Blue Angels, Thunderbirds Grounded

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

The flip side of it is that the staff at that school provide far more economic benefit than watching fireworks do. Sure, people might spend more money at businesses near the fireworks, but that is basically local level pork as it is a redistribution of spending from businesses not near the fireworks to businesses near the fireworks.

On the other hand, the staff at a school interact directly with students or help to better plan learning such that it is more efficient. In addition, their salaries will be spent in the local community, minus some savings rate and federal tax rate.

But for the sake of argument, try to cut staff at a school in a nice area of a district and we will see how the parents of students at that school feel about the wasteful staff positions at that school. I'm willing to bet that it stops being waste when it is at their school.

What I've described isn't about economics. It's more about bringing the voters into line so that matters of economics can be avoided.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

That's because it's not about waste. It's about maximizing the cuts' impact on the public by depriving the public of that which it sees, uses and enjoys.

At the local level, the first things to go are typically the municipal pool, the parks, the 4th of July fireworks, and the extracurriculars at school. The bigger dollar issues - whether the city manager really needs 6 deputies, each with his/her own deputies, or whether the fire department really needs to roll 4 state of the art trucks for every sprained knee call, or whether every school really needs umpteen assistant principals with support staff - they aren't explored so much.

The intent is to hit the average citizen between the eyes, in the hope of eliciting an "OMG, the government must be broke, this is terrible!" response. It's all about breaking public resistance to spending and the taxes needed to support that spending.

It's a common tactic. What's new is that we're now seeing it applied at the federal level.

If you were running a business and had to cut the budget due to some imposed circumstance, wouldnt you stop handing out free samples and promotional material before you laid someone off? I know there's an tendency to think the worst (and there is certainly a PR angle to cutting the budget), but from a human level, I think many people would prefer to keep people working as long as possible if there were other things that could go first.

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If you were running a business and had to cut the budget due to some imposed circumstance, wouldnt you stop handing out free samples and promotional material before you laid someone off? I know there's an tendency to think the worst (and there is certainly a PR angle to cutting the budget), but from a human level, I think many people would prefer to keep people working as long as possible if there were other things that could go first.

They do lay people off so I don't think layoffs per se are really the issue. The people laid off tend to be lower level - lifeguards and parks workers rather than executive deputy assistants to the city HR director - but there are layoffs.

[Gatorrick22]

Just wait and see what happens when the Pubs play hardball with the budget negotiations. I think the country needs a real shut-down.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

What I've described isn't about economics. It's more about bringing the voters into line so that matters of economics can be avoided.

Economics can cover just about any incentive-based decision. I have yet to see a government problem that does not specifically have an economic component. I am using the term not to describe financial or monetary issues but incentive based issues.

A lot of this is about how many people on the right want to cut programs in other sections of the country or for other socio-economic groups while sparing their own programs. Look at this thread, we are having a discussion about cutting airshows, an event that really adds little to the overall national economy. Any tourist dollars due to the event are simply a redistribution of tourist dollars from places without an airshow to places with an airshow. However, airshows are often attended by a wide-range of groups, including the middle and upper-middle classes, so this directly impacts them.

In order to avoid this, we have had suggestions to cut wasteful spending such as loan guarantees for very successful businesses tailored to the upper classes in other locations (Cupcake Shops in DC) or government programs for the poor (cuts to SNAP). To upper income people in the DC area or poor people, those cuts would be very visible. However, to those proposing or advocating for those cuts, they wouldn't be.

Visibility is a crucial issue that is difficult to separate from the need to make sure that no group eats way too much of the cutting. So cutting recreational activities provided by the government for middle and upper-middle class citizens, when balanced with the huge range of cuts that will be occurring across the income spectrum, seems very reasonable. If they are too visible, maybe that has less to do with those making the cuts and more to do with the normal situation in which those with a lot of political power, upper classes associated with the party in power and the upper-middle and middle classes, have typically had pet projects protected from cuts.

[Swamper]

the us is flat broke--cut out all this waste, fraud and pork and no cuts to important stuff will be needed

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Economics can cover just about any incentive-based decision. I have yet to see a government problem that does not specifically have an economic component. I am using the term not to describe financial or monetary issues but incentive based issues.

