Skip to main content

Seal of the State of Georgia via Wikipedia
Conservative Republican Congressman Tom Price, who wants to be Georgia's next U.S. senator, says the sequester will be all peaches and cream—but that Americans will blame it on President Obama. Notwithstanding Price's hamfisted effort to have it both ways, the reality is that Georgia actually will feel pain from the sequester, unless Congress acts.

According to the White House, which is detailing state-by-state impacts of the sequester in an effort to encourage Republicans to return to the Grand Bargain negotiating table, here's some of the lowlights of what the sequester will mean for Georgia:

  • Nearly 40,000 civilian defense employees will be furloughed
  • Nearly 2,000 kids will be booted from Head Start
  • Nearly 400 teachers could lose their jobs
  • Nearly $5 million in funding cuts for clean air and water as well as fish and wildlife protection

But Republicans like Tom Price aren't worried about screwing over their states, because they think it's not that big a deal, and President Obama will get blamed anyway. For a complete list, head below the fold.

According to the White House:

If sequestration were to take effect, some examples of the impacts on Georgia this year alone are:

• Teachers and Schools: Georgia will lose approximately $28.6 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 390 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 54,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 80 fewer schools would receive funding. Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Georgia will lose approximately $17.5 million in funds for about 210 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

• Work-Study Jobs: Around 2,490 fewer low income students in Georgia would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 890 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college.

• Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 1,700 children in Georgia, reducing access to critical early education.

• Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Georgia would lose about $3.5 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Georgia could lose another $979,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

• Military Readiness: In Georgia, approximately 37,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $190.1 million in total. Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $233 million in Georgia. Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Georgia would be cut by about $5 million.

• Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Georgia will lose about $427,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

• Job Search Assistance to Help those in Georgia find Employment and Training: Georgia will lose about $873,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 33,160 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment.

• Child Care: Up to 1,100 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

• Vaccines for Children: In Georgia around 4,180 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $286,000.

• Public Health: Georgia will lose approximately $925,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Georgia will lose about $2.5 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2400 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And Georgia health departments will lose about $571,000 resulting in around 14,300 fewer HIV tests.

• STOP Violence Against Women Program: Georgia could lose up to $208,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 800 fewer victims being served.

• Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Georgia would lose approximately $1.3 million in funds that provide meals for seniors.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM PST.

Also republished by Kos Georgia.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The sky is falling...not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sboucher

    from CNN:

    "Actually, the sequester doesn't cut federal spending at all, or rather it cuts it only in the Washington sense of any reduction from projected baseline increases is a cut. In reality, even if the sequester goes through, the federal government will spend more every single year. In fact, in 2023 it will be spending $2.39 trillion more than it does today."

    Slowing the growth of spending is all the sequester does.  All these scare tactics are ridiculous.  

    More:  

     This year, the sequester would slow the growth in federal spending by just $85 billion, from an expected, pre-sequester budget of $3.64 trillion -- less than a 2.3% reduction. To put that in perspective, the federal government borrows $85 billion every 28 days . In fact, this actually overstates the size of this year's cuts. Because of ongoing contracts and the Byzantine labyrinth of federal budgeting, only $44 billion of that $85 billion will actually be cut from this year's budget. The rest will be cut in future years, but attributed to this year's budget. So, the real reduction in federal spending this year is just 1.2%. If the federal government can't reduce spending by less than a penny-and-a-half on the dollar without throwing us into the dark ages, something is truly wrong."

    More:

    I'm still worried about the impact on the economy. Some economists believe that the sequester will cost thousands of jobs and throw us into another recession. True or not?

    The proposed spending reductions amount to less than 0.03% of our gross domestic product. If our economy can't survive spending cuts of that size, we truly are Greece. Of course, in the short term, there will be some layoffs and furloughs. This will be hard on some communities that depend heavily on government spending, and even harder on those workers directly affected. However, most of the numbers cited about the numbers of jobs at risk come from industry groups with a vested interest in making the cuts look as bad as possible.

    This entire argument buys into the Keynesian conceit that government spending creates jobs over the long term. But the resources necessary to create those jobs have to be extracted from the private economy either through taxes or borrowing. That means the private sector then has fewer resources to invest in job creation. Given that the private sector generally puts those resources to a more productive use, it is likely that government spending destroys more jobs over the long run than it creates.

