Skip to main content

AGM-142 Missile.
Oh noes. Sequestration is making it hard for defense contractors to know how many zeroes will be in their annual profits, and they would appreciate some certainty about what to expect, thankyouverymuch. According to Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson, the company is:
... unsure how the automatic cuts will play out this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, much less in 2014. The company has said the cuts could reduce its sales this year by about $825 million, but Hewson said the estimate was based on “modeling” in the absence of hard numbers from the Pentagon.

“What have we seen so far?” she said. “We have had some reductions as a result of sequestration of programs that have gone away, but very minimal.”

Next year, though, could be a different story. “It’ll be a larger impact in 2014 and beyond,” she explained.

She's urging Congress to "come together with a balanced approach" to increase revenue and cut entitlements so that Lockheed Martin can move past all this nasty uncertainty and get its traditional fat government contracts. It would be so much better if that uncertainty could be passed along to seniors currently living on Social Security; human food vs. cat food is just a simpler, cleaner form of uncertainty than $4.5 billion vs. $4.35 billion in profit.

Nationwide, parents waiting to hear if their kids will have slots in Head Start in the fall, to say nothing of Head Start teachers waiting to hear if they'll have jobs in the fall and seniors waiting to hear if they'll have Meals on Wheels next month, are doubtless nodding in sympathy with Lockheed Martin's horrible predicament.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:23 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Maybe the CEOs just need (12+ / 0-)

    to learn how to manage their money better. Isn't that what minimum wage employees are always told?

    Also, since they're getting government money they should be required to pee in a cup, go to nutritional counseling and work a minimum number of hours per week, right?

    •  Bring back Clinton-era tax rates. /nt (3+ / 0-)

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:39:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They will manage the money on the backs of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols

      rank and file technicians, engineers and scientists.  

    •  Marillyn Hewson can blame herself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols

      If she doesn't like it, maybe this shithead should stop donating to the GOP!

      HEWSON, MARILLYN
      SAN ANTONIO,TX 78257    LOCKHEED MARTIN    11/19/09    $1,000    Skelton, Ike (D)
      HEWSON, MARILLYN
      FORT WORTH,TX 76126    LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICS CO    4/3/08    $1,000    Granger, Kay (R)
      HEWSON, MARILLYN
      SAN ANTONIO,TX 78257    HOMEMAKER    3/6/08    $1,000    Chambliss, Saxby (R)
      HEWSON, MARILLYN A
      SAN ANTONIO,TX 78257    LOCKHEED MARTIN    9/30/08    $1,000    Inouye, Daniel K (D)
      HEWSON, MARILLYN A
      POTOMAC,MD 20854    LOCKHEED MARTIN    3/9/12    $1,000    Nelson, Bill (D)
      HEWSON, MARILLYN ADAMS
      VESTAL,NY 13850    LOCKHEED MARTIN    1/31/09    $480    Lockheed Martin
      HEWSON, MARILLYN ADAMS
      VESTAL,NY 13850    LOCKHEED MARTIN    2/28/09    $384    Lockheed Martin
      HEWSON, MARILLYN ADAMS
      VESTAL,NY 13850    LOCKHEED MARTIN    8/31/09    $384    Lockheed Martin
      HEWSON, MARILLYN ADAMS
      POTOMAC,MD 20854    LOCKHEED MARTIN    1/31/10    $384    Lockheed Martin
      HEWSON, MARILLYN MRS
      POTOMAC,,MD 20854    LOCKHEED MARTIN/VICE PRESIDENT    6/22/11    $1,000    McKeon, Buck (R)
      HEWSON, MARILLYN MRS
      POTOMAC,,MD 20854    LOCKHEED MARTIN    4/13/10    $1,000    McKeon, Buck (R)

      +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

      by cybersaur on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:30:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But, but, but,... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, TomP

    ...we need new war machines!

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:38:06 AM PDT

  •  Think about the sub-sub-(sub?)-contractors who (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RaptorMage, Chitownliberal7, qofdisks

    are little guys.  They spend money locally in the economy.

    The DC/Maryland/Virginia government complex employs a lot of people, not all of which are at the big companies.

    It's not as black-and-white as you portray it.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:38:53 AM PDT

    •  Sure, war as a jobs program. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, cybersaur

      I'm sure that would never end badly.

