FAA On Travel Delays: Get Used To It 720
coondoggie writes "The term sequestration has certainly become a four-letter word for many across the country — and now you can count business and regular traveling public among those hating its impact. The Federal Aviation Administration today issued a blunt statement on the impact of sequestration on the nation's air traffic control system, which this week begain furloughing about 10% of air traffic controllers for two days or so per month. It reads as follows: 'As a result of employee furloughs due to sequestration, the FAA is implementing traffic management initiatives at airports and facilities around the country. Travelers can expect to see a wide range of delays that will change throughout the day depending on staffing and weather-related issues. ... Yesterday more than 1,200 delays in the system were attributable to staffing reductions resulting from the furlough.'"
U.S. Democrats and Republicans spent the day using the FAA's statement as political fodder rather than working on resolving sequestration.
Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Informative)
The idea was that if the cuts were applied equally to every program, deals could be made to eliminate some programs to prevent cuts to the truly vital ones (in a sense, forcing choices about what really is vital by acknowledging that there is a finite amount of money to spend). Unfortunately, the goal of neither side was a balanced budget. Rather, cuts were maneuvered to impact the most visible programs so that both sides had fresh mud to sling.
Two separate fights (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two fights here: The R and D are arguing over who's going to be correct, and they're using the usual dirt to try and make their points. The actual departments are attempting to secure the funding they want/need for the programs they run. They can always do "more" with more money. It's true of government just as it is with a business. I can always provide more, and more complete, and more personal service if you pay me more money. If you pay me less, I'm going to short you on certain items. I'll try to make them peripheral, but I guarantee if you stop paying my invoices I'm going to cut the flow to the high profile services first. Simple business.
Re:Two separate fights (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a part-time government employee in addition to a full-time private-sector one. Every time I'm at my government job I'm looking for a way to do more with less, because that's good stewardship of the money I'm being paid (and paying).
Re:Two separate fights (Score:5, Informative)
meanwhile, we have "certain" (code for "important") people flying their asses all around the theater (commercial flights) for three weeks straight, getting paid full TDY, etc... why use that expensive video teleconference suite when you can fly to hawaii, bank some per diem, and accumulate frequent flyer miles?
everything is for show. ever since the GSA vegas debacle, public spending has been curbed, but still runs rampant in private. i used to have pride in working for the government and armed forces, now i am demoralized, ashamed, and actively looking for non-civilian non-government jobs.
Re:Two separate fights (Score:4, Insightful)
Cut your janitorial staff (they're almost certainly contractors, anyway) and make people take out their own trash. Management can vacuum up. We're talking about a 1% budget cut, not 20%.
- Medicare
- Social Security
- Military
Problem is they're all sacred cows, so your only other choice is to raise revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't the sacred cows. The problem is that the people demanding tax cuts won't accept service cuts to things they like.
TBH, I'd love to have programs that support other people cut so that I can have lower taxes, but that kind of thinking doesn't work. I'm not sure why my tax dollars should go to subsidize people that live in the middle of nowhere or who vote for local officials that refuse to run their state in a sustainable way. The South and most of the Red states couldn't exist if not for the
Re:Two separate fights (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Two separate fights (Score:4, Interesting)
If there is a pinch in the economy and they're forced to sell services below cost, they're going to sell the most desirable services they can
That's exactly what the US Postal Service tried to do, run itself like a business by shutting down underused post offices and stopping Saturday delivery. Same with Amtrak, which wanted to cut unprofitable routes and focus on just the high-use, profitable Eastern Seaboard routes. In both cases, politicians wouldn't let them do it because someone's pork barrel was at risk.
The unfortunate moral of the story is that government agencies can't run themselves like businesses because their bosses - the elected politicians - will sabotage those efforts any time it is in their political interests to do so. You can't run an organization like a for-profit corporation and a non-profit public service at the same time. The two missions are fundamentally at odds.
(In an interesting bit of irony, this was the DoJ's rationale in pursuing the breakup of Ma Bell back in the day - you shouldn't have regulated interests like like local phone service [i.e. an entitlement] being subsidized by unregulated services like long distance [i.e. a profit venture]. Read The Deal of the Century [amazon.com] for the full story, it's fascinating.)