    We can and should have a legitimate debate about the best way to cut spending. But let's not be distracted by fairy tales about how the sky is falling.

    http://www.cnn.com/...

    •  "the Keynesian conceit" (5+ / 0-)

      as opposed to the supply-side fantasy?

    •  How does CNN get .03%? (4+ / 0-)

      As best I can tell, by missing a decimal point.

      $85 billon = $0.085 trillion;
      US GDP = $15.65 trillion (CIA Factbook, 2012 est.)
      0.085 trillion / 15.65 trillion = 0.0054 = 0.54%

      Even if CNN is correct in asserting that only $44 billion will be cut this year, that is still 0.28%, rounded to 0.3% -- not 0.03%.

      So is 0.3% a lot? In an economy that's growing by 2% or less a year, I'd say yes, that's a lot, especially when you factor in multipliers.

      •  What multiplier would you use? (0+ / 0-)

        What is the MPC you are assuming?  

        •  1.5 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Words In Action, MPociask

          That's what the IMF came up with.

          Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

          by blue aardvark on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:30:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the MPC or the multiplier? (0+ / 0-)

            Where is the math behind it?

            Y= C + I  + G    three spending sectors

            C = a + b Y sub d     consumption

            Y sub d = Y - T sub x

            I = I sub 0 business sector,  fixed

            G = G sub 0 exogenous (government)

            Tx = Tx sub 0   taxes are fixed

            Y sub e = 1/1-b (a-Bt sub x+ I sub 0 + G sub 0) algebraically expressed  (equilibrium income)

            •  Multiplier (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glitterscale, Words In Action

              1 dollar of austerity shrinks the economy by 1.5 dollars.

              Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

              by blue aardvark on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:07:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Someone that does not know anything about (0+ / 0-)

                economics should not really try make statements that have no basis in fact.  I say this with no animosity intended  I will share some information with you regarding the Keynesian government expenditure multiplier.   The question is does an increase in government spending increase the the income of the country.

                There are three possibilities:

                The increase in spending is achieved by raising taxes.  Private spending will fall, but the key point is will it fall enough to offset the increase in spending.

                Fund the increase in spending by borrowing, using securities, or bonds, etc.  What is the impact on private spending, clearly it will decline as evidenced in the 2009-2010 time frame.  This is the crowding out effect that happened with the stimulu; it essentially had a zero net effect because of this.  

                Fund the increase in spending by creating new money.  Is this a fiscal measure or policy.  This would result in many questions.  

                The former Speaker of the House made the comment that unemployment compensation is one of the best stimulous measures the government employed.   Now when we think about stimulus and multipliers very few would agree that putting everyone on unemployment payments would help the economy.   There are always consequences when the macro economy is "played with"  clearly the stimulus policies of 2009-2010 did not significantly impact the economy.  One can conclude it had an averse effect because the crowding effect still exists today.  This is why companies are sitting on a large stockpile of cash.  

                •  I quote the IMF (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MPociask, marty marty

                  And you say I don't know what I'm talking about.

                  Your reductio ad absurdum is absurd. If you are an example of a conservative economist than I pray to God that such people never ever have the slightest influence on policy.

                  To put it bluntly, given the choice between supply-side and Soviet style Marxist economics, an examination of historical returns says you'd be better off a Marxist.

                  Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

                  by blue aardvark on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:39:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I can give 15 economists the (0+ / 0-)

                    the marginal propensity to comsume (MPC) and other independant variables and you will get 15 different multipliers.    By the way one thing the U.S. has always had is good toliet paper as compared to the Soviets.  We are a market driven economy it is not perfect but revel in it because there is nothing better.  Economics is not a social science as much you would like to think.  It is very predictable science.  

            •  Links (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action, MPociask

              http://www.imf.org/...