      •  One could argue that it took WWII to end the (0+ / 0-)

        Great Depression.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:23:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, and one could argue... (0+ / 0-)

          ... that all the great achievements in human history were the result of slavery, that the best way to solve a problem is to throw involuntary human suffering and misery at it until the job is done.

          I'm still going to oppose war and slavery both, as a rule.

          And war for profit, especially.  That's right down there with genocide on the list of heinous crimes that nations commit.  "But our economy needed the help," can sit right next to, "but I was just following orders."

          •  If we're going Reducto Ad Absurdum, (0+ / 0-)

            Then we can thank the Inquisition for religious freedom.

            But your example is more F.O.S. than mine.

            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
            —Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:11:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If your job is in that 850M you care. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        robin666

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

        by CTMET on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:32:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Lots of people to feel the pain, but that was the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9

      idea of the sequester.

      Republicans will not feel compelled to deal until people they care about push them to deal.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:04:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ditto. No 'news' in hearing that Lockhead (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat

        Martin's CEO is urging Congress to "come together with a balanced approach" to increase revenue and cut entitlements so that Lockheed Martin can move past all this nasty uncertainty and get its traditional fat government contracts.

        The "Grand Bargain' that the Administration is proposing is at the direction of Pete Peterson et al.

        THIS is the agenda of the One Percent and Big Business, which Ms. Hewson is a part of.

        The only alternative as laid out by Gene Sperling and the rest of the Administration is what Ms. Hewson is urging (as the PtB see it).

        And clearly, if the choice is between beginning to  dismantle the social safety net for all 315,858 Americans in order to avoid the sequester, it's not really a choice.  

        But the suffering is obviously far less than it would be if the proposed Bowles-Simpson cuts to Social Security and Medicare are passed and implemented.

        Talk about crippling the economy and increasing the 'misery index'--cut Social Security benefits by approximately one-third (see Jan Schakowsky's Op-Ed) and we'll all find out what 'austerity' is about REAL FAST, LOL!

        Here's an excerpt from her Op-Ed piece in Reuters:

        The sham of Simpson-Bowles

        Under Simpson-Bowles, long-term solvency for Social Security is achieved mostly by cutting benefits. Seventy-five years out, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases is 4 to 1.

        They propose raising the age of full Social Security benefits to 69 – claiming that everyone is living longer. But a sizable percentage of Americans, mostly lower-income workers, especially women, are actually living shorter lives, and a large chunk of other Americans just can’t work that long – even if they can find a job. Their plan cuts benefits for current and future retirees by reducing the cost-of-living adjustment.

        For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent.

        Personally, I would like to see the sequester 'repealed,' and the push for the 'Grand Bargain' to die.

        But from what I gather, the PtB are determined to begin  the process of dismantling the social safety net.  And  keeping the sequester in place may very well be the only thing that can stop a full scale attack on Social Security and Medicare.  {Sigh}

        Bottom line, we need to continue to push back on the Grand Bargain, or 'austerity' measures will likely be enacted this fall during another faux fiscal crisis (especially since the tax 'overhaul' will be completed by summer's end).

        Mollie

        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


        hiddennplainsight

        by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:39:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is precisely why the sequester is brilliant (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          judyms9, musiccitymollie

          in a very twisted way.

          You want that missile program? To buy some F-35s?

          We can arrange that -- but let's talk.

          Mind you, somebody's got to be willing to:

          1. Take some short-term heat.

          Nobody bargains when they think you're afraid to stay in the game.

          2.  Be smart enough to recognize the cards they're holding.

          Defense cuts give Democrats an ace. They shouldn't be afraid to play it.

          3. Talk, talk, talk.

          Make damned sure that everybody within earshot knows what they're trying to do for us and how hard they are working on our behalf.  If the pain is insufficient to make anybody budge, perhaps an electoral beating will do the trick or render them irrelevant.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:54:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  dinotrac, my 'take' is a bit different, if I'm (0+ / 0-)

            understanding you correctly.

            The Adminstration (via now Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and budget negotiator Rob Nabors) are the ones who 'invented' the sequester (based upon some budgetary shenanigans that were employed back in the 1980's).

