Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FAA On Travel Delays: Get Used To It

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the TSA-beat-you-to-the-punch dept.

Transportation 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.

cancel ×

720 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about a year ago | (#43531619)

The same number of dollars could have been cut from specific programs in a way that would have had no noticeable impact on critical and important services. Instead, they chose to impact vital services in order to send a message to the public: "If you ask us to cut budgets, we'll do it in the most painful way possible." It's nothing more than an enormous "fuck you" to the American public.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Informative)

TheGavster (774657) | about a year ago | (#43531649)

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.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43531709)

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.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43531769)

no the dems never intended to work with the repubs, they simply wanted to make it look like the repubs were being the bad guys

see how easy it is when we blame X or Y instead of dealing with the problem known as Z??

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (3, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year ago | (#43531899)

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 (0)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#43531979)

If everybody agrees on cuts, then how does increasing revenue prevent problems like the one at hand? No matter what happens, spending goes down, so groups just like the FAA complain anyways.

Stop playing this favoritism game, it's annoying beyond belief.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532041)

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 (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43532083)

simple, they dont expect more money, they make the claim that they shoould fet it, but thats it... so we as americans spend XXX on nothing

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43532019)

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 (1, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43532107)

the issue is taxes dont need to go up, as a new yorker, i already spend over 60% of my income on taxes.... spending needs to go down. as such fuck anyone who wants more of my money when i can barely pay for my food

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532137)

Maybe stop buying pot instead of food then, dude.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (0, Troll)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43532063)

If the dems agreed to REAL cuts (not cuts from projections, which are not real cuts) that would be one thing. The problem is, I havent seen the democrats agreeing to any cut to anything!, not even mil. spending which we expect from them! no

by your logic, if one side is worse then then other (while I argue both sides suck major cock) then the bad side would be obama, who has spent trillions in 5 years(, has not closed gitmo - when he promised he would do so in his fist year its year 5) has driven up the costs for most americans in regards to healthcare and to top it ooff claims he has the right to kill any american at any time for any reason, yet charges REAL terrorists as if they are normal americans

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532067)

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.

Better cool down with another sip of kool-aid. Guess what, they both want to fuck you, and if you are saying one party is better than the other, then you are being hoodwinked.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532071)

Only after they already got a tax increase out of the republicans, and only if the republicans would agree to increase taxes even more.

Obama on Social Security (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#43532011)

put cuts on the table just like Paul Ryan wanted. They responded by tearing into him for cutting social security. You can't win with those guys, because they're actively trying to kill the American Middle class so they can pocket the money.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531911)

Waaaaa! It's all the big greedy conservative meanies fault! The government can just send everyone a check for a million dollars a year, and no one would ever be poor! Waaaaaaa!

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532015)

No, the pubs never intended to compromise or balance the budget. They just want to choke the chicken no matter what the people actually want or need.

Corrected that for you.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43532069)

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 (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43532081)

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.

Two separate fights (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#43531773)

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:Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43531687)

You can bet the bureaucratic management isn't being cut.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43531851)

if they cut the people who make the cuts then they would have to cut making cuts.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43531745)

Even with sequestration, the number of $$ spent this year is more than the previous year. as such there is no excuse for this.

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531837)

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 (1, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43532021)

pretty much, we need to dismantle some95% of all federal agencies. All they do is cover what state agnencies do. and the 10 amendment leaves the details to the states, not the feds

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (1)

makubesu (1910402) | about a year ago | (#43532087)

The only reason we are "spending more" this year is because mandatory entitlement programs (unaffected by the sequester) are included in the federal budget.

Which programs? (0)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#43531949)

Specifically. I always here this, but the cost of duck penis studies don't even begin to pay for this. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, our gov't isn't wasting nearly as much money as people think it is?

Re:Which programs? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43532207)

ha!
look at that sinkhole called nasa

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about a year ago | (#43531975)

School districts do this to when levies don't pass. They immediately cut athletic programs and bus service.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531983)

Let's pretend this is a programming project. You have yearly budget for a salary of three contractors and you have an unmodifiable scope.

All of the sudden, the higher-ups mandate that you spend 10% less on the project. What are you going to do? The answer: give the contractors fewer hours and push the deadline back. This is exactly what the FAA is doing.