              Pg 19 concludes multiplier ranges from 0.3 to 1.8, the more slack in the economy the higher the number.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

              Distils the IMF findings down nicely:

              Blanchard and Leigh deduced that IMF forecasters have been using a uniform multiplier of 0.5, when in fact the circumstances of the European economy made the multiplier as much as 1.5, meaning that a $1 government spending cut would cost $1.50 in lost output.
              I don't claim to know what the multipliers would or will be in the case of the sequester, only that it's reasonable to assume that $85 billion in cuts, or $44 billion, will result in more lost economic activity than the specific amount cut.
        •  I would have used the IMF's, and would have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glitterscale, Words In Action

          have included it specifically, but searching for links while writing a comment is very hard to do on my iPad 1. (Thanks to follow up commenter for posting the specific number.)

          Even without multipliers, do you agree that even the smaller estimate of $44 billion represents 0.3%, not 0.03%, of our total GDP, and do you dispute that this is a fairly large amount of spending when economic growth is stuck at less than 2%?

    •  Slowing the growth in spending is real. Let me (5+ / 0-)

      explain one example. After much hard work, my wife, a research scientist was awarded a couple of large long-term grants last year. Right now, she is in the midst of interviewing people for a couple of the positions she needs to fill to get that work done. But she dares not fill them because if the sequester goes through, a large chunk of those grants will not be funded. If you've ever managed a project, you how effed up it gets if the resources are withheld. Then, when it comes time to attempt to renew the grants, she will have to explain how the lack of resources are responsible for whatever is lacking in the results. That's always pleasant.

      There are TONS of examples of projects and programs in the pipeline that have been approved and are underway that will be screwed and screwed up because of the sequester.

      An infinite number of more and better Democratic legislators will make little substantive difference in the Class and Climate Wars.

      by Words In Action on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:20:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well the Keynesian "conciet" beats the shit out (6+ / 0-)

      of supply-side economics, which on its face is screwed up. Supply sits on its hand unless there is demand to fill. Constantly heaping up ever bigger piles of money stolen from demand deprives not only demand but supply itself. So then supply goes gambling in derivatives...

      "the private sector generally puts those resources to a more productive use"
      Not if there isn't any demand...

      Also, anyone who claims the private sector does a better job than government isn't being honest about the kind of experiences they are having getting service from the private sector. Last week I waited all day for Comcast to come, and they didn't. Why? Because the service appointment we had arranged the night before was not entered into the system (or it was lost). This stuff happens all the time. I went to an Indian restaurant last night and my lamb dinner was ... beef. Hell, for all I know it was horse meat.

      You obviously are completely unaware of the state of the economy and its impact on real people, how tenuous the level of employment is and how that driving down wages. ANY decrease in supply of jobs is going to hurt that. And the private sector is NOT going to create those jobs out of thin air for customers that don't exist.

      An infinite number of more and better Democratic legislators will make little substantive difference in the Class and Climate Wars.

      by Words In Action on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:27:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Debunction junction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action, MPociask
      This entire argument buys into the Keynesian conceit that government spending creates jobs over the long term.
      Government spending accounts for teachers, firefighters, police officers, military forces, county clerks, food inspectors, building inspectors, etc, etc, etc. People make careers of these jobs. It is nonsense to say that this government spending does not create jobs over the long term.
      ...the resources necessary to create those jobs have to be extracted from the private economy either through taxes or borrowing
      Now he admits that 'those jobs' are actually created, but says taxation or borrowing to pay for these common goods is a bad thing. In truth, goods and services cost money. The question is not whether we are taxed to pay for these things, but who is taxed and by how much. (Regarding borrowing: interest rates are at an all-time low, it make sense to borrow when money is cheap. Why is money so cheap these days?)
      That means the private sector then has fewer resources to invest in job creation.
      Money is so cheap these days because the private sector has plenty of resources (cash reserves) on hand they are not using for job creation, or anything else for that matter. They are putting money into T-Bills because the ROI is better than investing in new plant, equipment and employees to produce goods and services for which there is no demand.
      Given that the private sector generally puts those resources to a more productive use, it is likely that government spending destroys more jobs over the long run than it creates.
      So, this says BlackWater is more productive than the Seals? The University of Phoenix is more productive than the University of California? There are indeed things that the private sector can produce more effectively than government (cars and toothpaste come to mind) but they are much less effective when producing things that are either common services and goods such as education, national defence, law enforcement (which includes things like the EPA and the FDA: their regulations are there to enforce laws) or producing things for which there is a 'natural monopoly' such as electricity or water or sewage treatment.