A lot of this is about how many people on the right want to cut programs in other sections of the country or for other socio-economic groups while sparing their own programs. Look at this thread, we are having a discussion about cutting airshows, an event that really adds little to the overall national economy. Any tourist dollars due to the event are simply a redistribution of tourist dollars from places without an airshow to places with an airshow. However, airshows are often attended by a wide-range of groups, including the middle and upper-middle classes, so this directly impacts them.

In order to avoid this, we have had suggestions to cut wasteful spending such as loan guarantees for very successful businesses tailored to the upper classes in other locations (Cupcake Shops in DC) or government programs for the poor (cuts to SNAP). To upper income people in the DC area or poor people, those cuts would be very visible. However, to those proposing or advocating for those cuts, they wouldn't be.

Visibility is a crucial issue that is difficult to separate from the need to make sure that no group eats way too much of the cutting. So cutting recreational activities provided by the government for middle and upper-middle class citizens, when balanced with the huge range of cuts that will be occurring across the income spectrum, seems very reasonable. If they are too visible, maybe that has less to do with those making the cuts and more to do with the normal situation in which those with a lot of political power, upper classes associated with the party in power and the upper-middle and middle classes, have typically had pet projects protected from cuts.

You seem to want to make this a con/lib issue or a matter of class. The government tactic I'm addressing is neither.

I don't know how common this is, but in my area generations of public and private school patrol kids have taken the train to DC and toured the WH, among other facilities. They are usually in the 5th grade, if memory serves, and I don't think many of the students - or their families - view the trip in Dem/Pub, lib/con terms. And the people who regularly use municipal pools or have their birthday parties at local parks are generally not rich folks.

The affected citizens' political views or economic standing don't matter much in this context. It's really just the government getting the public's attention by taking away that which the citizens enjoy.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

That's because it's not about waste. It's about maximizing the cuts' impact on the public by depriving the public of that which it sees, uses and enjoys.

At the local level, the first things to go are typically the municipal pool, the parks, the 4th of July fireworks, and the extracurriculars at school. The bigger dollar issues - whether the city manager really needs 6 deputies, each with his/her own deputies, or whether the fire department really needs to roll 4 state of the art trucks for every sprained knee call, or whether every school really needs umpteen assistant principals with support staff - they aren't explored so much.

The intent is to hit the average citizen between the eyes, in the hope of eliciting an "OMG, the government must be broke, this is terrible!" response. It's all about breaking public resistance to spending and the taxes needed to support that spending.

It's a common tactic. What's new is that we're now seeing it applied at the federal level.

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

The flip side of it is that the staff at that school provide far more economic benefit than watching fireworks do. Sure, people might spend more money at businesses near the fireworks, but that is basically local level pork as it is a redistribution of spending from businesses not near the fireworks to businesses near the fireworks.

On the other hand, the staff at a school interact directly with students or help to better plan learning such that it is more efficient. In addition, their salaries will be spent in the local community, minus some savings rate and federal tax rate.

But for the sake of argument, try to cut staff at a school in a nice area of a district and we will see how the parents of students at that school feel about the wasteful staff positions at that school. I'm willing to bet that it stops being waste when it is at their school.

Schools aren't the best example since a significant amount of the money tends to come from local property taxes. Taxed locally. Spent locally.

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

A friend in the coast guard, who joined in large part to earn money for college, just posted a message on FB that the CG has cut off their tuition assistance due to the "budget cuts".

The Obama Admin is making some serious political hay out of this. They can pick and choose what to cut. Instead of making good decisions they seem bent to cut programs that make no sense and then act like they had no other choice. Bad, bad republicans.

I never liked Obama but like him even less now.

It appears that Obama is hell-bent on punishing the American people and blaming it on the other political party.

Obama likes to campaign for president but not to be and act like the president. He delights in dividing Americans, and has shown no interest in or ability to bring the American people together. Not only that, but he seems perfectly willing to foist off his need to spend trillions to expand the government on future generations.

He is a temporary tenant in the White House but acts like he owns it. It belongs to the American people. Barring children from taking tours is more evidence of his clear intent and/or willingness to punish Americans, including small children who want to see the House that belongs to all of us.