Unless the government is willing to declare certain parts of itself off-limits to Congressional mandates and able to operate themselves like a for-profit corporation, it should abandon any ideas about judging them that way. Government at its heart is about providing services that need to be collectively funded because they simply can't be profitable, but are in the common good. I hate to sound like a Republican here but it makes sense that the parts that need to operate like a business should be cut loose to make a profit, and the rest should just be declared entitlements and treated as such.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
see how easy it is when we blame X or Y instead of dealing with the problem known as Z??
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that dems showed willingness to compromise- they admitted cuts as well as tax increases were neded, and were even willing to discuss cuts to social security. The republicans were not even willing to discuss more revenue. There is no equivalence here, one side is worse than the other.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that dems showed willingness to compromise- they admitted cuts as well as tax increases were neded, and were even willing to discuss cuts to social security. The republicans were not even willing to discuss more revenue. There is no equivalence here, one side is worse than the other.
To the best of my knowledge, that is true. The only tax the republicans were willing to raise was the payroll tax. If there were any other tax increase proposals that the republicans even considered negotiable I would definitely like to hear about them.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, it was the GOP that wanted to cut all tax rates but keep it "revenue neutral" by ending some deductions. The problem was that they could never specify what deductions they wanted to end. When economists tried to make head or tails out of it, they only way the GOP plan could work without blowing up the budget was if they eliminated deductions that would disproportionately affect the middle class. There simply weren't enough high end deductions that could be eliminated that would pay for the revenue that would be lost by the tax cuts. The end result is that while the GOP sounded like they wanted to lower taxes, the effective taxes for the middle class would actually go up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is the Dems wanted to increase spending and raise taxes on "the rich" with no real cuts and no real decrease in spending. The point above is still valid. With government sucking up more and more money all the time there is absolutely no reason or way to justify giving them even more to piss away.
Cut spending. Real honest cuts. Only after cuts are passed and in effect should any increases in revenue be discussed.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
When's the last time the GOP cut spending? I'm guessing that would probably be during Ford's administration or earlier as I can't recall them ever doing so during my lifetime. And during every single time they've been in control spending has gone through the roof.
But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich. The actual working class makes less now than they did 30 years ago, even as the rich have gained even more.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Informative)
But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich.
Bush did pass the drug benefit bill [wikipedia.org] when he was running for re-election, which of course was also a big payout for the drug companies. While I was looking that up, I checked to see who sponsored the bill, and it was the Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert [wikipedia.org], who was implicated [vanityfair.com] in a Turkish bribe by an FBI whistleblower who was subsequently fired. Hastert later retired and went on to earn $35k per month as a lobbyist [thehill.com] for Turkey.
Words fail me.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush did pass the drug benefit bill when he was running for re-election, which of course was also a big payout for the drug companies.
Not merely a payout, it was a fucking money avalanche because it forbade the government from using it's purchasing power to negotiate prices downward. So not only are more drugs being sold (because previously some people couldn't afford them had to go without) but the prices have every reason to go up.
Its like the one factor that could have resulted in cost-savings was explicitly blocked by the bill. When something like that happens it confirms all the worst stereotypes about the republican party. It would be kinda like finding out Obama really was born in Kenya.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:4, Insightful)
No they did not. They wanted tax increases on income.
That's an important difference because it protects the wealth of rich New England Democrats.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that isn't a bad point at all.
The problem with it is that the folks who insisted on cutting the taxes that affect "wealth" (the capital gains tax [thinkprogress.org] and the inheritance taxes [nytimes.com]), and have even been trying to elimnate them entirely, are in fact Republicans. The rich coastal folks who benifit from those cuts? They are mostly in fact Republicans (among the few folks in those parts of the country who are Republicans). However, they bankroll the Republican Party [wikipedia.org] in the rest of the country.
Its good that
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Interesting)
The dems only wanted to raise taxes on the rich
The problem is raise is the wrong word here. The correct word to use is RESTORE taxes on the rich.
I'm a small business owner. By the time I pay my federal taxes (income and payroll, which is really all income) I'm paying 43.6% of every additional dollar I own to the federal government.
How can I lower my tax burden?
Well, I just need to become FILTHY rich. The problem is that I actually work for my income. If I already had enough money that I just needed to "invest" for my income, I could knock my federal tax rate down to 15%. Even less with some nice accounting tricks.
