get another tax hike on the those damn rich people who pay the lion's share of the taxes so I need to make this look like it's the republicans who were for the sequester and not me..."
It's time for the liberals to stand up to the plate and call a spade a spade. Sequestration is ALL about Obama and what he opted to do to the American people in order to raise taxes. You just can't blame the republicans for this. It has Obama's name written all over it.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 11:47 am
Thank you, Kit!!! My exact sentiments, Diane!!! Republicans criticize other Republicans, including Republican presidents. Democrats, almost all, cannot do the same with a Democratic President. How mature is that? Country comes first over party. Obama needs to accept ownership of the sequestration, but, of course, he won't. He wants to unfairly blame it on the Republicans. He's got his eye on 2014 and wants to take Republicans down at every opportunity. True be damned. America first? Not with Obama. Let the American people suffer if there's something to be gained by it. Disgraceful.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 11:50 am
Sequestration is--and actions to address are now vested in Congress.
Those action requiring funding must originate in the House per the constitution.
I'm glad the Senate showed the necessary leadership and proved that it is possible to address at least some of the impacts by choosing something pretty neutral--which also indicates that the GOP stances are not about the money.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 11:58 am
Being one affected by the sequestration, I initially thought you posted excellent information. I still do, but this last response has me shaking my head. I recall a ton of vitiol from liberals aimed at Bush when he was president, but that was perfectly fine because he was a Republican. We're free to express our dislike of Obama as you were of Bush. Can you deny sequestration originated with him? I'm not supporting the part both parties are playing in this, but go back to the source of all this and you'll find Obama.
I did not, while Bush was the seating president say one word about my disgust. I do respect this country and the office of president.
Though in this situation I am not glad the Senator took action. It shows how quickly they can react for their personal convenience, while showing total and complete disregard for the needs of the people.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 12:15 pm
Well stated, Sandy. It is at Obama's feet. As the liberals were ever vigilant in blaming George W. Bush, a republican president, they appear to be thin skinned when it comes home to roost on Obama.
Indeed, we are free to express our dislike of President Obama and we have more than enough reasons to question his every move based on his past performance. Obama's game is "politics." George W. Bush's focus was on the safety and welfare of the American people. Obama knew what sequestration would do but he didn't care at the time. He was focused on a tax hike to plump up his "legacy" in the history books. Now, of course, he doesn't want to take ownership of his "deal" in getting the tax hikes and in true Obama fashion he is intentionally hurting the American people when, in fact, it was always at his fingertips to realign these cuts.
Like you, Sandy, my husband is directly impacted by the sequester working at the Pentagon. Furloughs are the topic of the day every day. When Obama was faced with the airlines inconveniencing the senators, well, now, he quickly and swiftly, with the stroke a a pen, made that go away. Meanwhile, Obama intends to make the republicans look bad for something he, himself, agreed to.
Yes, thank you, Kit, for putting up this thread. This is something that needs to be discussed so that we can all better understand exactly what is going on as it relates to Obama, his choice, and how this affects the American people and Obama's political gain.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 12:41 pm
I'd like to see this and discussions about similar topics if the last election had been won by Rmoney .-You can bet your bottom $ there would be way more complaining and whining and most justified "bitching" about how desparate living has become after these past months of new presidency!! Talk about things being even worse...
But of course, the right wing supporters here would remain rather silent.
Evidently some here have totally forgotten what and who lead up to the sequester to happen in the first place.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 12:45 pm
It is once more alarmingly evident that the liberals (or Democrats) make no effort to read and study the facts. If they did there would be no comment about this not being 100% on Obama. He made a deal, he felt he could coerce people at the last minute to cave in to him regardless and he failed. Sequester is all on him, 100%. It is not Congress, they accepted his suggestion.
This man has not produced (as is his elected responsiblity) a budget since 2009 and still has not submitted a workable budget. He wants to raise taxes, raise the debt limit, spend more money and do nothing to balance the budget. If I ran my household the way he has been running the government I would be bankrupt and living in a refrigerator box provided I could find one.