      If you take a look at the multipliers, unemployment insurance payments are one of the most productive things a society can spend it's money on, in terms of getting money circulating and raising demand so all those private sector johnnies can earn a living, and unemployment insurance is not handled by the private sector at all.

      This "Given" is an article of right-wing faith, not part of observable reality.

      "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

      by Orinoco on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:38:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a load (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Orinoco, marty marty

      of crap. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no government and no jobs. You state "the private sector generally puts those resources to a more productive use." How is solid gold bathroom fixtures, $6500 shower curtains, a one million dollar Lamborghini, a 100 million dollar yacht, a 140 million dollar house, 3 trillion dollar losses on credit default swap real estate derivatives, etc etc etc, more productive than 300 or 400 or a 1000 home health care workers? Sure it makes work for a few carpenters and engineers and mechanics for the time it takes to make those goods, but after that all they do is suck money out of the rest of us.

      •  Yes - let Boehner give us back the money that (0+ / 0-)

        he spend to make a better and bigger bathroom in his Speaker of the House office. And while we are at it let's cut 2/3 of the House GOP salary.  The house GOP have decided to work only one/third of their time in office in Washington.  They claim the rest is to spend time with their constituants.  I called my Rep - Tom Price and asked where he was speaking to his constituants and they said he had no meetings scheduled.  I said he could have stayed in DC and done his "calling for dollars" (they have to spend 5 hours a day calling for dollars).  i don't think they spend time with constituants at open meetings since Rep Gifford was shot.

    •  P.S. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Orinoco, marty marty

      Since when does KOS allow an entire post to be clipped from CNN? Surely you can write your own comment if you are smart enough to figure out how to use the internet right?

  •  I will say the same for Georgia as Texas (4+ / 0-)

    I live in Dallas and I will say the same thing about Georgia as Texas.

    Let the states blow up. Let the pain get so great that maybe, just maybe the voters will wake the fuck up and vote these idiots out of office.

  •  Of course, sane people know that... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betterthansoap

    the rethugs will be blamed for the cuts...

    "Really nice, but also very serious about his job." Jackie Evancho on President Obama 6/7/12

    by BarackStarObama on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:58:11 PM PST

  •  Good to see how the states will be affected...... (4+ / 0-)

    Keep on highlighting what's going to happen to the states if there isn't anything done -- the more that's brought to the light, the better it is.  

    Having a "liberal" bias just means that you read and are informed!

  •  I think these state-by-state impact reports (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betterthansoap, sboucher, Egalitare

    are a good way of bringing the problem home, before it actually comes home. I don't know if or how they will "work" on either policy or perception, but I applaud the administration for taking the time to compile them and get them out there. Hopefully, Democratic officials in each state take up these reports and help drive the message home.

    An infinite number of more and better Democratic legislators will make little substantive difference in the Class and Climate Wars.

    by Words In Action on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:10:27 PM PST

  •  This is cynicism on steroids.... (3+ / 0-)

    Oh sure, it's a big shitpile but so long as the black guy in the white house takes the rap, who gives a flyin' f---!  If Georgia gives this guy even a shot at becoming a senator, they're nuts!But he's got an R after his name, he's a white male and I'm sure a God-fearin' Christian. Jesus Wept!

  •  Tom Price is unfortunately my Rep (4+ / 0-)

    He is a true believer. He really thinks if the government cuts spending it will help the economy. Not sure how, since that puts more people out of work. He also wins every election with about 70%of the vote, so he doesn't care what anyone says, he'll do what the base wants him to. I've already seen a downturn in people's spending habits here. Even in the wealthy areas, the gas prices have gone up 50 cents in the last month. The tax cut that most here denied even existed for several years has expired, and people are noticing it.

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:11:21 PM PST

  •  Not to mention the problems it will cause (3+ / 0-)

    at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta. The busiest airport in the world.

    Will make life difficult when everyone has delays and cancellations for themselves or for shipped goods in Atlanta. Won't make local corporations, like Coca Cola, very happy.

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:13:59 PM PST

  •  Let's bring home our troops from Afghanistan (4+ / 0-)

    and elsewhere around the globe. That would save us a pile of money.