I think it is perfectly fair that people who "invest" to get their income pay the same tax rate as those of us who actually WORK for our income.
Republicans, however, are not interested in this concept. They are a party whose #1 priority is helping the rich get richer. The Republican position isn't "low taxes", the Republican position is "High taxes for the middle class, low taxes for the rich." And they have been successful at advancing that position - the Bush tax cuts heavily favored the wealthy. Now that the Republicans already managed to get the rich to pay lower taxes than the rest of us, they are working very hard to make sure the rich keep that advantage, at the expense of everything else.
That's not to say Democrats don't have their own problems, but until Republicans agree that the rich should pay the same taxes as people who work, it is silly for me to support Republicans.
And if a bunch of generally wealthy people have to spend a lot more time sitting around airports to get rich people to pay their fair share, I'm good with that.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's more depressing that you would think it isn't. The fact that someone can be in the top 3% of the country in terms of income and still kid themselves into thinking that they're "average, middle class Joes" is enough to make you want to join the Communist Party...
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
NO, spending went up. Just not by as much as the wanted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should he spend less? How about YOU (in the form of government) spend less and stop treating him and other people like a fucking open-wallet, you fucking self-absorbed piece of shit?
People don't have a problem with contributing to society for the greater good. It's when they are being constantly and increasingly milked and seeing what's taken from them treated trivially and with absolutely no sense of responsibility. The government is like a grown child that should have moved out of the house, but is in
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how ignorant people are of how much they actually pay in taxes.
State income tax. Federal income tax. Sales tax. Property tax (including automobiles, etc). Don't forget all the other assorted fees that you pay, not realizing "fee" is just a nice word for "tax".
Oh, and you might as well consider things like Social Security as a "tax", because it'll either be gone before you can claim it in forty years or if you have a decent career, it won't be afforded to you in forty years, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that if you don't show to the tax payers what they're losing they might not object. The bottom line is that it's hard to really appreciate what years of underfunded infrastructure is until a bridge falls down. But, if people have to wait an additional 20 minutes for their plane to depart they'll notice that.
Taxes are not evil, what's evil is using tax breaks to break the American worker.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it like healthy eating.
Sure, you can just cut out the sodas, the fast food, the candies.
But if you want to be really healthy, odds are you need to get some better food as well.
Or just realize that there's only so much you can cut, before it starts doing more harm, and that to pay for it, you have to increase revenue.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Except what's actually happening here is that I need a baked potato and a side of beans to survive, I'm *planning* on eating five double cheeseburgers, instead . . . and I only *get* two double cheeseburgers. That doesn't mean I cut my calorie consumption by 60%.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not going to compromise with someone who insists that part of the compromise consists of plunging a knife into my belly. Compromise is not a good goal, nor in itself a desirable thing. Many of the leftists who want to increase the size of government do so with the deliberate (but seldom stated) intent of destroying the country; such leftists include Obama, his cabinet and lackeys, and "leaders"
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Better analogy - trying to shed 100 lbs (Score:3)
Side A: We can only reach our weight loss goals by only cutting calories from meat.
Side B: We can only reach our weight loss goals by increasing exercise. Also cutting carbs would help.
Side A: You'll never get us to exercise more than is absolutely necessary! Give up the meat!
Side B: OK, how about this. We cut some carbs, eat a little more lean meat, and exercise a little more to stay healthy?
Side A: We won't discuss anything involving exercise.
Side B: Fine, for now lets agree to cut all food intake by 1
Re: (Score:3)
Insightful? That's the worst analogy I've ever seen. It's worse than the worst car analogy in the history of Slashdot.
Try this: Think of it like a family member who's grossly obese. You want him to lose weight, so you tell him to spend his money on healthier food. He ignores you and continues to gain weight. So you threaten to cut his allowance; at least he won't be able to buy as much unhealthy food. But he says, no, I need more money so I can buy healthy food; I have to buy this unhealthy food now
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't give me any crap about how the republicans subsidize the rich and the democrats don't. If anything, I'd go so far as to say the democrats are the worst offenders of that as they enact corporate welfare more than anybody. They are the ones who believe that some corporations are too big to fail, that we need corn subsidies, that the steel industry needs protection from competition (tariffs), that green energy manufacturers need loan guarantees even if they have no indication of a sustainable business model (fisker, solyndra, many others.) They believe that government destroying used cars and then handing money to dealerships for new ones is a good idea. They also (most of them, including Obama) subscribe to the Keynesian model which posits that government spending on private sector works spurs economic growth.
