Sequestors Are For Little People

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    Who is "you" in this statement?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    skeeter .... the who ain't you .

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ImYourDaddy. Show ImYourDaddy's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

    The FAA doesn't need its budget restore, is all a big made up crisis by Obama. FAA budget is funded by travelers

     

     

    Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is funded primarily by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (Trust Fund or AATF) which receives revenues from a series of excise taxes paid by users of the national airspace system — and by the General Fund. The Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970 created the Trust Fund to provide a dedicated source of funding for the aviation system independent of the General Fund.

    The Trust Fund's purpose was to establish sources of funding that would increase concurrently with the use of the system, and assure timely and long-term commitments to capacity increases. The Trust Fund was designed to finance investments in the airport and airway system and, to the extent funds were available, cover the operating costs of the airway system as well.

    Trust Fund revenues are derived from excise taxes on:

    • Domestic airline passenger tickets
    • Domestic airline passenger flight segments
    • International passenger arrivals and departures
    • Air cargo waybills
    • Aviation fuels
    • Amounts paid for the right to provide mileage awards

    The Current Aviation Excise Tax Structure and Rates (PDF) provides current and historical tax rates.

    The largest source of excise tax revenues is from transportation of passengers. Taxes from transportation of passengers include the domestic passenger ticket tax, domestic flight segment fees, and taxes on mileage awards (frequent flyer tax). The next largest tax revenue source is the Use of International Air Facilities, i.e., the international arrival and departure fees.

    Current Status

    At the beginning of FY 2012 the Trust Fund had a cash balance of $10.3 billion. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) Fact Sheet (PDF) provides a summary of facts about the Trust Fund.

     

     




    The link you posted states that the FAA operating expenses for 2012 was $16 billion.

     

     

    It also states that FAA Trust Fund raised $11.5 billion in revenue.

    That leaves an operating budget shortfall of $4.5 billion, which is filled by federal budget appropriations and subject to the sequester. Your link also explicitly states that all of the federal appropriations, the funds subject to sequester, is contained in ONE line item; OPERATIONS.

    So thank you for proving the point that the FAA had no choice but to furlough AT Controllers as they are the single largest expense under Operations and the only portion of the FAA budget subject to the sequester.

     

    House appropriators in charge of the FAA explicitly said the agency had to cut anything for which a dollar amount had been appropriated by Congress.

    Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/26/now-for-sale-congress-constitutional-authority/#ixzz2RgmTXb1B




    =========================

     

     

    When you buy a domestic airline ticket, you pay 7.5 percent of the price to the FAA, plus $3.80 per “flight segment,” indexed to inflation. International flights cost $16.70 apiece, also indexed. If you’re sending someone a gift via air freight, the carrier you choose will pay 6.25 percent of the cargo cost in FAA tax. And your airline — really, you — will pay a 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on jet fuel.

    In 2012, all those “dedicated taxes” added up to $11.6 billion. Last year, these fees funded all but 29 percent of the FAA’s operating and capital budgets. Considering that President Obama had to borrow 31 percent of last year’s general budget — which relies on general taxes rather than user fees — the FAA was more than holding its own. Plus, as the lobbying association for the airlines reminds the public, the FAA also serves private and military aircraft. “In large part,” Airlines for America notes, the general-fund subsidy “supports the nonairline functions of the FAA.” Finally, as the Government Accountability Office said in a 2011 report, “since the Trust Fund’s creation in 1970, revenues have in the aggregate generally exceeded spending commitments from FAA’s appropriations, resulting in a surplus.”

     

    ============

    The funding to FAA is 70% private , 30% public (to pay for military usage and others...). The the real cuts to the FAA is not the 2% across the board is only come to .06% cut to the FAA. They have prenty of resources to move around. This is all political gamesmanship by the whining Obama Admin

     

     

     

     

     

     




    If you are just going to post ideological rants then have at it.

     

    The source you posted specifically states that 100% of the funds appropriated by Congress goes to OPERATIONS.

    The sequester, as stated in my post, specifically states that only money appropriated by Congress is subject to cuts, which is only the OPERATIONS budget of the FAA.

    The sequester also states;
    ...that no funds may be obligated from working capital fund accounts to augment programs, projects or activities for which appropriations have been specifically rejected by the Congress...

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp112buEZ4&r_n=hr541.112&dbname=cp112&&sel=TOC_1529&

    That means that the FAA CANNOT take any money from it's capital accounts, AATF, to pay for AT Controllers.

    Read the information before posting wildly innacurate statements based on your ideology.

     

     

     



    Ponder this logic, if that's the right word: The sequester cuts about $637 million from the FAA, which is less than 4% of its $15.9 billion 2012 budget, and it limits the agency to what it spent in 2010. The White House decided to translate this 4% cut that it has the legal discretion to avoid into a 10% cut for air traffic controllers. Though controllers will be furloughed for one of every 10 working days, four of every 10 flights won't arrive on time.