I love how in your comment you specify that there are "specific programs" that could be cut without elaborating on what those actually are. Without details, you're just an anti-tax troll that wants a solution that most benefits you without thinking about any of the real consequences.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about a year ago | (#43532095)

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:Sequestration is a gimmick (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43532133)

Maybe the summary is garbled, but 10% for 2 days per month = 10% for 2/30 of the time = a mere 2/3% cut-back.

Does anyone know what's *really* happening.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532003)

The same number of dollars could have been cut from specific programs in a way that would have had no noticeable impact on critical and important services. Instead, they chose to impact vital services in order to send a message to the public: "If you ask us to cut budgets, we'll do it in the most painful way possible." It's nothing more than an enormous "fuck you" to the American public.

What exactly has come out of Congress in the last decade that wasn't an enormous "fuck you" to the American public.

You actually think any of them give a fuck about We the People? Hell no. They give a fuck about who pays them to give a fuck.

And they're called "Lobbyists" in case you were wondering what 15,000+ people were doing just hanging around Capitol Hill all year long...

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43532059)

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-over-the-debt thing is bogus to begin with, but that's another topic.

Re:Sequestration is a gimmick (5, Insightful)

NewbieV (568310) | about a year ago | (#43532079)

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:

"In general, sequestration entails the permanent cancellation of budgetary resources by a uniform percentage. Moreover, this uniform percentage reduction is applied to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account."

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 (3, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#43532181)

+1, Insightful

if you think the US Government works for the best interests of its citizens, you're hopelessly naive

The Opposite of Progress... (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about a year ago | (#43532183)

Well, that's Congress for you. It's not like it affects them in any meaningful way. And it's not like we're going to not re-elect them, or that if we elected new representatives they'd be any better.

Well, duh (1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43531631)

U.S. Democrats and Republicans spent the day using the FAA's statement as political fodder rather than working on resolving sequestration.

The Republicans got what they wanted: Spending cuts. Who gives a flying fark through a rolling doughnut how badly it was implimented? Now we all have to suffer because a bunch of fat bastards in suits can't behave any better than children. A better idea would have been to pass a law saying that if they couldn't agree on a budget they'd all be fired.

Re:Well, duh (1, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43531641)

no, it really is due to drama queen-ism by the obama administration, a 2% haircut to budget is nothing

Re:Well, duh (1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43531681)

Obama agreed with may of the cuts, and kept making compromises.

The pubs kept moving the goal post.

So, yeah. It's the pubs.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a year ago | (#43531779)

Obama agreed with may of the cuts, and kept making compromises.

The pubs kept moving the goal post.

So, yeah. It's the pubs.

BULLSHIT!

Re:Well, duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532205)

I normally stay out of any such "It's the D's! No it's the R's!" back and forth finger-pointing blame games, but your loud, single-worded argument has successfully swayed me in your favor.

Re:Well, duh (5, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43531795)

the BIG issue is that NO ONE offered cuts, both sides offered "cuts from projected spending" in otherwords, both sides offered up more spending than the previous year.

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:Well, duh (0, Flamebait)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43531895)

If your apple tree made 2 apples last year, and you gave 50% of them to your neighbor, and this year, your tree makes 100 apples, and you give 2% of your apples to your neighbor, are you more or less generous than the year before?

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532051)

Does the neighbor feel entitled to the apples?

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532097)

And your comment is completely fucking meaningless to the conversation.

Re:Well, duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531853)

I particularly liked Paul Ryan's statement where he said he was happy that the president's budget gave him everything he had asked for, but he was disappointed that the president was expecting to get something in exchange for it.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532203)

Obama agreed with may of the cuts, and kept making compromises.

The pubs kept moving the goal post.

So, yeah. It's the pubs.

Try again. Obama proposed the sequestration AND is the one who moved the goal posts.

Re:Well, duh (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year ago | (#43531645)

This is the desired reaction. As soon as we fire all the right people the pain will stop. The longer we resist, the more it will hurt.