Also, social programs don't do anybody any long term favors. The give a man a fish and teach him to fish analogy comes to mind.
I don't care whether you're a democrat or not, but to paint that party as innocent as you just did is just plain foolish.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets see. TARP was signed into law by Bush and had a lot of Republican votes behind it. So they both think companies are too big to fail. Republicans all vote for corn subsidies, because a lot of their votes come from rural areas run by farmers. And the Republicans enact a hell of a lot of corporate welfare- they just mainly do it in the form of tax cuts, loopholes, shelters, and the military industrial complex.
As for social programs not doing anyone any favors- wow you are fucking brainwashed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have got to be kidding, or have your head all the way up your ass. The GOP is the party that refuses to compromise in this round of budget cuts.
I don't understand how republitards are complaining about government cutbacks. Numerous GOP politicians, all retards but still, have claimed the government doesn't create jobs anyway. They're the ones constantly complaining about bloat. Well dumbfucks, this is what things would look like in the world you want to have.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, yet another idiot who believes in false equivalence. While neither party is perfect, you have one party that refuses compromise, wants to legislate what I do in my bedroom, wants to enforce Christian beliefs, and wants to take away protections we've fought for over the last century while enacting monetary policy that will make the rich richer and shrink the middle class.
The other party has a few boneheaded ideas and a tendency to put money into good ideas without adequate execution, I'll admit. But th
Obama on Social Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If it were up to me, I'd preserve social security but gut medicare. You get more happiness per buck by feeding healthy people than by keeping sick people alive.
Re: (Score:3)
How about this: We don't cut jack shit while trying to recover from the worse recession in nearly 100 years, and while the government can borrow money at a (fixed) lower interest rate than the inflation rate? How about that?
When we've fully recovered, tax receipts will go way up (just like they went way down during the recession), and money will move back into the rest of the market, making the delta between T-Bill interest and inflation something a bit more normal. That will be a great time to start trim
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
both parties are at fault. It takes the entirety of congress to agree to fuck over the public, not just a single party.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
both parties are at fault. It takes the entirety of congress to agree to fuck over the public, not just a single party.
Even so, the negotiation between D and R was rather one-sided. Democrats kept proposing spending cut/raising taxes compromises and Republicans laughed at them because "tax increase > 0". You cannot negotiate with someone who won't actually budge from their position for any reason.
I am not exactly a fan of Democrats, but the sequestration blame goes mostly to Republicans.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it only takes one party in control of 41% of the Senate to grind government to a halt.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the pubs never intended to compromise or balance the budget. They just want to choke the beast no matter what the people actually want or need.
Actually, that's only what they want when the Democrats are in the White House. When it's the Republican's turn to drive, they go spend crazy.
It's a choice between tax-and-spend vs. tax-less-and-spend-more.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
if they cut the people who make the cuts then they would have to cut making cuts.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
having said that, to put it simply, there is no excuse that for example kerry is giving 250 MILLION to eqypt, while we have issues at home. I dont know about the rest of you, but i for one cannot take the idea that americans have enough money to give to other countries, even when we cant open the white house the school kids, and we cant take care of our own people.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy solution that will never be applied:
Dismantle the TSA. Use the money saved to cover the air traffic control system's costs, and apply the remainder to actually effective (and much more affordable while simultaneously being less humiliating) safety strategies like bomb-sniffer dogs, police on planes, armed pilots and locks on the cabin door.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Dismantle the TSA.
I think you misspelled "DHS".
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one philosophy, but on the other hand I don't see how the needs of a modern 21st century superpower can be handled by a confederacy. Hell, a confederacy didn't work the other 2 times it was tried so I think it belongs in the shitpile of history.
Re: (Score:3)
Obsolete talking point:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/295477-reid-to-seek-consent-to-convene-budget-conference- [thehill.com]
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
School districts do this to when levies don't pass. They immediately cut athletic programs and bus service.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's certainly bogus. The sequestration was created by the same people who should have passed a budget. They could have gotten the same result by just passing the budget.
