GAO report: Sequestration was a job killer

[Clocker]

A report from the Government Accountability Office (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/) documents that the sequestration was, in fact, a federal job killer.

Only one employee in the entire federal government lost a job due to sequestration, according to a government audit that found the only permanent cut came at the U.S. Parole Commission, which eliminated one position.

Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said Wednesday that the audit — performed by the Government Accountability Office and released last month — shows that the worries over sequestration’s impact on jobs was overblown.

“Despite relentless warnings about the dire consequences of sequestration’s budget cuts, it appears sequestration resulted in only one layoff,” he said. “While that’s good news for federal employees and other workers, it is devastating to the credibility of Washington politicians and administration officials who spent months — and millions of dollars — engaging in a coordinated multi-agency cabinet-level public relations campaign to scare the American people.”

[Tom]

That's what happens you out-source your government.
Disgusting pigs in DC.......always vote out the incumbents - ALWAYS.
Never allow roaches to get comfy in their nests.
Spray, stomp, whatever, get them out of office ASAP.

Anyone in a second term or more is not representing you. Ever.

[newtothegame]

So, wait a minute.....you mean to tell me that for all that fear mongering the left did, ONE job was lost??????

:lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Clocker, the paragraph below was in the same article you quoted from.

In response, OMB spokesman Steve Posner said in a statement to FoxNews.com there is "no question" the sequestration has had an negative impact on Americans, pointing out the report also states that employees had their hours reduced and agencies were forced to curtail hiring as a result of the cuts, among other examples.
_____________________________

If you don't have the money to replace employees who leave a federal job, service to the public is going to suffer. If you can't afford to train employees, service is going to suffer. If you can't afford office equpment or repairs, service is going to suffer.

Is Coburn so dumb as to think jobs aren't lost when employees are not replaced? Maybe. He's a Republican, isn't he? :rolleyes: And how about FOX News picking up this story like it's some kind of a revelation? What a joke.

Of course, Clocker bought it so there you go. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

If you don't have the money to replace employees who leave a federal job, service to the public is going to suffer.

He said "service to the public"! :D

So you are saying that every single federal employee is vital to the welfare of the nation, and if one quits or retires, there is no way that the other 2+ million federal employees can take up the slack? :rolleyes:

Of course, Clocker bought it so there you go.

Of course that means that you can dismiss it out of hand, without a shred of evidence to support your position.

[riskman]

......always vote out the incumbents - ALWAYS.
Never allow roaches to get comfy in their nests.
Spray, stomp, whatever, get them out of office ASAP.

Anyone in a second term or more is not representing you. Ever.


If most voters followed this advice, we as a nation would be so much beter off.
Elective office is not meant to be a career but service.

[davew]

Clocker, the paragraph below was in the same article you quoted from.

In response, OMB spokesman Steve Posner said in a statement to FoxNews.com there is "no question" the sequestration has had an negative impact on Americans, pointing out the report also states that employees had their hours reduced and agencies were forced to curtail hiring as a result of the cuts, among other examples.
_____________________________

If you don't have the money to replace employees who leave a federal job, service to the public is going to suffer. If you can't afford to train employees, service is going to suffer. If you can't afford office equpment or repairs, service is going to suffer.

Is Coburn so dumb as to think jobs aren't lost when employees are not replaced? Maybe. He's a Republican, isn't he? :rolleyes: And how about FOX News picking up this story like it's some kind of a revelation? What a joke.

Of course, Clocker bought it so there you go. :rolleyes:

Some federal employees do not supply a service but are in the harass small business divisions. Some new divisions / jobs have been made that dulicate previous jobs positions, What percentage of duties covered by "Homeland Security" were previously covered before they existed, and now are covered at least twice?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Sequestration was one of Obama's greatest feats - shame he actually opposed it.

[Clocker]

Sequestration was one of Obama's greatest feats - shame he actually opposed it.

But he is quick to take credit for the reduction in the deficit that would have never happened without it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But he is quick to take credit for the reduction in the deficit that would have never happened without it.

Hah - great point

[mostpost]

A report from the Government Accountability Office (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/sequestration-cost-only-one-job-entire-government-/) documents that the sequestration was, in fact, a federal job killer.
Saying, or implying, that the loss of jobs was the only negative effect of sequestration is just idiotic. NJ Stinks pointed out the freeze on hiring. Employees who retired, were fired, or quit for whatever reason, were not replaced. The job remained; there was just no one to do it.