Re:Well, duh (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43531679)

Hmm. Amusingly, it appears the slashmods went full retard again: Suggesting that our elected officials are incompetent? Something about 80% of americans believe, is apparently "trolling". And firing them so that more competent people can be moved into those positions and actually fix the problem? Trolling.

Yeah. I'm really losing respect for this website... ever since it was bought out, it's become a craven hole of repugnant hipsters.

Re: they see me trollin', they hatin' (2)

rwa2 (4391) | about a year ago | (#43531857)

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:Well, duh (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531697)

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 (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43532117)

I haven't followed this because it's the same as before and doesn't matter because as you say, it's all theater anyway.

But, the Republicans are mo better than the Democrats. They like to tie tax cuts to spending cuts so that the budget will never be balanced.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (5, Interesting)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#43531655)

It's interesting that the airlines are allowing customers to make changes to their itineraries at no charge to work around the problem. On the one hand this is good customer service, but on the other hand it would probably help the airlines to some degree if they instead said "Flight's cancelled. Don't like it? Call your congressman." As long as the airlines continue to accommodate those inconvenienced, then those truly responsible for this mess don't get blamed.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531719)

Right. Because being able to use this as a scapegoat to cut some flights and fill other flights up like cattle cars isn't profitable for the airlines. All the while the passengers are grateful just to get where they're going in this time of "crisis."
 
Fuck, you've been fooled.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43531725)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531757)

Or the airlines could raise ticket prices and pay for the services they're using.

I don't fly. Why the fuck should I be forced at gunpoint to pay for some rich asshole to be able to fly around the country? Airport costs should be paid entirely out of ticket sales and associated fees for services, NOT tax money.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#43531831)

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.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#43531907)

Aren’t ATC services paid for by aviation charges? If not, they probably should be.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (1)

sixoh1 (996418) | about a year ago | (#43532105)

No, ATC services are paid from the Department of Transportation general fund, authorized by the US House budget, and allocated by the US Senate budget (when they bother to pass one, lately we've been using the last passed budget plus automatic increases....).

A very large chunk of the FAA is offset by the gasoline (100LL and JetA) taxes around $0.20 per gallon (although jet fuel used on commercial aircraft is usually measured in LBS [1 gallon of JetA =~ 6.79lbs] a 737 may use up to 20,000lbs per hour depending on flight phase) which goes to the FAA general fund and also to the Aviation Trust Fund, an mythical entity pushed by the General Aviation caucus to prevent raids on the money to be used for airport improvement (physical assets).

Currently there are no "per-segment" Air Traffic Control fees, and hopefully there never will be, to understand this issue in depth there are competing sides, I prefer the AOPA's briefing available at: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/userfees.html [aopa.org]

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532141)

They are, to a large extent, though we're not quite to Europe's approach of reducing safety by penalizing (billing) the use of safety services.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't... (1)

bentit (2763157) | about a year ago | (#43532211)

The pilot of the plane delayed for 4 hours I was on did. He said "I was given 3 or 4 reasons why this flight has been delayed and none of them make any sense." He went on to say it smelled like it was related to the budget--just shy of saying someone was creating an artificial crisis. Surprising, but he sounded pretty pissed off.

The government's fault (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531663)

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 (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43531811)

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.

Re:The government's fault (1)

ThePeices (635180) | about a year ago | (#43532101)

Sad thing is you imply your willingness for planes to crash to make it easier on everyone.

Re:The government's fault (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43532157)

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.

Sequestration is what the pubs want (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43531671)

they have been trying to 'choke the beast' at any cost since Reagan.

they've turning into bunch of hateful nothing thinking loons.

Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531827)

the obama admin?

the admin who wont call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack simply because it goes against his political agenda?

the fact that you think obama is different than bush or regan says more than anything

Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (4, Informative)

GiganticLyingMouth (1691940) | about a year ago | (#43531915)

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:Sequestration is what the pubs want (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43531993)

the admin who wont call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack simply because it goes against his political agenda?

Wait, what's his political agenda? And why would him not calling it the obvious mean a damn thing?

Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43532189)

the admin who wont call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack simply because it goes against his political agenda?

Wait, what's his political agenda? And why would him not calling it the obvious mean a damn thing?