To respect the Office of the President is fine and great and yes, we should be able to do that. In my entire life, whether I liked all they did or not, I have never been in a position to not respect the President of the US, that is until now. I cannot respect a liar; I understand that the truth can be stretched at times and I could actually forgive some of that, occasionally. But I cannot respect a President that circumvents the Constitution every chance he gets, tries to rewrite the Constitution to suit his wishes, ignores the wishes of the people, continues to spend federal money as thouigh it were his own to spend and making unwise decisions and then repeats it over and over; once I could accept, but not repeated decisions to keep doing the same.
I cannot respect a president that apologizes for the U.S. when there is nothing to apologize for, that bow to our enemies which is the same as subjugating each and every citizen of the U.S. to the same enemy and thus disrespects the men and women who have and are fighting to keep this Country free.
Kit, on the positive side, I guess he is not a bad dancer, he can smooze Hollywood, he does enjoy golf and taking extravagant vacations at our expense when the Country is in financial crisis, and he does know how to do what he does best, as a community organizer he leared the tricks to campaign, so yes, there are a few good things about he man.
But please, please do not talk to me about respecting the President. Believe it or not, as poor a president as he was, I still respected Jimmy Carter. Again,I think that there is something you fail to understasnd, it is not my desire to dislike or disrespect Obama, nor is it the desire of any other conservative (Republican). There is nothing more that we would like to be able to do than respect our President even if we don't agree with all his policies. That is where you fail to understand us. But he has given us nothing to be able to respect; and remember, respect is a two way street; to be respected you have to be respectable and you have to respect the other person as well. I don't feel that this is the case; he does not respect the American people or he would not lie to us, he would not force us to accept things that are not in our best interest, and he definitely would be working non-stop to 1) reduce the debt, 2) improve the economy, 3) create jobs for all Americans and 4) stop his own extravagant spending to show us an ounce of compassion for what we are experiencing. One final thing, he would remember the number one rule of leadership, he would assume responsibility for the mistakes, his own and those made by his Administration and not blame others as ultimately it rests on the leader's shoulders regardless of what he portrays. History will place it on his shoulders so why not be honorable and accept it.
And...in all fairness, Romney could have removed his pants and crapped on your living room carpet and it would still be roses and lilacs. So far not one of you has actually addressed the contents of THIS article. Just how difficult would that be, to actually use what may indeed be a limited intellectual capacity to read and address just the topic of the article. Don't bother Diane and company, I know what comes next.
As Rhett Butler said to Scarlett, "frankly, my dear I don't give a damn."
Sunday April 28, 2013, 12:59 pm
Noted and Read. Thank You Kit.
I really cannot add anything here, that has not already been said, except for one thing - does anyone really believe that if there were to be a different President that there would be anything, and I mean anything that much different?? As I heard ex-President Carter say "Yes, unfortunately money has ruined politics". (not his exact words - but he meant the same thing). Everyone of them is being paid off and therefore very little will get done properly as it should be.
True Elizabeth, until we toss them all out, and begin all over with renewed strength to end this ownership of the government by the very wealthy and their minions, we can not expect much. It really doesn't matter what label or color (red or blue) of these politicians, they all have an allegiance first and foremost to the money. Corruption!
Sunday April 28, 2013, 1:09 pm
I am so disappointed that most comments are not actually addressing the topic of fixing sequestration impacts by Congress (who has that constitutional responsibility)--with the FAA as an example of how they can (the topic of this article for those who didn't read the article before posting their comments).
Excellent points Elizabeth of why Congress is so challenged coping with sequestration so FAA is the only thing they've dealt with a month after funding impacts began.
It is the only thing they have dealt with because it is to date the only thing that has affected them directly. This is a strong indicator of just how little the Congress considers the people of the United States.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 1:13 pm
Great comments, Linda. You nailed it. You absolutely nailed it. What is telling here, and I really want to drive this home, is that when the liberals are faced with conservative comments, they resort to personal attacks and below the belt comments. Nowhere, at any time, here on Care 2, will you see a conservative resort to these tactics. We, as conservatives/republicans simply want the truth to be stated and we want answers to why our economy has been stalled with a 2% growth rate over the past four years and we want to know why we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for an $860 billion stimulus that failed miserably and now we need not one but two tax hikes to soak the rich who have done an admirable job of paying the bills for the past decades. We want answers. We want leadership. We are tired of the biased left wing media brainwashing good and decent Americans into believing that our great country should be put in her place AND accept socialism in our future.