People were furloughed. The Defense Department furloughed its civilian workers for six days. At $25 an hour, those employees lost $1200 in pay.

Every Agency cut or eliminated essential programs. Every agency cancelled projects that would have provided jobs for outside workers. None of that was addressed.

The Department of Defense delayed or cancelled programs to improve or develop necessary weapons. The Department of Education cancelled or delayed grant programs to provide educational opportunities to students or funding to schools. Even the Department of Forestry cancelled construction projects.

I understand that you think most of these programs are useless and/or not the job of government. Hence, my use of the word idiotic.

[mostpost]

Some federal employees do not supply a service but are in the harass small business divisions. Some new divisions / jobs have been made that dulicate previous jobs positions, What percentage of duties covered by "Homeland Security" were previously covered before they existed, and now are covered at least twice?
Give me some examples. Is requiring the local restaurant owner to keep his kitchen free of vermin harassing him or is it protecting his customers? His requiring the local gas station to properly dispose of used oil harassing him or is it protecting all of us? Is not allowing someone to open a strip club next to a school harassing the owner or is it protecting our children? Not that there is anything wrong with strip clubs. ;)

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
Sequestration was one of Obama's greatest feats - shame he actually opposed it.

Originally posted by Clocker.
But he is quick to take credit for the reduction in the deficit that would have never happened without it.


Per the GAO report which you referenced:
Obama ordered the various Federal Departments to reduce spending by $86.5 billion to comply with sequestration in fiscal 2013. The Deficit in fiscal 2012 was $1,100,000,000,000. The deficit in fiscal 2013 was $680,000,000,000. The reduction was $420,000,000,000. Sequestration accounted for $86,500,000,000. The rest was thanks to policies of the Obama administration.

And who knows how much income tax revenue was lost from those furloughed employees and the civilian workers who were not hired to do the cancelled construction jobs and other projects.

I don't know that I really need to say this but, you got it wrong again clocker.

[mostpost]

Hah - great point
If a lack of understanding of the subject is great, then yeah, it was a great post. If a disinterest in researching the facts is great, then yeah, it was a great post. If mindless opposition to anything Obama is great, then my golly, it was an amazingly great post. Congratulations Clocker!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
Sequestration was one of Obama's greatest feats - shame he actually opposed it.

Originally posted by Clocker.
But he is quick to take credit for the reduction in the deficit that would have never happened without it.


Per the GAO report which you referenced:
Obama ordered the various Federal Departments to reduce spending by $86.5 billion to comply with sequestration in fiscal 2013. The Deficit in fiscal 2012 was $1,100,000,000,000. The deficit in fiscal 2013 was $680,000,000,000. The reduction was $420,000,000,000. Sequestration accounted for $86,500,000,000. The rest was thanks to policies of the Obama administration.


No it wasn't.

The reduction in the deficit is mostly the result of some normal economic recovery from the housing bust that would have occurred even if Mickey Mouse was president. Much of the rest is from rising asset prices and associated business resulting from easy money at the Fed.

There is nothing you can point to that Obama did that had a direct positive impact on long term economic activity or the deficit. He has tended to increase spending other than the sequestration. There may be policy reasons he did some of these things that you and others approve of, but they did not help the economy or deficit. They hurt it.

[JustRalph]

Give me some examples. Is requiring the local restaurant owner to keep his kitchen free of vermin harassing him or is it protecting his customers? His requiring the local gas station to properly dispose of used oil harassing him or is it protecting all of us? Is not allowing someone to open a strip club next to a school harassing the owner or is it protecting our children? Not that there is anything wrong with strip clubs. ;)

Everything in the above post is enforced at the County and State level.

Not the Feds.

[Clocker]

Saying, or implying, that the loss of jobs was the only negative effect of sequestration is just idiotic.

I did not imply, you inferred. I was merely pointing out that when sequestration went into effect, the bureaucrats in Washington were running around like Chicken Little, screaming the sky is falling, and projecting tens of thousands of lost jobs. Didn't happen, period.

Anything else you infer from my post is in your head, not in my words.

And you have painted the other "negative effects" in exceedingly broad strokes, with virtually no detail. All in all, I'd call it a good start, but hardly "Mission Accomplished".

Obama called it austerity, and proclaimed it was time for a return for the master plan of tax and spend. Excuse me, Obama doesn't spend, he invests. My error.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Everything in the above post is enforced at the County and State level.

Not the Feds.