     

    -snip-

    The White House claims the sequester applies to the budget category known as "projects, programs and activities" and thus it lacks flexibility. Not so: This is a political pose to make the sequester more disruptive. Legally speaking, the sequester applies at a more general level known as "accounts." The air traffic account includes 15,000 controllers out of 31,000 employees. The White House could keep the controllers on duty simply by allocating more furlough days to these other non-essential workers.

     

     

    Instead, the FAA is even imposing the controller furlough on every airport equally, not prioritizing among the largest and busiest airports. San Francisco's Napa Valley airport with no commercial service will absorb the same proportion of the cuts as the central New York radar terminal, which covers La Guardia, JFK and Newark International, as well as MacArthur, Teterboro, New Haven, Republic and other regional fields.

    ====

    2013 FAA Operation budget request is for 9.7 billion that covers all FAA workforce plus maintence of air traffic control service

    The public funds collected is more than enough to cover

    http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/faa_%20fy_%202013_budget_estimate.pdf

     

     




     

    You can keep regurgitating the same baloney from various echo chamber sites but it doesn't change one basic fact:

    Why would Congress need to pass any legislation affecting the FAA?

    They didn't appropriate more money. They didn't tell them how to spend their money. The only thing they did was allow for more FAA discretion with the funds they already have.

    Why would they need to do that if, as you keep posting ad nauseam, the FAA already has that flexibility?

    If the FAA is doing it at their discretion, and the new bill doesn't allocate any new funds or direct the FAA in any way how to spend the money they have, why bother wasting time passing the new bill?

     

    I hope you can find a boilerplate answer to that in one of your echo chambers.

     



    Exactly ... they didn't add anymore funding, they still had the same cuts.... SO where did they find this money to stop the furlough ??? 

     

    Congress passed the bill to stop all this BS, its forces them to cut from other areas

    The horror the cuts bring them back to 2010 funding level

     

     




    Do you even know what was in the bill?

     

    No extra money, no specific spending directives...just PERMISSION to transfer funds from other accounts to the operations account.

    Permission the FAA previously didn't have under the sequester.

    Under the legislation, the Federal Aviation Administration would gain authority to transfer up to $253 million from accounts that are flush into other programs, to "prevent reduced operations and staffing" through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/white-house-officials-senators-report-progress-during-talks-on-bill-to-ease-faa/

    The bill only allows the FAA the legal authority to move money between accounts frozen by the sequester.

    http://live.wsj.com/video/congress-passes-bill-ending-airport-delays/04BFAF95-B798-42D0-8438-951AD9FC56F7.html#!04BFAF95-B798-42D0-8438-951AD9FC56F7

     


    “Sequestration is a dumb way to do business — it cuts the good with the bad, without regard for critical federal programs or the needs of the American people,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.).

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/congress-sends-obama-bill-to-end-delays/2013/04/26/27f94706-ae81-11e2-a986-eec837b1888b_story_1.html

     



    Permission the FAA previously didn't have under the sequester

    Said so by the FAA ? ...

    In a lawsuit filed against the FAA by Airlines for America, the Regional Airline Association, and the Air Lines Pilot Administration International, the plaintiffs argue that furloughs were avoided during a similar sequestration in 1986.


     

    The plaintiffs added: “The FAA and DOT have provided little insight into why the FAA's resources, even after making cuts required by sequestration, cannot still adequately support air traffic control operations at major airports.”

     

    Calls to the FAA were not returned.

     

    Other federal agencies facing similar 5 percent cuts have been able to meet the obligations of the sequester without furloughing anyone. Those agencies, including Health & Human Services, the State Department, and the General Accounting Office, also have high full-time head counts, but they’ve cut expenses instead.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/04/23/FAA-Furloughs-Is-Air-Traffic-Chaos-a-Political-Move.aspx#page1

    We would never know who is right on this FAA or the Plaintiff since congress step in and forced FAA to make cuts elsewhere like other agencies have done.

     

    So I ask you , do you dislike the sequester because it would harm the economy or you don't like the sequesters because the law is too restrictiive and should be more flexable so government agencies can manage there cuts better?

    So cutting FAA budget is not a problem as long we tell them how and where to cut

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ImYourDaddy's comment:

     

     

    So I ask you , do you dislike the sequester because it would harm the economy or you don't like the sequesters because the law is too restrictiive and should be more flexable so government agencies can manage there cuts better?

     

     

     



     

    I dislike politicians continually trying to blame others for the specific policies they, themselves enact. The sequester was an across the board cut that the gopers wanted and got. When the stupidity of their ham-fisted approach starts having consequences they start pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.


    I dislike idealogues like you who don't bother to read anything outside the echo chamber baloney and who blindly follow political partisanship no matter how ridiculous ... and do it based on ignorance of the underlying facts.

    The recent 'fix' doesn't do any of the things you just posted and yet you keep posting the same echo chamber bs, over and over again without one reference to the actual law, as if it will somehow alter reality.

    I've posted the actual text of the sequester and yet you keep your head stuck firmly in a place which ensures you won't see or hear reality.