So, this article put up by Kit, is a lightening rod IMO. It opens the door to examining who Obama is and why he is far more interested in political posturing than actually helping the American people obtain some semblance of fiscal responsibility, and his inability to lead our country into greener pastures. We need jobs. We don't have jobs. We should've had jobs. We have a pipeline that would bring thousands and thousands of jobs but Obama says no. Why?
Unfortunately, gay and lesbian marriage, gun control laws and late term abortions are a priority with Obama. Meanwhile, we have a serious sleeper cell terrorist infestation in our country and Obama appears not to be concerned. He has extreme difficulty saying the word "terrorist." Obama, in my opinion, is the "convenient president." Obama is in a virtual photo op.....it's all political to him. Both Barack and Michelle seem far more interested in their Hollywood ties than saving America. This is, indeed, a sad eight years for our country.
So, let me get back to the thread topic. Liberals want to blame the sequestration on the conservatives. We had absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's "deal." What you are witnessing is Obama's incompetence and little boy presidential skills. A community organizer was never going to have the skills to lead America.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 1:27 pm
I find this article relevant to respectful discourse on political topics--it seems to be guidelines Jon Huntsman and others in the GOP viewed as appropriate behavior:
It seems that abiding by such would lead members to rarely violate Care2's rules and respectful behavior expectations as well.
Thank you Kit, Elizabeth and Jason for keeping on topic for the sake of the community.
Thanks J L but I have not stayed right on topic I have enjoyed taking a few cheap shots. Though I have also tried to keep on topic which is rather difficult when dealing with those that have an agenda beyond the singular topic posted.
Which is - once again. About the Congress/Senate taking action only on that one area of sequestration the has directly affected them.
This is NOT a democrat/republican issue, not until someone decides to make this about many things, in fact anything but this topic.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 1:42 pm
It makes absolutely no sense to make across the board spending cuts. They should be selective. There are plenty of places to cut expenses if the effort was made rather than make cuts to both the important and the unimportant. Of course, what's important and not important leaves plenty of room for disagreement. Our elected officials often believe that what's good for the goose (spending cuts for we, the people) isn't good for the gander (themselves). Fortunately, not all fall into that group.
Kit B., is it possible for you to not resort to name calling? I get it that you don't like Diane or agree with her and have a low opinion of Republicans, but for heaven's sake please stick to the topic, too, which doesn't happen to be a diatribe of how much you dislike Diane & the GOP. Cheap shots, indeed. You're better than that.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 1:46 pm
JLA, give it a rest. You don't own Care 2. We all know the Code of Conduct because we are intelligent human beings. Personally, I would never say to anyone who disagrees with me that they have a "mental disability." We are here to discuss the issues from both sides of the political aisle. It is not up to you to decide which comments are acceptable or unacceptable. I am never one to personally attack someone exercising their freedom of speech. I will, however, go in and exercise my freedom of speech which is no different from what you have done. Are you suggesting that your freedom of speech is more important than mine?
The problem, as I see it, is that you and Kit have difficulty processing opposing views to your threads. You want everyone to agree with you. Unfortunately, you do not have that luxury. We are a divided country. We have opposing views to many topics you post. In a perfect world, you and Kit can put up your threads and receive glowing accolades on how smart you are, how well researched you are, green stars flooding the threads but what you must understand is that not everyone agrees with you.
