Showing posts with label sequestration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sequestration. Show all posts

April 27, 2013

Knock knock. Who's there? Airline passengers

Airline passengers who?
 
Airline passengers who are now complaining about Sequesterman, the evil superhero sent across the land by Congress to wreak havoc on government programs large and small.

Congress and the President wouldn’t do their jobs and cut spending on programs that they themselves had authorized, or sponsored, or promoted as what America needed to move us forward into the next blah blah, to prepare us for the next wave of blah blah, to save us from the coming onslaught of blah blah, to blah blah blah us into submission.
They tried everything, but were so unwilling to make the hard choices that they created Sequesterman, a cold, uncaring emotionless guy who would implement harsh, across-the- board budget cuts in all areas of the federal government. They made him just in case they needed an incentive (more inspiring than their dismal single-digit approval rating) to force action "in the best interests of the country" to solve our debt and deficit problem. Which they also made.
They heard speeches and pleas, arguments and suggestions, ideas and proposals to not let Sequesterman loose on the country,  of what would happen if they did allow the arbitrary cuts to go in; they heard it for days and weeks and months on end. And as they do so well, Congress pretended to act. The deliberated, and wrung their hands, and rattled their sabers and each other’s cages, and voted on some stuff that they all knew would not pass -  and ultimately they allowed Sequesterman out of the box.
Fast forward to this week:   Sequesterman has started furloughing air traffic controllers as part of the mandatory spending cuts.  And so people living outside the rarefied air in Washington (they’re called voters) are starting to be hurt by those furloughs, as flights are being delayed with fewer controllers manning the towers. (Of course, I think some folks would think that a flight delay is not such a hurt compared to say, losing pay because of Congressional gridlock.  But as usual, I digress.) 
The airlines, no dummies --they’re announcing to passengers that the flight delays are caused by Sequesterman.  Republicans in the House, they’re blaming the President. Democrats in the Senate, they’re blaming the Republicans in the House.  Anyone surprised here that the most action we get out of these people is finger-pointing?
Congress, after blaming the FAA for mishandling the across-the-board cuts made necessary by Congressional inaction, found somewhere in their pocket Constitutions the right to on-time air service; it must be right up there with free speech, corporations are people too, and a well-regulated militia.
Unanimously and without debate, the Senate approved a bill that allows the FAA to move freely about their own budget to find the necessary cuts, making the furloughs unnecessary. Over in the House, 41 people pretended to have the courage of their convictions and voted no; however, since passage by a huge margin was a forgone conclusion, a no vote was completely meaningless.
In the end, everyone caved, and those pesky voters can now get where they’re going with only the normal, non-Sequesterman delays in front of them. (Mother Nature, the ball is back in your court.)
All I can say is I am extremely fortunate that my Congress can act so swiftly when voters get angry about something as trivial, in the overall scheme of things, as delayed flights, particularly ones that impact the NY-to-DC corridor.  Because that quick, decisive action will be what gets us well prepared for the blah blah blah of the future, which will come as soon as our do-nothing Congress gets back from their vacation.

Knock knock.

November 25, 2012

Sunday School 11/25/12: Cliff Notes

Much of the talk on the Sunday news shows was about Washington getting back to work after the Thanksgiving break.  Most of us are hoping that our elected officials are not suffering a tryptophan hangover tomorrow, but rather that they're ready, willing, and able to tackle the 'fiscal cliff' issues before the end of the year. 
 
On Meet the Press (NBC), David Gregory had a conversation with Carl Levin (D-MI), and asked him 'how worried' should a person with a job in the defense industry be, given the automatic cuts to the military that come with sequestration in January if no deal is reached.  Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, responded
Well, I think you should be worried if you have a defense job, but we all ought to be worried whether we are dependent upon other aspects of the federal budget. Whether we’re worried about the regulation of our food safety, whether we’re worried about our borders being secure, whether we’re worried about FBI being supported? It’s all affected by sequestration.
Levin went on to talk about Grover Norquist, he of the 'pledge'.
The key here is whether or not the Republicans will move away from the ideologically rigid position, which has been the Grover Norquist pledge, which most of them signed, that they will not go for additional revenues. When they move away from that pledge, and they must, as by the way all the presidents that I have ever served with, including Reagan, Clinton, and the first George Bush, moved away from a position, no additional taxes. They’ve all added revenues to a deficit reduction, a significant amount of revenues.
Peter King, (R-NY) chimed in similarly, when asked whether he agreed with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) that the country matters more than his 20-year old pledge not to raise taxes:
First of all, I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss. A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress. For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed a declaration of war against Japan. I’m not going to attack Japan today. The world has changed. And the economic situation is different. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill realized that in the 1980s. I think everything should be on the table. I myself am opposed to tax increases. The fact is that speaker and the majority in leader and the president are going to be in a room, trying to find the best package. I’m not going to prejudge it. And I’m just saying we should not be taking ironclad positions.
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos (ABC), the Grover question came up again, this time with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).  Graham indicated his willingness to find additional revenue, through capping deductions, for example.  Stephanopoulos pressed, saying that Norquist has been tough on Graham.
In the end, he says, you're not going to go through with this promise to raise revenues, because you "like being a Senator." Your response?
Graham didn't flinch, responding  
I love being a senator, and I want to be a senator that matters for the state of South Carolina and the country. When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece, and Republicans -- Republicans should put revenue on the table...but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.
Is it possible that we can have a real conversation now, with both sides coming to the table willing to compromise, willing to give some ground and go against their base, for the good of the country?

After all, that's what Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) cited as one of his reasons for being willing to set aside the Pledge.
I care more about my country than I do about a 20 year old pledge....Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down...But I don't worry about that (referring to the likelihood of facing a primary) because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist. I'm willing to do the right thing and let the political consequences take care of themselves.
Politicians from both parties would do well to listen to him.