    And now here's the actual text of the FAA bill to grant the FAA flexibility.

    To provide the Secretary of Transportation with the flexibility to transfer certain funds to prevent reduced operations and staffing of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.853:

     

    So AGAIN, if the FAA had this authority before, why did Congress write an entirely new law with exact wording of "provide ... with the flexibility to transfer certain funds"?

    Just answer the question.

    In fact, they grant this "flexibility" only to "certain funds" which implies that all other funds will remain frozen per the sequester.

     

    If you like the sequester so much, why are you trying to pass off the credit for it?

    Stand up and be counted and stop trying to hide from your 'achievements'.

     

    Can't wait for more of that boiler plate manure you're so fond of.

     



    Look, isn't it obvious that the Obama administration is trying to make a 5% haircut for the government as painful as possible, while at the same time telling the taxpaer that a 5% (or more) haircut in terms of taxes is no big deal?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Look, isn't it obvious that the Obama administration is trying to make a 5% haircut for the government as painful as possible, while at the same time telling the taxpaer that a 5% (or more) haircut in terms of taxes is no big deal?



    Gotta love the flow of non-logic on the right here.

     

    Assume all government spending is wasteful, then blame Obama when cutting spending has some ill effects. Blame your assumption, not Obama, you stilly tw(i)t.

    We wouldn't be having these problems if the right didn't take the debt limit hostage and then issue demands.



    You have a comprehension problem, I see.

    Matters not if I think government is wasting the money or not, we are OUT of money.  Government is being forced to cut spending NOT due to waste, but due to borrowing at an unsustained level.

    That you think this money is about waste, and not about overall expenditures is telling.  

    We are borrowing 40 cents of every government dollar spent.  This is not sustainable.  This is yet another example of why the left fails.  Basic understanding alludes them.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Matters not if I think government is wasting the money or not, we are OUT of money.



    Then tell your fellow righties to sit down, shut up, and stop whining about the effects of cuts.


    In fact, you probably ought to write it on the blackboard a thousands times first.


    The sequestration was Obama's idea, and, he is refusing to execute responsibly. 

    the republicans keep giving him outs, like on the FAA, and Obama keeps choosing to implement cuts that hurt the most.

    it would be like me refusing to feed my children because of the tax increases.

    are you getting my drift, or are you still in the Obama can do no wrong camp?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    And private sector taxpayers share one ramen noodle per family.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    skeeter .... the who ain't you .



    Oh.  So who is the "you"?  union members?  Government hacks?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sequestors Are For Little People

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    The sequestration was Obama's idea

     

    A weird thing has opened up in Washington where now the big point of emphasis among congressional Republicans is to say that the looming budget sequester that Republicans voted for is "Obama's sequester" and that he is in some sense to blame for it. That's about 85 percent b__ls__t, depending on exactly how you mean it. John Avlon at the Daily Beast has a good piece of relevant evidence: the PowerPoint slides Boehner used back in 2011 to explain to his caucus how awesome the debt ceiling deal that had been struck by the president was.

     

    Here's the opener:

    1361370038688  And here's the specific slide on the sequester:

     

    1361370106003

    Now what happened, as you'll recall, is that the House GOP said it would force the nation to default on its already accrued bills unless the president agreed to big cuts in spending. The White House essentially welcomed that hostage-taking, seeing it as a good opportunity to strike a grand bargain on deficit reduction, but said they'd only agree to big spending cuts if they were paired with meaningful tax increases. Boehner toyed around with embracing that idea, but ultimately balked. Then Jack Lew proposed the sequester as a process that left the door open to a grand bargain (that Obama's pursuit of a grand bargain played a role in this emerging is the non-bullshit 15 percent) but was consistent with the GOP's framework of insisting on large spending cuts unpaired with tax hikes.

    In essence, Democrats tries to put pressure on the GOP to temper its anti-tax fervor as the only way to avoid big defense cuts, but it turned out—and then turned out again on the supercommittee, and then turned out again during the fiscal cliff deal—that their view on taxes trumps everything else. That's on them.

     

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    In an exclusive interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) replied to a question about the sequester by admitting that Obama ‘didn’t want the cuts.’

     

    Watch the exchange here:

    http://www.politicususa.com/john-boehner-admits-president-obama-sequester-cuts.html

     

    (unknown source).

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

     

     

    This is all over the news.

    Honest people know what happened: The GOP tookt he debt limit hostage and issued demands. Boehner came up with the sequester. Obama accepted that idea. Each party calculated that they would have to eventually behave like adults and negotiate something because the cuts hurt - or so they thought - the other party's core positions so much that they wouldn't let it sand.\

    But they failed to behave like adults and the sequester went into effect.

     

     

     

    So stop lying. This isn't Obama's exclusive fault.

     



    Nice try, and too many words is a sure sign that you are wrong.  Read this:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341553/obama-caught-lying-about-sequester-deroy-murdock

    Obama lied. Four Pinochios.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share