From instructions sent out by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House, to all federal agencies:
The 2013 federal fiscal year will begin on October 1, 2012.In light of the tight limits on discretionary spending starting in 2012, your 2013 budget submission to OMB should provide options to support the President's commitment to cut waste and reorder priorities to achieve deficit reduction while investing in those areas critical to job creation and economic growth. Unless your agency has been given explicit direction otherwise by OMB, your overall agency request for 2013 should be at least 5 percent below your 2011 enacted discretionary appropriation. As discussed at the recent Cabinet meetings, your 2013 budget submission should also identify additional discretionary funding reductions that would bring your request to a level that is at least 10 percent below your 2011 enacted discretionary appropriation.
8 comments:
More Obama's BS. Call for cuts that will be after the election, so he can campaign on cutting the budget. What is he requesting for 2012?
would you rather have a tea party president who would cripple SSA instead?
I'll take Ron Paul any day over Barry.
A 10% cut to SSA's budget would be about what, $1 billion roughly? SSA has stated that every $25 million in cuts below the current appropriation level would equal 1 day of furloughs. So that would be about 40 days of furloughs, which is above the threshold for triggering RIFs. SSA's hard costs will increase in 2012 as well due, but it might be able to mitigate those increases through attrition of an additional 4,000 employees. I'd be interested to get a better grip on what impact attrition is having on SSA's operating budget, and how much they can shave off their current bottom line through the partial hiring freeze. Additionally, I'd be curious to find SSA's staffing levels by component to get an idea of where the cuts will most likely be targeted.
I appreciate that the authors of this blog use the word "austerity." That is the ideology of the day, the blunt force trauma to our bodies politic. We tried it out, largely with the IMF acting as enforcer, in the "perimeter" nations in the 90's, with disastrous results for those that played by the Washington Consensus rules (Thailand, Russia, sub-Saharan Africa), and better results for those that told the IMF where to stick it (Argentina after default, Brazil after Lula, Malaysia) and for those over which the IMF's mandate did not and could not run (China).
So, the writing's on the wall, right? Neoliberalism is bankrupt, right, and we need to invest ourselves in different forms of economic self-organization, right?
Well, wrong: austerity did such a lovely job of eviscerating the economies and societies of, for instance, the Baltic states, that we just knew we had to have some of that for ourselves here in "the center". One massive balance sheet recession later, thanks to neoliberal anti-regulation, and one utterly artificial debt-ceiling crisis later, and we're ready for the spectacle of a democratic president, that is, a president of the party of FDR, ready to deal the final death blow to the New Deal.
Sorry to get political and all, but this has everything to do with Social Security, obviously. I am a Social Security disability attorney, and I see first hand how our nation's long-standing commitment to our elderly, disabled, and survivors has a positive social effect, and generally makes our society a more prosperous and civilized place. It appears that that commitment is being shredded as we speak, in the name of a discredited economic ideology, and to the benefit of the banking, finance, and insurance "industries." And yes, I know: these are across-the-board cuts, not targeting SSA specifically, Congress is trying to cut discretionary spending only, etc. But really: the ultimate aim is to privatize (destroy) Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. That we're not in the streets right now, like the students in Chile, is disheartening in the extreme. I'll leave it at that.
Instead of furloughs and RIFs, why not close small offices and resident stations or a combination of both? Many of these small facilities aren't worth the rent they pay and some are close enough to a larger office that consolidation would be an option. I'm sure staff would much prefer sacrificing a few furlough days to termination--and a lot of these rural outposts are only there because SSA is afraid of the local Congressman protesting a closure.
If there's any real leadership at SSA (which is doubtful), someone needs to make some tough decisions.
OT is still being worked and awards were given out, so that's two things to cut before anyone loses their job.
There is some chance that this cut will not apply to SSA or will not be as severe. The memo does say "unless your agency has been given explicit direction otherwise." SSA was the only agency exempted when the Administration froze domestic spending a year or 2 ago, so there is some precedent that the axe won't fall as hard at SSA.
Post a Comment