            And the Democrats put this in place because they believed that Defense cuts, etc., would be appalling enough to Repubs that they would bring Repubs to the table to agree to 'tax increases or revenue.'

            However, the Administration is prepared to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to strike a "Grand Bargain.'

            I am not in agreement with that, at all.  

            And the trade-off of cutting 'entitlements' for almost 316 million Americans (between 50 and 60 million are presently drawing Social Security Old Age or Disability Checks) in exchange for sparing the Dept of Defense from relatively mild cuts, is not a 'good deal,' at all, IMHO.

            Because of the Administration's goal of trading austerity measures (cutting basic structural social insurance programs and pensions, at the same time that 'taxes' are increased, is the very definition of 'austerity'--just what they've done in Greece, etc.), I can't cheer them on in this endeavor, at all.

            And honestly, I don't see how this 'helps' the Democratic Party in the least, in 2014 or 2016.

            I expect that if a 'Grand Bargain' is struck this year, it will be a 'blood bath' in 2014, and beyond.  

            Possibly worse in 2016 since more seniors, disabled folks, etc., will have fully realized their suffering at the hands of a Democratic Administration.

            The Administration still has time to change course--if only they will.

            In light of the positive news on the deficit this past week, there truly is no valid reason to proceed (not that there was, in the first place).

            I'll post the WH and Capitol Hill numbers again soon, and hope that folks will use them to squash this awful 'trade-off.'  I believe that implementing the cuts that are in the Administration's 2013 budget, will cost Dems for years to come.  So we really need to do all we can to end talk of a 'Grand Betrayal,' as one liberal pundit put it.

            [Apologize in advance for typos--a little pushed.  ;-D]

            Mollie

            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


            hiddennplainsight

            by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:27:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We might actually be in agreement (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              The administration has dealt itself a winning hand, but seems determined to play like it's a loser.  That's got to be the dumbest damned thing I've ever heard.

              Yes -- some people are being hurt by the sequester, but you've got to look at that against the backdrop of millions of long-term unemployed and underemployed people, against the backdrop of breaking the faith on Social Security and reducing benefits on a program that doesn't pay very well as it is.  People between the median income and the SS cap really get screwed in terms of return for dollars paid in, and those at the low end of the scale are already getting paltry benefits.

              With the sequester is that cuts have already happened. The talks now should be about putting things back.  I'm not opposed to further cuts in the least because I believe in small government, but don't make stupid cuts when you're holding an ace.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:35:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can agree with that! BTW, I'm including a link (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dinotrac

                to the Reuters article that I referenced above, The Sham of Simpson Bowles.

                It is important since the Administration acknowledges that The Moment Of Truth (the Bowles-Simpson's Catfood Commission's proposal) is the 'framework' for their proposed 'Grand Bargain.'

                Please take a moment to read this Op-Ed by IL US Rep Jan Schakowsky.

                She makes a GREAT case against a so-called 'Grand Bargain.'  

                [Heck, I'm even considering making a link to her Op-Ed my 'signature line.'  The harmful effects of this toxic legislation can't be emphasized enough.]

                Thanks for the interesting conversation, dinotrac!

                Mollie

                "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                hiddennplainsight

                by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:46:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The President's budget is for FY 2014 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              The Fiscal Year begins on October 1st every year. So there are four months left in the FY 2013 budget year.

              I agree that Obama's budget is a disaster for Democrats. But all it is is a piece of paper. The thing to watch is the House. The real funding comes from appropriation bills -- and those have to begin in the House.

              The budgets passed by the Senate and the House are works of fiction -- look at the money they actually hand out in the appropriation bills which usually proves that both sides are lying...

              •  Exactly. It is the '2013-2014 Budget,' but I was (0+ / 0-)

                being lazy--apologize for that, LOL!

                I disagree a bit that the Administration's budget is 'just a piece of paper.'

                It is a reflection of the Party's values and agenda, IMHO.

                I've read the budgets produced in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and the Administration's SuperCommittee recommendations (which I've linked to on numerous occasions), and honestly, I cannot dismiss them.

                The deep cuts to Medicare have been in more budgets than the 2013-2013 Budget.  How they flew 'under the radar,' I'll never understand.

                The SuperCommmittee proposal was also all but ignored, when it should not have been.