Kit opened the door on sequestration. Her thread title was not that simple. Perhaps she wanted it to be simple but it was not. Our views, as conservatives/republicans are every bit as important as the liberal views. This is the very reason I am a member on Care 2. It is fair and balanced. When you look at the membership numbers on Care 2 you KNOW you will have to deal with republicans who do not think like you. It's time for you to understand that you do not rule on Care 2. Randy and Eric have built an internet empire and they didn't do that by taking away the voice of the republicans. They have built this internet empire by being fair and balanced.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 1:49 pm
I am so sorry the disrespectful behavior of others tested your limits Kit on keeping strictly to topic.
A few other headlines related to Congress addressing sequestration for those who apparently do not know enough about the topic to post topical comments:
Politicians Will Only Roll Back Parts of the Sequester That Hurt Them, Naturally
The Senate Fixes One Part of Sequestration That Affects It Directly
Congressman Garamendi Votes to Reduce Flight Delays and Calls to End Sequestration Now
Editorial: Fed lawmakers can't keep selves above sequester's pain******
While Sequestration Continues, Congress Saves Federal Helium Program
********quote from article:
Members of Congress won’t take a pay cut because their pay is exempted from the sequester.
"Under a Reagan-era law — when the sequester idea was first introduced — certain spending is exempt from automatic cuts, including, reasonably, Social Security, interest on the debt and Pell grants. But it also protects the pay of members of Congress and the president — though President Obama announced that he’d return 5 percent of his pay during the sequester."
Oh Diane, how you are abused. I have many so very many of your nasty comments still hanging about in my file.
I don't mind a lively debate, in fact I relish them when the participants are actually on target and can speak to the issue at hand. So far, you have not.
Thanks J L for giving those interested in actually addressing the topic introduced more information to support or reject the many views that could be presented.
That would mean, reading the article and actually then addressing the content.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 2:03 pm
FactCheck on Topicality:
Zero mention of programs and their people hurt.
Zero mention of FAA.
Focus on the president instead of Congress, which is where action must be on this issue per the constitution.
One effort that is missing content to become a logical connection to justify taking thread off topic " this article put up by Kit, is a lightening rod IMO. It opens the door to examining who Obama is an..." Only mention of Obama in article was the going without 5% pay BTW.
Two phrases in the multitude of lines (partial lines) that even approaches the actual topic.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 2:07 pm
Looks like we have the "Eddie Haskel" responses now.
Here's the deal, Kit and JLA. You are two voices in this Care 2 political arena. There are other voices equally as important as yours. Once you acknowledge that you will have a fair and balanced debate on the issues. When a "superiority personality" needs to be acknowledged as being the only intelligent voice that is where you lose your ground. Not only is your comment important but the comments of others are equally as important.
We are down in the mud right now but I believe it is important for you to understand that your "word" on a topic is not the last word.
No not really Diane. You voice spends all of it's time finding fault with Obama, which is no big deal. go for it - Post all the articles about Obama and what you perceive as his misdeeds that can fill your desires. However, when you decide to trash something I have submitted, then you bet I will strike back. Yes, my word about what is on topic or not is the final word, I did read the article, I made the choice to submit this article, I know the content. I monitor these articles because I want them to stay on topic, and not become a free for all.
None of the articles posted by anyone is here for sloppy comments. The idea, in case you haven't figured this out, is to address the topic offered. That you can not manage that speaks far more about you, than it could speak about Obama, the sequestration or any other topic you have attempted to foul.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 2:18 pm
You want to stay on topic and that is just what we have tried to do, we have discussed sequester which is the reason for the issue with the Air Traffic Controllers. As for Congress, I don't think either side has much to be proud of in this. The fact that there seems to be no positive leadership from the White House has affected the Congress as well.
Like it or not, an effective leader is able to motivate those under him to accomplish postive work; whether that is legislation, products being sold, or customer service to others. Without that effective leader, one that assumes responsiblity for their own actions, you will encourage likemindedness from others. So yes, I do hold Obama responsible. I have held each president responsible to provide the leadership that creates a positive response from Congress as well. It is not just Obama. Whether people agree or not, at least Bush was able to get Congress working together, as did Clinton and most of our other presidents. This is the first time that we have had a president that has not put forth the effort for bipartisan legislation. He has adopted the philosophy that if it is not what he wants he ignores Congress. That certainly does not foster productive effort, not from either side.