Problem is, the two parties can't agree on a budget, and neither is powerful enough to push theirs past the other right now, so they used the sequestration as an attempt to blackmail each other into agreeing to stuff they didn't like.
We can call this "financial crisis theater", by analogy with "security theater".
The whole handwringing-ove
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how the bill was written: agencies were given no discretion at all as to what and where they could cut.
The sequester is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 [loc.gov], but it's not the first time sequestration was used. It was first used in 1985, with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
The Congressional Research Service published a report on the sequester (PDF link [washingtonpost.com]) that provides a very good overview of what sequestration means:
Sequestration is as across-the-board as you can get. Every "program, project and activity" that's not exempt from the sequester gets cut by an equal percentage. That's the way the bill was written, and that's the bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
Sequestration was meant to be as blunt and distasteful an alternative as possible, to give the supercommittee (remember them?) and Congress incentive to come up with a deal.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:4, Insightful)
+1, Insightful
if you think the US Government works for the best interests of its citizens, you're hopelessly naive
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nothing more than an enormous "fuck you" to the American public.
Yes it is, and one years in the making. The end game here is the end of Social Welfare. The GOP absolutely can not abide Social Welfare existing
Social Security? Unemployment? This things are seen as an evil cancer destroying our society. And the GOP in Congress (declared themselves exempt from the Sequestration) will not stop until these programs are abolished.
However, Corporate Welfare is good, and will be increased in upcoming years while today's 30 somethings are forced to house and feed their unemployable parents who have moved in with them in their studio apartments.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Informative)
If you think the GOP is the only problem here, then you're also part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem. [washingtonpost.com]
April 27, 2012
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.
Romney Rules Out Compromise: I Won't Accept $1 In New Taxes For $10 In Spending Cuts [thinkprogress.org]
Jun 17, 2012
SCHIEFFER: You were one of the vast majority of Republicans to signed the pledge circulated by the leading antitax advocate Grover Norquist, no new taxes under any circumstances. And I remember once back during one of the primaries, you were asked if you would agree to $1 in taxes if you could get $10 cut in spending cuts, and you said at that time, no, I wouldn't even accept that. Do you still feel that way?
ROMNEY: Well, we all felt that way. And the reason is that government, at all levels today, consumers about 37% of our economy.
SCHIEFFER: But do you still feel--
ROMNEY: Let me go on and explain. The answer is I do feel that way. [...]
A Republican couldn't even run for President without dismissing 1:10 taxes to cuts.
Both parties have problems, but not all problems are equal.
"Firefighters First" (Score:4, Insightful)
This is known as the old "Firefighters First" trick.
You could lay off your cousin who does nothing. Or you could close the fire department. Close the fire department and ask taxes to be raised.
Also known as the "Washington Monument" ploy.
Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how in your comment you specify that there are "specific programs" that could be cut without elaborating on what those actually are.
War spending. If you're going to force me to state the fucking obvious, there you go.
Re: (Score:3)
Just imagine the trillions we would have if the previous dumbass administration didn't commit fraud and take us into Iraq in the first place.
Summary is Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Hi. I'm a contractor working for the FAA.
ALL controllers are having their hours reduced by 10%. This comes out to 1 day per 2 week pay period, or the approximately two days per month in the summary. It's not 10% of controllers being affected, it's all controllers being affected by 10%.
And for those of you saying "Why didn't they cut other, less important budgets?"
Well, it doesn't work that way. Every account was cut 10% across the entire FAA. This is incredibly stupid, by the way, since the much of the FAA's labor is paid for via levies on airline tickets, and so it shouldn't be affected by these general fund shenanigans (as an aside, this is why we got furloughed two years ago, because Congress wouldn't renew the airline ticket levies for political reasons). But, hey, Congress... You get what you pay for.
Re:Summary is Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
That's not how sequestration works. Every program was cut 10%. The DoD is avoiding furloughs by laying people off, most likely.
Also, DoD *is* furloughing employees (Score:3)
Congress gave them some extra money to put it off [stripes.com] for a while, but they still are planning furloughs for civilian employees. So, yeah, GP was full of shit...