                The Senate budget was definitely a 'work of fiction,' this year.  [Remember, they have refused to produce one in the previous years.]  If I had one, I'd bet the 'family farm' that it wouldn't garner a single vote in the Senate, since it didn't include 'entitlement reform.'

                But, you are correct that in the final analysis, it is what they actually pass.  

                I sure wish more progressive Dems felt that way.  Personally, I pretty much ignore most of the 'rhetoric,' and look almost exclusively at the documents (budgets, bill, etc.) that are produced.  ;-)

                Mollie

                "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                hiddennplainsight

                by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:41:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Use the MIC as an infrastructure (0+ / 0-)

      rebuilding resource.   I am certain the retooling effort would not be that difficult.

      While I am a fan of "finding common ground", we should keep in mind just who won the election....

      by left my heart on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:22:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I went and read the Politico story (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clecinosu, cybersaur

      And in scrutinizing CEO Hewson's remarks, I didn't see the first breath of a hint of concern over Lockheed's little guy subcontractors. Musta slipped her mind that while she's raking in the big bucks there are all these little guys who are going to suffer.

      We badly need to transition our economy from its permanent war footing, and move toward a model that isn't quite so dependent on manufacturing death machines. That's going to be hard on the small suppliers of death machine components, but maybe we could do something else with our entrepreneurial spirit than figure out new and better ways of killing people around the globe?

  •  Well, you know, (7+ / 0-)

    those bonus checks don't write themselves . . .

    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

    by bryduck on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:39:06 AM PDT

  •  The GOP plan of muddying up the future for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, bonmot, a2nite

    corporations is succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.

    •  Maybe old school repubs will listen to CEOs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skillet

      LM will wrangle it so its subs take the brunt of the cuts.  Even so, LM and their colleagues get no benefit from these dumbass republicans and their stupid sequester.  Better they call for an end to this than sit by giving tacit approval.

      TPers don't care about ANYONE.  No one will convince them.

      Other repubs don't care about Meals on Wheels, Head start, unemployment, or anything affecting the average person either.  

      BUT the old school corporate Repubs MAY listen to the CEOs who are calling for an end to this stupidity.  

  •  Sociopathy (6+ / 0-)

    It's what's for dinner.

  •  Corporate (11+ / 0-)

    Welfare Queens.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:40:18 AM PDT

  •  Asdf (4+ / 0-)

    Fuck Lockheed-Martin.

    There is really no kinder way to put t.

  •  OTOH... LM is just kind of "constituent" that the (6+ / 0-)

    sequester was intended to penalize to build some fire under the Republicans.

    The CEO did call on Congress to "increase revenue and cut entitlements".

    The Pubs will, of course, try to placate their milspec campaign donors with some kind of temporary appropriations bill. Will PBO and the Senate have the steel to demand equal favor toward the poor and needy?

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:51:39 AM PDT

    •  BINGO! And a big stuffed lobbyist to jjohnjj (0+ / 0-)

      The idea of the sequester was not that nobody would be hurt.
      The idea was that everybody would have skin in the game.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:07:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sure Boehner and the House GOP will act (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9, clecinosu

    swiftly (together with a number of Democrats) to ease Lockheed concerns. Head Start...not so much.

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:52:18 AM PDT

  •  They are somewhat on our side in this instance... (0+ / 0-)

    The slip in logic occurs at this point: "... if that uncertainty could be passed along to seniors..."  

    I think if we had something concrete it would help seniors plan too -- not only the corporate welfare queens.   The sequestration anxiety is not a zero-sum game.

    In fact, the longer we stay in the current situation, the longer it WILL be a zero-sum game -- as congress keeps making exceptions for its favorite industries and for those poor people stuck waiting for a plane.

    It looks like Lockheed wants sequestration to end -- their industry is too large a focus of sequestration for them to be quietly budgeted for like they did with TSA. Ending sequestration can only be a good thing for Lockheed AND for those seniors budgeting for catfood.

  •  Lockheed Martin (7+ / 0-)

    has been using sequester as an excuse to remove higher paid, older workers across the corporation.  These workers have been accruing pensions, which the company would like to be rid of.  Newer workers are not eligible for pensions.  Meanwhile, they have been doing it in a way that avoids the WARN act ... layoffs have been dispersed across their empire to not trigger WARN in any one place, across programs and over time, so that at no time is one location hitting the levels for WARN.  There have been tens of thousands of capable, qualified engineers laid off under the guise of sequestration.  This is a bonanza for them.