If you will notice, Kit, your opening comments took this completely off the topic of the Congress and passing legislation to get the air traffic controllers back working so their flighs were on schedule to get home. I cannot see anywher in this that it included long term unemployment, Head Start, cancer treatment, health research, low income housing, student aid, meals on wheels, disaster relief, heating assistance, workplace safety, Obamacare, or child care. Therefore, I do think you took this off topic yourself.
The issue is sequester and how that is affecting the air traffice controllers and flight delays and the frustration that Congress moved fast to benefit themselves and their air travel and not sooner to help those people traveling since it started. Further, why wait, why didn't they do something in the beginning.
One think I agree with is that it is not one party or the other, this is an issue with Congress as a whole. However, I do think that Obama enters into it as at any time he is able, when he make the chjoice, to prepare an executive order to correct an issue; why did he not do it this time? And that is on topic, Kit, it is on topic.
So please, there is one thing I would suggest to you. I re-read the comments and if you are honest, you have thrown out the cheap shots and you have even resorted to cursing. It does nothing to encourage anyone to go beyond to see waht you have to say of value and I am sure there are things of value that you are trying to convey. Possibly if you put personalities out of the way, and tried to debate the issues alone it might be beneficial for you and others and allow for meaningful dialogue to take place.
I do not like to get into personalities; I prefer to debate the issues and learn; I strive for factual information both to present and to receive. One fact is that the problems that this Country is experiencing did not happen overnight and it is no more Bush's fault than Clinton's, etc. This has been evolving for some time. And if we want to know who is really guilty, it is each of us for allowoing our elected officials to forget that they work for us and are to further what is best for all of us, knowing that it won't always meet everyone's needs, but it should at least be the majroity. We have allowed them to become the employees of speical interest groups and this is both parties, not one alone. We have been way too appathetic and so it has been good for us to be challenged by Obama, a man that, unfortuantely, does not really care about the Country and has proven this by his disregard for the Constitution and that really is only paying lip service as he has not done anything to create jobs, balance the budget, present a budget that is workable, lower our national debt even a fraction, or work for economic recovery. He was to raise taxes on the wealthy but unfortunately the middle class is feeling the worst affects of raising taxes.
So, yes, I am off topic some, but only to explain that we can't bury our heads any longer, regardless of what party, we have to hold our elected officials accountable and if they refuse, replace them until we have a President, Administration and Congress that is doing their job; not for their own interests, but for the interest of the COuntry.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 2:29 pm
What an informative opinion, Linda! For any Care 2 member to hold themselves in the highest regard over others who have a well researched opinion is telling. The topic of sequestration is not limited to the air traffic control. We all know that. For the thread owner to insist that we stay within her one sector of the sequester is a bridge too far. The sequester has many moving parts by the way.
I always enjoy your common sense comments, Linda. We aren't here to start a thread war. We are here to discuss the issues and voice our personal opinions.
Unfortunately, it gets dirty when some are challenged in public. We, as republicans, will continue to exercise our freedom of speech and we do not resort to name calling. I was told I had a mental disability because I didn't agree with the liberal views. That's the bottom line. It cannot be erased.
So, for me, on this thread, I am satisfied that our voices are "in print" so whatever else they would like to post is of no interest to me. There will always be other topics. And, there will always be opposing views. Until the next time....
Sunday April 28, 2013, 3:54 pm
Some of the other priorities proposed in the AlterNet article really make little sense, but it is interesting where Congress' priorities lie: Now that they have to take commercial aircraft like other people, they cut the workload of the TSA and wait-times, and then allocate funding to get them back to work. Reminds me of the almost-funny $250,000 cutoff for "rich" when it comes to taxes: The highest salary in the U.S. congress is $223,000, and that does not count any extras for committee-membership or whatever else senators can do to boost their pay. I remember reading somewhere tht the highest income of any U.S. senator was somewhere around $248,000.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 3:58 pm
I don't argue with ignorance. CONgre$$ made the call to use it's POWER trip (sequester) - Presidents do not make or pass laws. So screw CONgre$$ and it's self-centered ego trip! There are too few listening to "the will of the people"... Bu$h League IDIOCRACY has truly buried deep into the carcass of a dead Democracy.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 4:15 pm
Thank you for returning the thread to the topic of the article Yvonne:
Fixing sequestration impacts by Congress (who has that constitutional responsibility)--with the FAA as an example of how they can/did.