Re:Which programs? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, look at the airline security theater, don't you think that its in American Airlines, United and Delta's best interest to provide enough security to remove the threat of hijackings but not need a full cavity search? Instead, we have the FAA providing asinine rules on what you can and can't take on board a plane, rather than delegating those decisions to the airlines. Because of the FAA restrictions, flying is pretty terrible, because of that fewer people are flying, because fewer people are flying airlines have to cut costs which makes flying even worse, which makes fewer people fly and so on. If airlines (or airports) could be in charge of their own security, we'd be safer (we'd be looking at actual security and not security theater) and flying would be a much more pleasant experience.
We've got a terribly bloated military focused on offense rather than defense. Because of this, we end up creating more enemies which makes us be less safe in the long run. We're spending billions of dollars on unneeded overseas military bases. Sure, it might make sense to have a base or two in a foreign country, especially in some of the "hotter" regions of the world, but do we really need over 10 bases in Japan? Do we really need bases in Spain, Italy, the UK, Bulgaria, Bahrain, Singapore, the UAE, and many, many, other countries? No.
We've got a messed up welfare system, a screwed up financial system, a mess with farm subsidies and just about everything the government touches turns into a bureaucratic hellhole.
No, we're not going to get rid of the national debt by cutting PBS, we're not going to save much money by closing the Washington Monument for tours. But there is a ton of waste, but its in the stuff that the politicians don't want to touch (welfare, the military, farm subsidies, financial sector, etc.) because the public is either ignorant about it or enjoys getting free money at the expense of everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, look at the airline security theater, don't you think that its in American Airlines, United and Delta's best interest to provide enough security to remove the threat of hijackings but not need a full cavity search?
Except that the TSA's job isn't to remove the threat of hijackings, it is to stop the "terror suspects"
Of course it also isn't TSA's job to make sure you have a proper ticket. Of course life would be better, and cheaper if there was no TSA. And personally I'd feel safer
Re:Which programs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Security was done by the private sector, it was shoddy as hell and 9/11 was a direct result.
Wrong.
9/11 had nothing to do with airport security. It's this sort of thinking that perpetuates the TSA gong show.
9/11 succeeded for two reasons -
1) Prior to 9/11, airline crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers - So the suicidal hijackers were able to easily take over the planes. Confiscating water bottles and groping grannies wouldn't have made a lick of difference here.
2) Intelligence failures. The intelligence services failed to cooperate and failed to detect and prevent the terrorist hijackings.
Neither had anything to do with nude-o-scopes and confiscating nail clippers.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
The airlines should say 'call you congressman'.
Just like teacher shouldn't use their own money for supplies, not should parent donate critical supplies.
It hides the problem until its so bad there isn't anything to do about it.
Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Airport costs should be paid entirely out of ticket sales and associated fees for services, NOT tax money.
They're paid out of taxes on plane tickets.
The government's fault (Score:5, Funny)
If the government stopped trying to control air traffic, we wouldn't have these delays. Sure, some airplanes would crash, but other flights would go much faster. Let the free market rule!
Re:The government's fault (Score:5, Funny)
sad thing is you are moded funny
I know many people who fly small planes, I have flown small planes. to put it simply, the government, while helping with some things, is hurting others.
I hear things are a lot better in Somalia, where there's no government to spoil everything.
Some math ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If 10% of workers are furloughed for 2 days a month, that works out to a workforce reduction of about 1% (figure 20 working days a month, 2/20 * 0.10 = 0.01). Somehow I don't think that staffing at the FAA is that close to the limit; these delays are probably affected more by the elimination of overtime. A huge proportion of the hours worked at federal agencies are billed as overtime, either because of short staffing or really lenient scheduling policies that allow workers to trade shifts to maximize income.
I feel like there was probably a way to absorb the cuts with less impact, but when you have tens of thousands of voters a day at your mercy, why not try and get that budget plumped?
Re: (Score:2)
FAA is 24/7 not 20 days a month.
Re: (Score:2)
A huge proportion of the hours worked at federal agencies are billed as overtime, either because of short staffing or really lenient scheduling policies that allow workers to trade shifts to maximize income.
If you make a statement like that, perhaps you can show a reference that backs it up?
Amazing (Score:2)
Buffoons...
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
That's actually not uncommon in systems with little buffer. If a highway is right near a critical point of congestion, 4% more traffic can result in 40% longer commutes.