Watch out Ralph - Mosty's Wiki search is underway now to disprove you (missing the point of too much regulation to begin with)....the EPA may have some oversight/rules of/for underground storage tanks at gas stations...I expect Most to trot that out

[Clocker]

the EPA may have some oversight/rules

The lack of oversight authority does not restrain the EPA from enacting rules. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

I did not imply, you inferred. I was merely pointing out that when sequestration went into effect, the bureaucrats in Washington were running around like Chicken Little, screaming the sky is falling, and projecting tens of thousands of lost jobs. Didn't happen, period.



You don't know what you are talking about. Can't say it any plainer than that.

Jobs are being lost all over the federal government.

Maybe this will ring your bell. Now is a great time to cheat on your tax return. Because you're chances of being audited are dropping like a rock.

Of course, this is great news for self-absorbed Republicans. Less IRS agents (government employees) trumps the national interest every time. Who cares if the federal deficit grows? Who cares about anybody but themselves? :jump:

The GOP somehow thinks it's they are the true patriots in the USA. I believe that's garbage with a capital G.

[Clocker]

You don't know what you are talking about. Can't say it any plainer than that.

Jobs are being lost all over the federal government.

Not according to the GAO. If you have a better source and better data, please enlighten us. And if there are job loses, please show that they are not justified.

[NJ Stinks]

Not according to the GAO. If you have a better source and better data, please enlighten us. And if there are job loses, please show that they are not justified.

From the Washington Post on April 22, 2014:

Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, perhaps Capitol Hill will essentially listen to itself when it looks for ways to save money. Cutting the IRS budget too far is like farmers withholding feed from cows and expecting them to get fat. Uncle Sam’s treasury suffers when his tax collectors don’t have the tools to do their jobs.

Here’s an example: The $500 million that the IRS lost because of automatic federal cuts, known as the “sequester,” last year led to a drop in tax revenue of more than $2 billion, IRS Commissioner John A. Koskinen said in an interview.

That means the IRS has a return on investment of $4 to $1 — for every $1 spent by the IRS, it puts $4 in Sam’s pocket.

Another example: IRS collections from enforcement actions are down $4.3 billion from four years ago, Koskinen recently told Congress. “This decline in audit revenue is attributable to a decline in the number of returns audited,” he said.

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/irs-budget-cuts-lead-to-lower-tax-collections-and-poorer-customer-service/2014/04/22/0d238720-ca4b-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html
__________________________________

From Reuters on September 17, 2013:

U.S. IRS tax enforcement collection, staffing both down: report

(Reuters) - A decline in tax revenue collected by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's enforcement arm over the past two years correlated closely with staff cuts, according to a report on Tuesday that comes as Congress considers further IRS budget reductions.

"Some of these trends are cause for concern, especially given that diminished enforcement could also affect voluntary compliance over time," said the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), an internal IRS watchdog.

Revenue from enforcement fell 13 percent over the past two years. Over the same period, the IRS trimmed 14 percent of its enforcement workforce. IRS enforcement agents collected $50.2 billion in fiscal 2012, $55.2 billion in fiscal 2011 and $57.6 billion in fiscal 2010.

In total, the IRS collected more than $2.5 trillion in taxes last year, the vast majority of it through voluntary reporting.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed cutting the IRS budget by 24 percent in fiscal 2014.

Link:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-tax-tigta-idUSBRE98G1AB20130917
______________________________________

If you want to starve the federal government, keep cutting the budget of the IRS. That way you can create even bigger bills for those grandkids the GOP claims to be so concerned about. :rolleyes:

[delayjf]

Perhaps if they hadn't spent so much time going after conservative groups like the Tea Party they could have upped their take.

[JustRalph]

1 down a trillion to go

[mostpost]

From the Washington Post on April 22, 2014:

Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, perhaps Capitol Hill will essentially listen to itself when it looks for ways to save money. Cutting the IRS budget too far is like farmers withholding feed from cows and expecting them to get fat. Uncle Sam’s treasury suffers when his tax collectors don’t have the tools to do their jobs.

Here’s an example: The $500 million that the IRS lost because of automatic federal cuts, known as the “sequester,” last year led to a drop in tax revenue of more than $2 billion, IRS Commissioner John A. Koskinen said in an interview.

That means the IRS has a return on investment of $4 to $1 — for every $1 spent by the IRS, it puts $4 in Sam’s pocket.

Another example: IRS collections from enforcement actions are down $4.3 billion from four years ago, Koskinen recently told Congress. “This decline in audit revenue is attributable to a decline in the number of returns audited,” he said.