How lovely to return and find that someone finally had a comment worth reading. Thanks Yvonne, that is exactly on topic. Thanks J L for assisting while I was gone. I'm sorry your very good links were ignored in favor of such L-O-N-G and boring comments that I just could not be bother with reading them. Others too manage to direct their comments to the topic without writing a book. So nice to see that some can stay on topic. That is so appreciated.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 5:15 pm
I can't blame Kit for taking a few cheap shots. The Obamaphobes have been ceaseless in taking their own cheap shots at Obama -over and over again. If Obama created world peace, these folks would complain it was too quiet. The fact remains that most of Congress is only concerned with what affects them directly. The rest of us matter little.
Exactly the point Arielle. Thanks for saying that, it seems that many actually believe there is some astounding difference between these "people" (using that word lightly) in Congress. To a person they are self-serving twits that have taken action in this FAA matter only because they are directly affected and inconvenienced with their flights home and back to DC. We matter little to none to those who dwell within the "Belt line".
Sunday April 28, 2013, 5:55 pm
Both Obama and Congress share blame on this one:
Obama was the one who originally proposed the sequester. He bet that Congress would find a solution rather than let the sequester come into effect, got it passed, and he bet wrong. That part is absolutely on him. That said, like Yvonne pointed out, it is not the president's job to produce a budget. Since 2009, Congress has not fulfilled its legal obligation of producing a budget so no comprehensive corrective action was taken to fix the deficit.
More immediately, though, Congress had no choice. The sequester came out of a deal to raise the debt-ceiling. If fiscal liberals in Congress had reneged on the seuqester-deal, there would have been no chance of any further negotiation with fiscal conservatives. They would probably have been so pissed off that the debt-ceiling would not be raisable again, as is expected to be needed this year. Once the deal got through back in the debt-ceiling negotiations, especially with the election disrupting any preparation for a last-minute compromise, it was the sequester or a government-shutdown later this year. Congress may have actually chosen the less damaging option.
Stephen while you are juggling words games, the eggs are broken and it really doesn't matter any longer who said or did what to whom. Fiscal liberal, fiscal conservative, absolute nonsense. Ask a mother who is working 2 jobs and trying to feed her children if she cares who is more right or more wrong? Better yet, ask her if that tiny bit of assistance she had from SNAP helped. Semantics don't mean much to those trapped in the real and painful world of just trying to get by. This is gamesmanship in Congress, and neither are concerned about what happens to people that are the end result of these games.
Once again, the only reason for this headline on this one move by the Senate is because they were affected, their travel plans meet with the force of reality.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 6:13 pm
This is a story about American people being hurt while Congress went home without doing their job--other than make their escape possible. I hope everyone will be flooding their local offices with complaints about the harms to their communities while they are home.
Sunday April 28, 2013, 6:22 pm
CONgre$$ doesn't seem to realize that the bull$hit they have been piling up & rallying around stinks so badly to "we the people" that fewer & fewer Believe Anything CONgre$$ says or does any more! FAUX News watchers are dying off, Comedy Central has more relevant reporting, and both parties are rushing to rip-off Everyone Except the Rich...this is CONgre$$' "let them eat cake" moment..:(
Sunday April 28, 2013, 7:19 pm
They cannot work together and do their job!
A Job we pay them well to do!
But they worry about a FLIGHT DAY??? JUST AMAZING!!!
ALL THE THINGS THAT NEED FIXED AND THEY DON'T WANT ANY DELAYS! WELL THAT'S LIFE!
WE WILL REMEMBER AT THE POLLS!!