    •  Always laugh when (0+ / 0-)

      People say that.  Because on what timeline?  From where?  Breaking what treaties?  Putting US security at risk in what ways?  Does that mean parking Navy Carriers & Subs in US ports forever?

      Simplistic nonsense!!!  Just complete BS!

      We are a Superpower, get over it.  Smart use of power means just that -- smart use.  No Afghanistan or Iraq type bullshit but smart use of the military power is needed.  To quote "With great power comes great responsibility."  We [the US] have great power and really great responsibilities worldwide.

      •  Wow. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask, marty marty

        Because on what timeline?

        One that gets them here earlier than not.

        From where?

        Afghanistan, to begin with. They want us out, anyway. We've been there long enough. We can't do any more to "fix" a country that doesn't want to be fixed. It was a bad idea to begin with, and doubling down when the economy was blowing up was simply assinine.

        Breaking what treaties?

        Not all troops are committed under treaties. That's simplistic nonsense. And treaties can be amended. Should we drive our "empire" into the ground through the expense of military over-reach? The economics of the country have changed, and so has it's priorities. We are far more likely to be devastated by Climate Change than foreign enemies at this point.

        Does that mean parking Navy Carriers & Subs in US ports forever?

        Start by cutting the ones we are building. Stop building all the other conventional weapons, like tanks, that just go to sit and require maintenance for no good reason all over the globe, because we just don't use those kind of weapons all that much. Decommission the ones already in the field that aren't being used. And yes, close bases. We have more bases than you can shake a stick at. What, we have to keep them all open forever simply because they exist? Strategies and tactics are never supposed to change? And how about cutting boondoggle projects building crap that doesn't work? Establishing over-sight to stop projects from being renewed when targets are not being met and malfeasance is occurring?

        All your argument says is that more military power is smart use of military power. It's dumb use of money in a country that has far more pressing needs.

        Talk about simple-minded.

        An infinite number of more and better Democratic legislators will make little substantive difference in the Class and Climate Wars.

        by Words In Action on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:41:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for giving that comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Words In Action

          A very thorough response.  

          I would only add, I bet there were some Soviet advisers in the 80's that said something similar to "The Soviet Union is a superpower, comrade!  Get over it!  We must spend all this money on a military build up to keep ourselves secure!  Don't give me that simplistic nonsense about ending the Cold War peacefully!"

  •  Georgians elected these Tea Party bozos (4+ / 0-)

    Sadly I too live in Tom Price's district and although this is a source of embarrassment for me personally, most of my neighbors are fine with him.  They voted for him and rest of the state has voted to put an almost super-majority of Republicans in the state legislature.  Our governor turned down the expanded Medicaid funds.  Our list of Congressclowns includes Price, Gringrey, Broun and Westmoreland.

    Bottom line, Georgians voted for this.  They should get what they asked for.  It is only fair.

    The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

    by Do Something on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:21:11 PM PST

    •  To be fair (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marty marty, pat208

      Georgia's politics are pretty crazy.  We went from one party Democratic rule to one party Republican rule in less than twenty years.  The Republicans also gerrymandered the state and federal districts to maximum effect.  

      I guess what I'm saying is, the state's not as conservative (in the national political sense) or Republican as it's made out to be.  

  •  Detailed state info? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF

    Has anyone found a link to specific states? I'd like to find out about Indiana.

    Thanks in advance.

    "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

    by annan on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:27:09 PM PST

  •  Meanwhile, local news reports cry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glattonfolly

    doom about the sequester, as they should. There is the logical disconnect between what Republicans (in general) want and what they are doing.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:41:10 PM PST

  •  Thanks Jed. Picking these out state by state (0+ / 0-)

    makes it a lot more real.
    One detail I would ask you add: a Bottom Line.
    How much, total, will be cut from that state's economy? How big a chunk is that of the state's economy?
    Since most of this money is wages of one sort or another and wages get spent and that spending ripples out, having some idea of the magnitude of the hit, not just overall, nationally, but at the state level would be an eye-opener for some people.
    Just the numbers in this diary add up to Half a Billion+/-
    And that's not complete.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:05:36 PM PST

  •  Me likey. (0+ / 0-)

    That 100:1 "civilian defense employees" to teachers.  

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:37:25 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site