It seems to me that Obama's experience as a community organizer engendered an "us against them" mentality.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by DeanMeadGator

It appears that Obama is hell-bent on punishing the American people and blaming it on the other political party.

Obama likes to campaign for president but not to be and act like the president. He delights in dividing Americans, and has shown no interest in or ability to bring the American people together. Not only that, but he seems perfectly willing to foist off his need to spend trillions to expand the government on future generations.

He is a temporary tenant in the White House but acts like he owns it. It belongs to the American people. Barring children from taking tours is more evidence of his clear intent and/or willingness to punish Americans, including small children who want to see the House that belongs to all of us.

It seems to me that Obama's experience as a community organizer engendered an "us against them" mentality.

This........he thinks he'll get away with it.

[brainstorm]

Waste opportunity, discussed.

http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...d.php?t=258518

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

You seem to want to make this a con/lib issue or a matter of class. The government tactic I'm addressing is neither.

I don't know how common this is, but in my area generations of public and private school patrol kids have taken the train to DC and toured the WH, among other facilities. They are usually in the 5th grade, if memory serves, and I don't think many of the students - or their families - view the trip in Dem/Pub, lib/con terms. And the people who regularly use municipal pools or have their birthday parties at local parks are generally not rich folks.

The affected citizens' political views or economic standing don't matter much in this context. It's really just the government getting the public's attention by taking away that which the citizens enjoy.

And those tours were shut for years due to security concerns after September 11. We somehow found a way.

And there is absolutely a lib/con issue here, because the people freaking out about these are conservatives, who want spending to be cut, just not to the things that they like. So cut SNAP to the bone and they couldn't be happier, because they don't use SNAP. But stop tours of the White House, something they someday might use or might affect their kids, and watch out. Now this is totally unacceptable.

But in the end, if we are making a decision between something that helps produce better economic outcomes, like additional school staff, additional police officers, investments in science, etc, and something that people find entertaining, like Blue Angels, Fireworks, White House Tours, etc, I honestly can't see a good argument beyond "Hey, I enjoyed those things," or "Hey, my area depends on tax dollars from those activities," as arguments against the latter as the places to start cutting. Basically, both arguments are at their core "Cut somebody else's spending. Not mine."

Remember, if these same people had never been to an air show or had no desire to go to one, they would be labeling government supported air shows as pork, which they are.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Waste opportunity, discussed.

http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...d.php?t=258518

I am not sure which part of that thread you are discussing. The OP wrongly said that Reggie Love was his dog's handler (based on the use of his exact salary), when he in fact was the personal aide to the President, a position that is amongst the hardest working in government. It involves a lot more than taking care of his dog. It would be difficult to claim that he is massively overpaid.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Swamper

the us is flat broke--cut out all this waste, fraud and pork and no cuts to important stuff will be needed

Okay not sure that is true, but accepting the premise, I have a hard time believing that the important stuff is military planes that have no defensive purpose but fly in a visually appealing manner for on-lookers.

[RealGatorFan]

Interesting what is being cut since the cuts amount to a papercut. The Fed pumps this amount into the markets every month.

[chemgator]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

996, they are choosing to cut the bone instead of the fat. they are doing this intentionally as if there is no fat to be trimmed so that if/when anybody else asks for cuts, the pain of the bone being cut will be fresh in everybody's mind instead of the amount of waste and fraud that could/should be cut. you cannot spin that away. hopefully enough people can see through it that it backfires on them.

Exactly. There was enough money last year to do the Blue Angels show, and the year before. And the sequester did not reduce spending below last year's levels, so what does that tell us? We are not spending money on Blue Angels so that:

a) Obama and/or the military can spend on something else.

b) Obama can break the opposition party and get free rein to spend indiscriminately.

(Now, which is more likely?)

If the military were fully in charge of this issue, they might reduce the number of Blue Angel shows, but they certainly wouldn't ground them completely.

[RealDeal]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

This........he thinks he'll get away with it.

he will get away with it

[Dreamliner]

Millions of Americans are getting away with it.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by diehardgator1

obama has to cut these things as he has no intention of cutting his $4 Million Dollar vacations or MO $ Million dollar ski trips.

That's why it's called the sequester. Amid all the cuts, Obama fully intends to continue sequestering himself and his family at nice vacation spots.