I know the eggs are broken, but at least the floor is still there. What do you think would happen to the mother who is working 2 jobs and trying to feed her children if the debt-ceiling were reached without a deal? The sequester is a problem, but at least it's not a government shutdown. Of course, there are worse things that could happen: If the ceiling is reached without a deal, lenders could begin to lose faith in U.S. treasury bonds. I think I've written extensively on Care2 about that danger, and it would hit exactly the same people who can't afford it the worst. The sequester is a real problem here and now, but just because the alternative would only have caused trouble months later does not really really make it any better. In the immedaite term Congress really did the best it could.
As for the blame game, I agree. It is pointless. Nobody will remember whose fault what was by the next election so it won't contribute towards removing people who might screw up like this again from positions of power. That half of my comment was mostly to get the blame-game to end on this thread. (I've found that taking a non-partisan approach to the blame game tends to end it.)
Monday April 29, 2013, 3:52 am
My God- I cant even believe that George W. Bush entered this topic, and there is a rationalization, that because Bush was criticized by Progressives, Obama should be criticized by Republicans.
Bush started the Iraqi war and he documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths)- this does not even include the deaths in Afghanistan
How can you even begin to compare THAT to issues about boarding a plane?
Monday April 29, 2013, 3:58 am
" As the liberals were ever vigilant in blaming George W. Bush, a republican president, they appear to be thin skinned when it comes home to roost on Obama."
Boarding a plane isn't exactly the same thing as killing 10's of thousands of people of Diane. I know you don't understand the difference because you are a woman with high moral standards, but? TRUST ME... there is a difference.
Monday April 29, 2013, 5:42 am
Wow Kit, what have you wrought? Thanks for the oh so true article. I read through all these comments most of which were off-topic. The one thread I do get from CARE2 responders is that they don't get it. It's we who are at fault here whether we be Democrat, Republican or Rongovian. We vote these incompetents into office and they give us just what we deserve for keeping them in office.
It's really something, John. Exactly what is up for debate, I suspect a blind loyalty to one party above all else, which is of course why they can not understand that voting for party over a record of incompetence is what brought us here.
You still don't get it ,,Polititions will only look after themselves,, Jobs, Medical, Houseing , Education and everything else will be cut, you will pay more for less , same in Ireland ,
Just one thing ,,,, If you think any Government will do anything too help you, , well, see your Doctor...
Monday April 29, 2013, 7:27 am
Nyack, so who attacked us on 9/11? What about the WMD's that HAVE been found? What would you have done instead of Bush? Tucked your tail between your legs?
As to Obama giving up 5% pay. Give me a break. We're looking at loosing 20% of our pay and we make a h-ll of a lot less money than Obama. Meaningless gesture.
Linda: "Like it or not, an effective leader is able to motivate those under him to accomplish postive work; whether that is legislation, products being sold, or customer service to others. Without that effective leader, one that assumes responsiblity for their own actions, you will encourage likemindedness from others. So yes, I do hold Obama responsible. I have held each president responsible to provide the leadership that creates a positive response from Congress as well. It is not just Obama. Whether people agree or not, at least Bush was able to get Congress working together, as did Clinton and most of our other presidents. This is the first time that we have had a president that has not put forth the effort for bipartisan legislation. He has adopted the philosophy that if it is not what he wants he ignores Congress. That certainly does not foster productive effort, not from either side."
Monday April 29, 2013, 7:34 am
If you want to hold our leaders responsible, how about those negotiating with the North Koreans. Hint: No one has made significant progress. Not their responsibility. The North Koreans won't negotiate to stop their wild actions and dangerous plans.
When you as President or a citizen "negotiate" with ideologues who want to damage and then destroy Social Security, leave health care to greedy corporations including insurance companies, and prevent the government from dfunctioning -- did you notice the damage these crazed cuts are doing to our nation's Defense?!
Once more - this is not about Bush nor Obama. This is about the "do-nothing, morally bankrupt Congress" and how they finally passed something about the sequestration but ONLY because it was causing them delay times at the airport.
Yeah, Wells I really worry the North Koreans or any other military. After all the United States spends so much on the military in both armory and size, that it would 12 of the next developed nations to come even within a hair breath, of our military. Obviously reading the article, and then addressing the actual topic was a bit to taxing for you.