    •  A "pennies wise and pounds foolish" approach by (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Im a frayed knot, kmoore61, Buckeye54

      Lockheed. Pruning your best and most experienced personnel. I don't see how that makes their products better and more attractive. Hmm. Might have to look at Chinese airplanes for quality. :)

      "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

      by TofG on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:05:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They didn't need the sequester to do that. (4+ / 0-)

      Companies all over the country have been doing that for years.
      It is the real crying shame of this economy -- many of the long-term unemployed are talented and capable people who have worked productively for years but are now viewed as unemployable by some.

      Gotta get them H-1B visas cranked up if the economy comes back. Otherwise might have to hire some of that talent back at a decent wage.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:09:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is absolutely true. n/t (2+ / 0-)

      "Teachers are the enemies of ignorance. If the teachers win, Rush and his allies lose." Stolen from Sidnora, 12/15/12 with thanks!

      by kmoore61 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:20:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The CEOs will still have their gardeners, maids (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kmoore61, a2nite, Buckeye54, judyms9

    and lavish vacations.  Junior will still have his summers in Europe and attend private schools.

    It is the rank and file engineers and scientists that will pay for the sequester.  It is also the sacking of worthy projects that will pay for sequestration.
    Sequestration is cutting loose many a good middle aged engineer.  Sequestration will depress hiring and wages of young engineers and scientists.

    •  How many of these rank and file engineers (0+ / 0-)

      and scientists voted for RW candidates because they believed they were the ones looking out for their best interests?  When the pain spreads like a bleed-out that the sequestor is, perhaps then some of those who thought the GOP was home for them will rethink their posiitions.  Of course, then the RW will convince them that it's Big Government's fault.

      Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

      by judyms9 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:13:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Goodness Gracious! And ya'll said the sequester (0+ / 0-)

    was a bad thing.

    You want Republicans to budge?
    These are the people most likely to make them jump.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:02:08 AM PDT

  •  Even a stopped clock... (0+ / 0-)
    "Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?"
    George Wallace

    Help me to be the best Wavy Gravy I can muster

    by BOHICA on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:03:28 AM PDT

  •  Ever get the feeling that we are living in three (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lostinamerica, BOHICA, a2nite, judyms9

    clearly demarcated Americas? That, "United" has become irrelevant? Even ludicrous?
    And, yet, all three have one religion, and, no, it isn't Christianity. It's Mammon, but for different reasons.
    One is to satiate greed; one to work for the future, and one to survive, or else, become extinct.

    The Great Awakening Is Afire! Think outside the box or remain mundane.

    by franklyn on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:04:43 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Laura nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9
  •  Well, I mean, this is the point of the sequester. (0+ / 0-)

    It is supposed to put pressure on conservative interest groups - namely, defense contractors - to pressure the republicans into making a deal.

    •  That's right. And the Democratic Party 'solution' (0+ / 0-)

      is the 'Grand Bargain,' which is the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission's 'austerity plan.'

      So, how is it that Dems can 'win,' with the Administration determined to adopt austerity measures?

      Is that solution supposed to be 'better than' cutting defense contractors?  Heck, I worked for DOD for over twenty years, but that would be an absurd 'tradeoff.'

      What am I missing, here?

      Unless progressives can persuade the Administration to 'drop' their plans to implement austerity, we should probably all 'pray' that the Tea Partiers continue to stand in the way of a 'Grand Bargain.'

      At least then, we'd still have a semblance of a social safety net in the US.

      Unless, of course, the progressive base of the Dem Party now is on the side of 'cutting' so-called 'entitlement' programs.

      I truly hope that it hasn't come to that.  ;-)

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:22:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why should Lockheed Martin (0+ / 0-)

    be the only people on earth exempt from uncertainty?

  •  Senior Rent Subsidies (0+ / 0-)

    Meanwhile I'm waiting to see if I get the rent subsidy I have been on a waiting list for otherwise I expect to be homeless.  This is not a snark.  It is for real.   Thank you very much Congress.  

    A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

    by YellerDog on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:45:31 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site