Because Bush Kept Us Safe^{tm},and Obama doesn't want to admit that a terist got through on his watch.

Let's make this real clear: /s

Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43532169)

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:Sequestration is what the pubs want (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43531937)

Sequestration is what the pubs want

Who? How sad... did the truck fail this year again [wikipedia.org] mate?

Re:Sequestration is what the pubs want (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43531959)

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 (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43531995)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532129)

And the fact that the unfunded entitlement liabilities exceed all the wealth in the entire US combined?

The US debt does not have to be repaid by the current US wealth, it has to be repaid by the future US wealth (err... well, not exactly, the US just as to, on average over time, maintain enough economic growth, actually repaying a national debt in full doesn't make any sense). Taking on debt is essentially a bet in favor of future economic growth.

Some math ... (2, Insightful)

TheGavster (774657) | about a year ago | (#43531699)

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:Some math ... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43531747)

FAA is 24/7 not 20 days a month.

Re:Some math ... from an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532121)

Who cares if the FAA is 24/7 - its workers are only working 40 hours a week.

Re:Some math ... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43531803)

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?

Re:Some math ... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43531843)

the math does not back the claim simple as that. They are simply using this as an excuse to pull the american strings tighter than they already are

They still charge the same taxes and fees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531743)

There is federal tax on aviation fuel, plus
there is 7.5% tax on all domestic air fares, plus
there is a Domestic segment fee of $3.90, plus
there is a Homeland Security fee of $2.50, plus
there are landing and take off fees for the airplane.

There are even more fees if you travel internationally, or to Hawaii.

These fees to the PUBLIC have not gone down, Just the service that the government provides.

Amazing (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a year ago | (#43531753)

A 4% cut in spending causes 40% flight delays...

Buffoons...

Re:Amazing (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43531889)

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.

Re:Amazing (1)

gander666 (723553) | about a year ago | (#43532005)

Yep, the good ol' Burger Equation. Where I learned about Shock Wave solutions to nonlinear diffy eq's

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532023)

A 4% cut in spending causes 40% flight delays...

Buffoons...

...says the buffoon who assumes some of this "loss" wasn't manufactured.

One isn't going to get the attention you want or need by minimizing the impact of sequestration. Wake up.

Get the facts (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531759)

Before you go blame the administration for ensuring the cuts went to essential services instead of extraneous expenses, read this [washingtonpost.com] .

Re:Get the facts (1)

ohieaux (2860669) | about a year ago | (#43531931)

Wow, the Washington Post sides with the administration. That clinches the argument for me. This must be the least impact way to cut the FAA budget.

Why is the Federal Government paying for this? (1, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year ago | (#43531765)

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.

Re:Why is the Federal Government paying for this? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43532013)

The FAA is part of the Federal Government, and it is tasked with managing the airspace above the United States, as well as implement and enforce air travel standards. As such, Air Traffic Controllers are employees of the FAA.

Re:Why is the Federal Government paying for this? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year ago | (#43532103)

The EPA is tasked with managing the air quality of the entire nation, and yet they don't own all the smokestacks, or pay for all the pollution control equipment and personnel monitoring air quality at factories.

Sequestration my butt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531819)

There's roughly 27% less departures than in 2011, but the budget is 40% larger. The 4% decrease in current dollars, or roughly a 36% increase in funding is causing delays from 2011 levels?

Yeah. Right. I have a bridge I'll sell you.

Won't matter who is right... (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year ago | (#43531873)

They are just asking for another round of 'throw the bums out!' anti-incumbent voting.

Opportunity in Disguise (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531887)

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.

You know who doesn't have travel delays? (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#43531933)

People who own private jets. Just sayin'.

Re:You know who doesn't have travel delays? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43532007)

People who own private jets. Just sayin'.

No, you're being ignorant. People who own private jets have to use either the large airports where ATC sequestration is slowing down ALL flights or use the smaller airports where sequestration is removing ATC which will force everybody to slow down because the traffic cops are gone.

People with private jets are either experiencing the same delays we are or worse delays.

Litle reason to stop sequestration (3, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#43531953)

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 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43531969)

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.

sequestration is bunk (3, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | about a year ago | (#43532161)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>