One thing that I see is that Defense, for example, should be able to deal with their cuts by cutting back/stretching out some "shiny" capital purchases, dropping one or two longer-term projects, and trimming some excesses (IIRC, they spend something like $200m/yr on bands, for a quick example).
Amtrak & Sequestration
- Thread starter The Davy Crockett
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Ryan
Court Jester
Sadly, no. There's more there than those sorts of things can cover. In addition, the fact that the cuts are coming mid-FY make things more difficult, as folks have to get the burn rate even lower.
I understand from the Navy perspective we're going to see less ships deploying, maintenance availabilities canceled, flying hours (even on deployed units) reduced, training reduced, etc, etc.
You are going to see some of the excesses going away like you talked about as well - I'm pretty sure that all of the Blue Angels performances for the rest of the FY are on the chopping block.
This is going to be all around bad, and I've got little hope that the boneheads in Congress are going to do a thing to stop it.
I understand from the Navy perspective we're going to see less ships deploying, maintenance availabilities canceled, flying hours (even on deployed units) reduced, training reduced, etc, etc.
You are going to see some of the excesses going away like you talked about as well - I'm pretty sure that all of the Blue Angels performances for the rest of the FY are on the chopping block.
This is going to be all around bad, and I've got little hope that the boneheads in Congress are going to do a thing to stop it.
I agree that the timing is lousy and makes things worse (frankly, based on the experience of the last few years, the Feds may seriously want to look at moving the start of the fiscal year from October to January), but at least to my eyes there are things like that and brass-cutting (we've got the same upper-rank numbers as we had during the Cold War, from what I can tell) that need to happen, period. Some of the other changes, such as re-basing folks away from Europe (we need logistics bases there and we need hospital bases there to support operations elsewhere in Europe, but we probably don't need over 50,000 troops in Germany and 25,000 elsewhere in Europe), aren't things that can be done overnight.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
How much are they going to cut air travel? It says they will be dramatic.
George Harris
Engineer
Remember this whole thing is political game playing.
It's partly the "Washington Monument approach": Cutting flashy things first and making a stink about it (closing the Washington Monument in the face of funding cuts to the NPS is a stereotypical case of this; the Blue Angels would normally qualify as this as well, but I think that qualifies as legitimate as well).
Ryan
Court Jester
It might be, but it's about to have real, impactful effects on a hell of a lot of people and our economy in general.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 13
The longer lines at airports and airport delays, caused by the sequestration, might cause folks to reconsider Amtrak as a pleasant means of alternative transportation, hopefully. The conservatives and tea party have wanted to get rid of Amtrak for decades; one can't truly/honestly discuss Amtrak's funding without implicitly acknowledging that inconvenient truth.
I have not heard anything about train controllers (e.g. the guys in the railroad towers who give clearance to freight trains and passenger trains) getting furloughed, does anyone know enough about that aspect to hazard a guess? could this delay Amtrak travel albeit somewhat indirectly?
I have not heard anything about train controllers (e.g. the guys in the railroad towers who give clearance to freight trains and passenger trains) getting furloughed, does anyone know enough about that aspect to hazard a guess? could this delay Amtrak travel albeit somewhat indirectly?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, almost all of those individuals work directly for the freight railroads. Also, almost all of their positions have been consolidated into a small handful of control centers, usually at the respective freight RR's corporate HQ. To sum up, the answer is that sequestration wouldn't affect these individuals at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ocala Mike
Lead Service Attendant
Actually, there are dispatchers and train controllers who work directly for Amtrak in those areas where Amtak operates exclusively (NEC, etc.). I would think their jobs are safe, but don't know for sure.
montana mike
Conductor
This discussion while interesting is missing the big picture. The federal budget, will total over $3.6 TRILLION in FY 2013. The so-called cuts amount to $85 Billion (or 2.36%)-of which 50%, or $42 Billion come out of the DOD. The remaining $42 Billion or so is spread over the 11 other federal agencies. That's nothing!!! If you look at what the federal government spent in FY 2012 and then look at the projected spending for FY 2013 (look at the Congressional Record, it's the only thing in Washington that is just the facts, no political spin from either side of the aisle), you will note that even with the Sequester the feds will spend several Billion dollars MORE overall in FY 2013 than in FY 2012.
11 of the 12 federal agencies will receive slightly more funding even with the reduction. Only DOD will receive slightly less.
These "crises" are all manufactured. I spent years in the federal government and to see high level federal bosses say the world will come to an end if they "only" receive a small increase in funds instead of a larger one is nonsense. I note with great dismay that if you take out the cuts in uniformed military people over the past few years the number of federal employees actually went up, not down, by 113,000.
The GAO in their annual report on federal government waste in 2011 stated that $209 Billion could be cut from federal spending due to duplicative and fraudulent spending. One would think we could somehow figure out how to carve $85 billion out of what GAO came up with!
This isn't a GOP or Democrat issue, this is an American issue--we need to get our act back together and soon.
11 of the 12 federal agencies will receive slightly more funding even with the reduction. Only DOD will receive slightly less.
These "crises" are all manufactured. I spent years in the federal government and to see high level federal bosses say the world will come to an end if they "only" receive a small increase in funds instead of a larger one is nonsense. I note with great dismay that if you take out the cuts in uniformed military people over the past few years the number of federal employees actually went up, not down, by 113,000.
The GAO in their annual report on federal government waste in 2011 stated that $209 Billion could be cut from federal spending due to duplicative and fraudulent spending. One would think we could somehow figure out how to carve $85 billion out of what GAO came up with!