Get the facts (Score:3, Informative)
Before you go blame the administration for ensuring the cuts went to essential services instead of extraneous expenses, read this [washingtonpost.com].
Why is the Federal Government paying for this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't this just be added to your ticket price? I don't see why the Federal government should be paying anything to keep local airports open.
Won't matter who is right... (Score:3)
They are just asking for another round of 'throw the bums out!' anti-incumbent voting.
Opportunity in Disguise (Score:3, Informative)
Do private airports and charter planes have to put up with this bullshit?
Seems to me this creates a golden opportunity for someone with a small fleet of private planes. Imagine if you're a business traveler, and you need to fly somewhere 1000 miles away. A commercial plane could make the trip in about an hour and a half, if it could magically take off and instantly reached its cruising altitude and could land as fast as it could crash. The reality is that such a flight takes long enough, that if you also add all the bullshit you have to go through, including navigating traffic to the massive airport, finding your way through the airport, being humiliated and insulted by half-wits with metal detectors and x-ray machines, running the risk that you'll be pulled aside to have your asshole violated so they can pretend you'll be safe when you finally get on the airplane, and then you have to wait another 20 or 30 minutes after you are finally permitted to "deplane", waiting for your luggage.
Then, assuming you are allowed to get on the plane, after potentially being anally violated, if you're lucky enough to reach your destination, and manage to be reunited with your luggage, (and of course, provided some thief at the T"S"A hasn't stolen your property out of your luggage,) you will have spent hours of your life and risked the same repeatedly. Also, you will have exposed yourself to hundreds or thousands of other peoples' secretions, breathing a bunch of random strangers' coughs and sneezes, all the bacteria and viruses, as well as experiencing enough stress in a few hours to take several days off your life expectancy... and that's all if nothing goes WRONG.
On the flip side, imagine if the alternative existed, you drive to the airport, which is closer because it's local not regional, maybe you even drive almost right up to the plane. Then you get on the plane and after a few minutes (rather than hours) you take off. Sure the plane doesn't go as fast, being a prop-plane, taking three or four hours to make the same trip, but after you land, you have your bags right there, and can immediately leave the airport. From the moment you get in the car to go to the airport, to the moment you leave the distant airport, you might spend less time flying in a small, private or charter plane.
Makes me wish I had a small fleet of private planes.
Litle reason to stop sequestration (Score:3, Informative)
There is little reason for current incumbents to stop sequestration, as most incumbents live in safe, gerrymandered districts and work for the ultra-rich, not the citizens.
The correct response would be to do away with the TSA, which has never been effective (speaking from my days in counter-terrorism ops and as a combat field engineer) and to allow the rural and small airports to go to more automated flight operations. But this would affect the tax-subsidized Takers in rural and suburban America who depend on the taxes from the job-creating efficient Blue cities that subsidize the Red sloth.
Another correct solution would be to replace increases in jet travel with high-speed trains on the growing West Coast that creates more than 40 percent of the US GDP.
But since the West Coast only gets 6 senate seats out of 50, even with so much population, don't count on that.
Easy Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
End the TSA. Used the money saved to hire back air traffic controllers to 120% of the original volume.
Fewer jerks gate-raping us, more well-rested air traffic controllers making sure we don't collide in mid-air.
Seems like a win-win to me.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Privatize everything. Its the only way to save air travel and bring airlines back to profitability.
Which is the same thing, in the private sector, as saying, "Outsource everything. The companies we send our jobs to will always have our best interests at heart."
Look, we've tried the whole government outsourcing thing. It doesn't work; the companies we outsource to just hire substandard workers and do less work while charging the government ever increasing fees to do what once was done efficiently and well. It's the reason we don't have private police or fire departments anymore. Sure, the TSA needs some serious reforms, but privatizing the whole thing will leave us with a bigger mess than we have now.
sequestration is bunk (Score:4, Insightful)
sequestration didn't cut squat, it just cut the amount of increase in the budget. instead of a 6% increase in spending they only got a 4% increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republicans want cuts because otherwise we are in a death spiral. These aren't even real cuts. They are cuts in increases in spending. Democrats for their part both invented this (white house), agreed to it(congress), and denied it later so that brainwashed fucks like you would blame it all on Republicans. It is all theater, and the cuts only hurt because the gang that wants infinite spending is committed to making it so.