Monday April 29, 2013, 9:27 am
Thank you Nyack, John, Wells, Paul, Bill and Katie for joining Yvonne and I in trying to help Kit keep comments on topic (and I note that the promise of silence was broken so understand why others let the non-topical disrespectful presence silence them).
Monday April 29, 2013, 10:31 am
"Nyack, so who attacked us on 9/11? What about the WMD's that HAVE been found? What would you have done instead of Bush? Tucked your tail between your legs? "
bin Laden, not Iraq. bin Laden was detested by the leaders of Iraq which had nothing to do with the attack. And the Taliban offered to turn over every single al Qaeda member in Afghanistan, even though it's against Islamic law to do so to a guest. The only caveat was that they go to a neutral site such as the World Court so that Dumbya couldn't railroad them and they would get a fair trial.
But he was too stupid to take them up on it, as he said, being a wartime president gets you the garbage passed that you want, but couldn't get otherwise. Think Patriot Act, the most blatantly unconstitutional law allowed by SCOTUS since Dred Scott.
As far as tucking your tail between your legs, witness Bush and Cheney peeing on themselves and going into hiding immediately after the attack. But then Republicans have a long history of cowardice.
Monday April 29, 2013, 1:03 pm
I believe, first and foremost, this is an issue of safety regarding the FAA. I haven't even been on a plane in 4 yrs. (and don't really care about the long lines and waiting), but it's clear to me that we need experienced and qualified air traffic controllers. The cuts made this a safety issue. I don't want planes crashing....they are most vulnerable during takeoffs and landings, to say nothing of possible mid-air collisions. What if there's an in-flight emergency? We need so many workers available to control these planes in the sky. Were we to wait for a horrible tragedy to occur before realizing these cuts were damaging to safety?
On the other hand, I believe other vital and necessary programs could've been spared based on the issue of safety as well. It's unsafe to people's health to not be able to afford food. It's unsafe to society to cut payments to those most in need. Other programs could've been spared in the same bill, and the advantage wasn't taken by either party. I'm fed up and disgusted with both.
Monday April 29, 2013, 3:13 pm
Good Lord, Diane O. is continually trying in vain to polish that turd of a party, the GOP. No, no the saintly GOP had nothing to do with the sequester. Keep telling yourself that Carol. We certainly see how quickly they'll act though when they themselves are inconvenienced. Scrub-a-dub Carol! You've got a lot more scrubbing to do Girlie!
Monday April 29, 2013, 4:38 pm
Egads.....no wonder this Country is in such a mess. I must say I'm in agreement with John Gregoire.
There are 535 people in congress. Each state has 2 senators which is 100 and there are 435 representatives.
We have a President.....that can veto or not.
Between the whole lot of them, includes both Parties, most don't work for The People but are certainly there for themselves and others of privilege.
Is evident that the first thing that upset them the most was this issue of air travel, which affects them and the little darlings they all care about.
Stop fighting each other and realize NEITHER Party has YOUR best interest in mind.
Maybe if we start placing the deceased on their doorsteps that have died from lack of food, heat, or cancer treatment they might start becoming concerned about us. As the bodies keep showing up with notes attached perhaps it might sink in that the masses are fed up with the whole lot of them.
Thanks to Dandelion, Kristen, Roseann, Lois, Nyack and all of those who read and actually understood this miserable situation. I wish Lois that this move by the Senate was in any way meant to strengthen safety, but I do not, I think this was all about convenience for those flights to and from DC. The sequester is a farce a political tool for dummies.
Monday April 29, 2013, 5:01 pm
A few pieces of coal here..for guess who? Another star to Dandelion for her wisdom. A star also to Kit for showing great restraint in dealing with those who shall not be mentioned again.
Tuesday April 30, 2013, 1:06 am
*Just a note, Kit. Ray LaHood, the head of Transportation, made the choice of exactly what to cut in his dept. He could've made other choices....less important cuts, but it was all politics, as usual.