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/irs-budget-cuts-lead-to-lower-tax-collections-and-poorer-customer-service/2014/04/22/0d238720-ca4b-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html
__________________________________

From Reuters on September 17, 2013:

U.S. IRS tax enforcement collection, staffing both down: report

(Reuters) - A decline in tax revenue collected by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's enforcement arm over the past two years correlated closely with staff cuts, according to a report on Tuesday that comes as Congress considers further IRS budget reductions.

"Some of these trends are cause for concern, especially given that diminished enforcement could also affect voluntary compliance over time," said the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), an internal IRS watchdog.

Revenue from enforcement fell 13 percent over the past two years. Over the same period, the IRS trimmed 14 percent of its enforcement workforce. IRS enforcement agents collected $50.2 billion in fiscal 2012, $55.2 billion in fiscal 2011 and $57.6 billion in fiscal 2010.

In total, the IRS collected more than $2.5 trillion in taxes last year, the vast majority of it through voluntary reporting.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed cutting the IRS budget by 24 percent in fiscal 2014.

Link:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-tax-tigta-idUSBRE98G1AB20130917
______________________________________

If you want to starve the federal government, keep cutting the budget of the IRS. That way you can create even bigger bills for those grandkids the GOP claims to be so concerned about. :rolleyes:
In one of my post above, I mentioned a possible drop in income tax collections. I was thinking of someone who lost their job or had their hours cut. Your point about a lack of enforcement capability is an excellent one.

Republicans will try to cut the IRS budget by 24%. If they are successful, they will be the first to jump on the IRS if revenues drop. This is remarkably similar to Benghazi where the Republicans were very critical of the State Department for not providing adequate security while ignoring the fact that they supported heavy cuts to the State Department budget.

[mostpost]

Perhaps if they hadn't spent so much time going after conservative groups like the Tea Party they could have upped their take.
I doubt that the IRS spent much time and manpower on that. Perhaps NJ Stinks could give us an educated guess.

[Clocker]

This is remarkably similar to Benghazi where the Republicans were very critical of the State Department for not providing adequate security while ignoring the fact that they supported heavy cuts to the State Department budget.

It is not a bit similar. Your statement channels the accusation of Brainless Barbara Boxer, who blamed budget cuts. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html) looked at her claims and gave her 3 Pinocchios (i.e., Liar Liar Liar)

Boxer would have been on firmer ground if she had echoed the broad point made by the Accountability Review Board that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress repeatedly have failed to provide the State Department with the requested resources. Instead she narrowly tailored her critique to the two-year period when Republicans were in control of the House, failing to mention that Democrats have also “cut” the president’s budget request. Thus her remarks lacked significant context.

Indeed, it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations have found little evidence of her claim that “there was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.



Lack of security was the result of "bureaucratic issues and management failures". Which is to say, Obama and Hillary had a policy of keeping a low profile in the area, to avoid offending the locals and to maintain the White House fiction that Al Qaeda had been decimated and was no longer a threat.

[NJ Stinks]

I doubt that the IRS spent much time and manpower on that. Perhaps NJ Stinks could give us an educated guess.

If there were more than a dozen agents in Cincinnati handling those IRC 501(c)(4) non-profit applications, I would be surprised.

One problem is that the # of IRC 501(c)(4) non-profit applications submitted went from about 1,700 in 2010 to 2,700 in 2012 because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010. Allocating more resources to the non-profit group when your funding was being slashed at every turn was not a viable option IMO. (Think Zulu . How many guy can you send to defend the north wall? :) )

Anyway, here's an interesting look at this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-irs-scandal-in-one-faq/

[davew]

This is a shocker

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-admits-targeting-conservative-groups/story?id=19151646

What is more appalling are reports of coerced major donor lists from some applicants - which in turn had a 10% audit rate from those lists of donors.


It does not take a genius to deduce that 'low-level' federal employess
do not have much motivation to intentionally break the law, so I can't wait until some of them say who gave them the orders.

[NJ Stinks]

This is a shocker

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-admits-targeting-conservative-groups/story?id=19151646

What is more appalling are reports of coerced major donor lists from some applicants - which in turn had a 10% audit rate from those lists of donors.


It does not take a genius to deduce that 'low-level' federal employess
do not have much motivation to intentionally break the law, so I can't wait until some of them say who gave them the orders.

Dave, the article is a year old today.