White House staff to be furloughed due to sequester
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the spending cuts in the sequester will impact the White House just like other federal agencies, forcing furloughs and pay cuts for employees.
WH: We feel sequester pain as well
Middle-class Americans may not be the only ones facing the impacts of the sequester: According to the White House, even the West Wing will be subject to the across-the-board spending cuts that went into effect last week.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters today that there are "a number of ways" the White House will be hit with the consequences of sequestration - from cuts to ongoing projects and budgets for equipment, to furloughs and pay cuts among staffers.
"The White House and the components of the White House are affected by the sequester in a way that's similar to other government agencies," Earnest said today. "When it comes to ongoing projects, when it comes to purchasing equipment and supplies, but we're also a pretty personnel-heavy agency, if you will, so that means that there will be agencies - that there will be employees of components at - who work here at the White House that will be facing pay cuts, that will be facing furloughs."
Earnest reiterated the oft-repeated Democratic refrain that sequestration is "bad for our economy" and "a bad way to run a government." And while the White House tends to emphasize the impacts sequestration will have on the middle-class, Earnest tried to give reporters "a sense of what behind the numbers is the tangible impact here" at the White House as well.
"There will be some supply purchases that are put off and it's going to have an impact on the personnel here at the White House - pay cuts, furloughs, and other things," he said. "In the West Wing as well. Anybody who works at the White House."
In recent days, there has been some controversy over various reports that White House officials may have exaggerated the impact of sequestration, possibly in an effort to build support for a deal to replace the cuts with the "grand bargain" President Obama seeks. But a small group of Republicans has begun seizing on the idea that sequestration might not be that bad for the national economy after all - and Republicans are blasting the president for claiming the cuts would "put the nation into a state of post-apocalyptic disorder," as a Republican National Committee (RNC) email put it recently.
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 172 Comments
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington
- Obama: Racism is no excuse for not excelling Play Video
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 110 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Obama to discuss legality of drone program
Mr. Leslie Moonves, President & CEO
CBS Entertainment
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
212.975.4321
Email: audsvcs@cbs.com
Well, being that the Title of this article is "White House staff is to be furloughed".....The Mooch's "staff" should be the first to go-- Again, that would save the tax payers over a million dollars--
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
The Presdient promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He missed the mark by more than 900 billion dollars. Unnessary federal government expendatures should have been done away with years ago.
and http://b.ba4usa.org/ Apparently, it will be the only way.
More of that hateful far-right fringe blog propaganda! Seems as if your hatred has consumed you, and we should call the psychiatrists!
Michelle Obama recently revealed that she and President Obama don't give Christmas gifts to each other. They merely say, "We're in Hawaii," and that's Christmas gift enough.
But actually the present is from taxpayers, and it's an expensive one.
The total cost to taxpayers of Obama's vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more. During a time of budget deficits that threaten the nation's security and its future, the Obamas have chosen to maintain a "family tradition" and vacation halfway around the world instead of finding far cheaper alternatives closer to home.
The $20 million figure is based on estimates of the cost of the four Hawaii vacations the Obamas have taken during Christmastime 2009-2012. According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back.
But $4 million almost certainly underestimates the true tally, as it does not include many miscellaneous items like the cost of flying advance teams out to Hawaii and separate flights Michelle Obama took in 2010 and 2011, when she left ahead of her husband, who was forced to stay in Washington to finish up work with Congress.
This year, Obama returned from Hawaii to complete a deal on the Fiscal Cliff and then jetted back to Honolulu, where he is now engaged in Part 2 of his vacation. The second roundtrip flight added about $3.24 million to the tab this time, bringing the cost of the 2012-1013 vacation to well over $7 million.
If we assume the estimates are probably quite low, then it's likely to the bill for the combined vacations is more than $20 million.
Given that much of the cost involves transporting the First Family and its retinue, the Obamas could have saved taxpayers millions by doing what the vast majority of Americans do: taking either one trip a year, or none.
My thought is, why does a first lady need a staff. What if the next president is not married. What would happen to these staff persons?
If we cut the staffs of the white house and congress, would the world stop turning and more important, would anyone notice?
What if at the pentagon there was a few less Ensigns to fetch coffee and donuts. What if at the dept of transportation, if the big wigs drove themselves to work.
I hope both sides can understand my thinking of "what if's". Should we not be able to make common sence reductions, how will we ever get this government spending under control!!!
I believe neither of you have any real knowledge of base line budgeting. A cut is to spend less than last year. We are not. We are still, after these reductions, spending more than last year.
I am a very proud conservative. Not a part of either party or the tea party movement. Just a older guy that believes the constitution is the best thing written by man since the magna carta and still to this day not topped. I also believe Jefferson had it correct when he wrote about what a danger a central bank would be. I also believe our founding fathers had it right when they warned us not to get involved in europes problems. I think this will describe to you whi I am. Not to forget, I think Ron Paul is a nut.
The problem we have about our spending and sequestration is just very simple. Both parties, the president and both houses of congress put this into law because the entire bunch are gutless. They also played games with our country for political games. Both parties are to blame for our financial mess. It simply has got to start to be fixed. We must start a SLOW reduction in the size of government. My opinion is to cut its size by 50% over the next 40 years. Now, if you take a good look at the accross the board reductions, how the law was wrote, he was offered a way to do the reductions without any furloughs. He declined. He did not want his name put to any of it. Both houses & both parties could have fixed this many months ago, but they all are only just worried about their political future.
The entire budget must be on the table for reforms. The idea to fix this as long as the other guy takes the hit is just stupid. The idea to just tax the wealthy will fix it,is someplace beyond silly. At the rate we are spending, we could tax the wealthy at 100% and we would have enough money to say the budget is balanced for about 60 days with luck. Then what?
Will some loss their jobs, yes. I suggest you direct your anger not towards me, but rather the fools in D.C. that have caused this mess. Oh, please remember, anytime you wish, you can write a check to the treasury as a gift to help more. They will cash it and use it.