This isn't a GOP or Democrat issue, this is an American issue--we need to get our act back together and soon.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Most Amtrak dispatchers actually work for the private freight railroads, who own the track. They are not affectied by government sequestration.
N
Nathanael
Guest
The sequester will genuinely hurt a lot of the smaller, leaner, better-run domestic federal agencies, many of which run on, effectively, a shoestring and ought to be better funded. The blunt, untargeted, across-the-board approach of the sequester is the problem here: while you could certainly cut a lot out of agribusiness subsidies or nuclear subsidies without losing anything important, the sequester cuts are "across the board" domestically.
The Department of Defense is bloated -- we spend more than every other country in the world *combined* on the military. The cuts will be good for it, and should really be much larger. The fact that the Defense Secretary has been unwilling to make rational cuts and is instead engaging in brinksmanship is not cool, of course.
Luckily the sequester will not significantly hurt Amtrak because Amtrak has been needing less and less operating subsidy every year, while getting about the same amount -- so Amtrak has room to deal with it. It will probably require some capital projects to be postponed, but Amtrak still has funding room to finish everything it's currently in the middle of. The bigger question for Amtrak is whether the federal government will get its act together before 2014, because if this level of general dysfunction in the federal government keeps on, eventually this is going to be a problem. I expect not.
The Department of Defense is bloated -- we spend more than every other country in the world *combined* on the military. The cuts will be good for it, and should really be much larger. The fact that the Defense Secretary has been unwilling to make rational cuts and is instead engaging in brinksmanship is not cool, of course.
Luckily the sequester will not significantly hurt Amtrak because Amtrak has been needing less and less operating subsidy every year, while getting about the same amount -- so Amtrak has room to deal with it. It will probably require some capital projects to be postponed, but Amtrak still has funding room to finish everything it's currently in the middle of. The bigger question for Amtrak is whether the federal government will get its act together before 2014, because if this level of general dysfunction in the federal government keeps on, eventually this is going to be a problem. I expect not.
Last edited:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Of course the private railroad dispatchers are not Amtrak dispatchers, but I know what you mean. Amtrak trains run under the control of these private railroad dispatchers. But you'd be surprised at the proportion of Amtrak train miles that actually run under real Amtrak dispatcher's control
Very well said without all of the spin. I especially like the last sentence.
ScottRu
Service Attendant
Just a thought (with no hint of politics). There may be one "up" side for Amtrak to all this financial mess. One of the predicted consequences of sequestration (it IS a funny looking word!) is that lines at airport security sites will grow enormously. That will highlight the difference between easily boarding a train and having to disrobe and be detained in long lines at airports. Might sway a few more over to train travel. (Oops, I just noticed there were 2 more pages of this thread - so what I 'added' might have already been mentioned. If so, 'sorry!')
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
The problem is that yes, in aggregate spending will still increase, but large chunks of the government are going to going to have to make do with less.
We're also stupidly doing this in the middle of a FY, so we've already spend 5 months burning funds at pre-sequestration rates, meaning that you're going to have to make those $85B in cuts across 7 months, not 12.
Claims that this is all a game without any impact ignore the reality on the ground. I've already had one friend laid off, my company isn't going to hire the engineers we thought that we were going to hire, and nobody's spending any discretionary personal money.
The economic impacts of this will certainly be felt, and economic downturns never leave Amtrak in a better position when people can't afford to travel. Reduced demand will result in reduced revenue and an increased dependence on Federal spending that isn't going to be there.
We're also stupidly doing this in the middle of a FY, so we've already spend 5 months burning funds at pre-sequestration rates, meaning that you're going to have to make those $85B in cuts across 7 months, not 12.
Claims that this is all a game without any impact ignore the reality on the ground. I've already had one friend laid off, my company isn't going to hire the engineers we thought that we were going to hire, and nobody's spending any discretionary personal money.
The economic impacts of this will certainly be felt, and economic downturns never leave Amtrak in a better position when people can't afford to travel. Reduced demand will result in reduced revenue and an increased dependence on Federal spending that isn't going to be there.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 13
The moderator edited my post, above, to use the words "tea party." There is NO such political party.
There is the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, etc.
I did not post the words "tea party" and thus resent this edit, ostensibly made to get rid of politics, but which has actually made my post make a political point that was not intended. Ain't no such party. I had written a different phrase to describe that group. Thanks.
Having said that, I do appreciate the good work of all moderators.
By theory anything can happen, but I understand four fifths of the FAA's budget comes from Trust Fund revenues (might only be a small loss to funding). A longer term solution would be to commercialize ATC like Canada, the UK and other countries have done.
P
peremichel
Guest
While mostly true about the economy overall, I do not believe that it is well said with regards to the impacts of the cuts. Many, many programs were shielded from any cuts what so ever and consequently the impact on certain programs will be larger. If you take out social security, interest payments, and mandatory medicare/medicaid payments, the budget shrinks to $1.826 trillion. $85 billion dollars is now closer to 5 percent. Assume half of that money was already spent, $913 billion, and $85 billion is now over 9 percent.
montana mike
Conductor
Hmmm, someone didn't read the Congressional Record. The amount of cuts in FY 2013 are actually $42 Billion not $85 billion--as stated in the news today across almost all of the media. Second, 50% of the "cuts" are taken against DOD spending. That leaves a whopping $21 Billion to be spread over ALL of the rest of the programs. When you couple that with statements by GAO yesterday that more than this amount was planned by various departments (HHS for example admitted they would not be able to spend $9 billion of their funding in FY 2013 alone) to be NOT spent in FY 2013 I ask--where is the beef????
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