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
I know know about the rest of you guys, but to me, if i spend 10 bucks today and only 12 bucks tomorrow when i thought i was going to spend 15, thats still an increase, not a cut! sadly the government, both republican or demorcratic, thinks otherwise/
Re: they see me trollin', they hatin' (Score:3)
ha, don't take any offense... all political discourse (esp. on /. ) is trolling. That's what politics is. Achieve maximum trollage while inciting other people to waste their time responding to you when they could be doing much more positive and constructive things. Ach, now you've got me doing it! Troll!
Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (Score:5, Insightful)
It's along those lines, yeah, though I think the strategy is morphing a bit.
That term, "starve the beast", is associated with Grover Norquist's idea that if Republicans managed to hold a hard line on taxes, by pushing for tax cuts and demanding party discipline over refusing any tax rises, it would starve the government of money, and it would be forced to shrink, even if people didn't want to vote for program cuts.
He underestimated the government's ability to borrow, however, so what actually happened for quite some time was that taxes were cut while spending simultaneously rose. That backfired by actually increasing the popularity of many government programs for two decades or so. People got the programs and low taxes, which is what everyone wants! A number of GOP types are still trying to make that strategy work; the manufactured fights over the debt ceiling, and the sequester here, are an attempt to "starve the beast".
However not all GOPers think that's a good strategy anymore. The new twist over the past few years is trying to reduce confidence in government by deliberately running it badly. The idea is that people will vote for a smaller government if they think government doesn't work well, and the best way to make them think government doesn't work well is to make it not work well.
Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because the idea that "there is not infinite money" makes me a hateful nothing thinking loons. I'm sure you will be +5 insightful for your brilliance in stating that there is, in fact, infinite money, and so even a 2% reduction in the rate of budget growth (it's not a cut when it's more money than last year) can only be an act of purest evil. Naturally.
And the fact that we're already in debt by over $148,000 per taxpayer? Duh, only a hateful nothing thinking loon would think it ever going to be a problem paying that back - why I'm sure everyone reading this post could donate $148,000 right now, and clear that right up!
And the fact that the unfunded entitlement liabilities exceed all the wealth in the entire US combined? Hey, no problem - we'll just seize all assets in America, make half the payments, then seize all the money again and pay people the rest! I can see no flaw in that plan.
[citation for number in sig]
Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (Score:5, Insightful)
Well yes it does make you a hate non thinking loon. If the debt were so important, where the FUCK were you before we invaded Iraq? Or passed Medicare Schedule D, otherwise known as that massive giveaway to big pharma?
Why it is republicans are only concerned about the debt when democrats are in charge? When the GOP is in charge, you get massive bloat and spending.
Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (Score:5, Informative)
the admin who wont call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack simply because it goes against his political agenda?
You are likely referring to the Boston bombings; as I understood it, Obama didn't use the term "terrorist" specifically ON the day of the bombings, and has ever after. I'd say this is simply him doing his due-diligence in not jumping to conclusions, as at the time no one knew if the explosions weren't simply a gas line exploding. If anything I'd want more of politicians and news stations taking a deliberate and thorough approach to things, rather than going all reddit on us and pointing fingers and making sensationalist claims. Each to their own eh?
Re: (Score:3)
While we're on that inflammatory topic, how come some of the politicians who were the most adamantly against background checks for gun buyers, since it would infringe on their privacy, are now calling for profiling all the Muslim men in the country?
Re: (Score:3)
Most of those small airports have very little traffic. At an airport with little traffic when the tower is closed you just announce your arrival on the radio and everybody keeps an eye out for each other. Most likely there is only one plane in the air nearby at a time anyway.
Private jets have a disproportionate impact on ATC in the first place. It takes as much effort to direct a jet with 4 people on it as one with 300 people on it.
Re:Sequestration my butt (Score:5, Informative)
What? Who mods up this shit?
2011 budget - $9.79 billion (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/faa_fy_2011_budget_estimate.pdf)
2013 budget - $9.70 billion (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/faa_%20fy_%202013_budget_estimate.pdf)
1% real reduction, or about a 5.5% reduction adjusting for inflation. And that's before the sequester.
2011-2012 flights - 738,143
2012-2013 flights - 743,569 (http://apps.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml)
Traffic increased about 0.75%.