Skip to main content

Sequestration explained

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9eIrcyRIQxyX0VLTWVPQmxBcmM

Comments

Anonymous said…
Does anyone else besides me think there is going to be cuts of maybe 8-10% at ALL facilities, especially after reading this NNSA failure report. Why would anyone continue to dump money into these projects when the nation is faced with 1M people losing their jobs.
11/04/2012 4:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Cuts are in the works already, but not at the 8-10% level, more likely to be at the 25-30% level.
11/05/2012 4:08 AM
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said...

"Heck, between this and sequestartion sheet is going to hit the fan at all of these facilities. I wouldn't be surprised to see an 8% to 10% cut at each one of these places after Jan 2013

November 4, 2012 4:42 PM"

With sequestration I thought this would be every place with a 10% cut.

The thing is the timing is off at Jan 2013. It would cause too much trouble. I am not saying the cuts are not going to happen but it will be kicked down the road for Oct 2013.
November 4, 2012 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...

I am not saying the cuts are not going to happen but it will be kicked down the road for Oct 2013.

November 4, 2012 9:01 PM

Just how do you propose this would happen? The cuts are already law, including the schedule.
11/05/2012 1:16 PM
Anonymous said…
Which will be worse, the sequester across the board or the cuts decided on by Congress? One may just as severe as the other. Either way NM may suffer some very deep cuts.
11/07/2012 8:31 AM
Anonymous said…
Sequestering 8% of the approximately $4B LLNL/LANL Fy2013 budgets risks about 1600 FTE assuming an average $200k of compensation expense per employee. Some costs are fixed, and 1/4 of the FY has transpired already, so this midyear hit could risk well over 2000 employees. This change would save taxpayers about $320m. This is an illustration of the reduction of GDP and job loss of the Fiscal Cliff.
11/14/2012 10:18 AM
Anonymous said…
Steve Leisman (sp?) of Bloomberg TV, reported today that letting the Bush tax cuts expire adds an additional financial burden on all taxpayers. From about $400 for persons making $20k adjusted gross income to $14,000 for persons making over $100k agi. These tax increases would raise hundreds of billions of dollars per year, while the current deficit is 1600 Billion dollars. The drag on the GDP will be about -1.5%, which might put us into recession, costing a few million jobs. These two effects are what makes the Fiscal Cliff so ominous. It appears that this is really going to hurt.
11/14/2012 10:33 AM
Anonymous said…
The growing $16 Trillion deficit costs about $500b -$600b per year for debt service. This is about 20% of current federal tax revenues. The remaining So FY2012 federal spending after debt service is the remaining $2T of revenues supplemented by $1.6T of new borrowing. When the historically low interest rates return to normal the cost of debt service will double removing another $500b from collected revenues. So you see, it is incumbent to raise revenues, cut spending in a way which minimizes GDP contraction. With some growth over a 10-20 year period we can print money and inflate our way out of debt. That is how long recovering from the Depression and the Great Society miscues took.
11/14/2012 10:46 AM
Anonymous said…
I wish Bush would have paid attention to the micro- and macroeconomics courses while he attended the Harvard Business School. It would also have benefited Obama to have attended HBS while he was attending Harvard Law.
11/14/2012 10:54 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more