0

How The Sequester Can Effect Idaho

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

 

How will the Sequester effect Idaho?  Here’s the report from the White House.

 

THE WHITE HOUSE

Impact of March 1st Cuts on Mid­dle Class Fam­i­lies, Jobs and Eco­nomic Secu­rity: Idaho

Unless Con­gress acts by March 1st, a series of auto­matic cuts—called the sequester—will take effect that threaten hun­dreds of thou­sands of mid­dle class jobs, and cut vital ser­vices for chil­dren, seniors, peo­ple with men­tal ill­ness and our men and women in uniform.

There is no ques­tion that we need to cut the deficit, but the Pres­i­dent believes it should be done in a bal­anced way that pro­tects invest­ments that the mid­dle class relies on. Already, the Pres­i­dent has worked with Con­gress to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 tril­lion, but there’s more to do. The Pres­i­dent has put for­ward a bal­anced plan to not only avoid the harm­ful effects of the sequester but also to reduce the deficit by more than $4 tril­lion in total. The President’s plan meets Repub­li­cans more than halfway and includes twice as many spend­ing cuts as it does tax rev­enue from the wealthy.

Unfor­tu­nately, many Repub­li­cans in Con­gress refuse to ask the wealthy to pay a lit­tle more by clos­ing tax loop­holes so that we can pro­tect invest­ments that are help­ing grow our econ­omy and keep our coun­try safe. By not ask­ing the wealthy to pay a lit­tle more, Repub­li­cans are forc­ing our chil­dren, seniors, troops, mil­i­tary fam­i­lies and the entire mid­dle class to bear the bur­den of deficit reduc­tion. The Pres­i­dent is deter­mined to cut spend­ing and reduce the deficit in a bal­anced way, but he won’t stick the mid­dle class with the bill. The Pres­i­dent is will­ing to com­pro­mise, but on behalf the mid­dle class he can­not accept a deal that under­cuts their eco­nomic security.

Our econ­omy is con­tin­u­ing to strengthen but we can­not afford a self-inflicted wound from Wash­ing­ton. Repub­li­cans should com­pro­mise and meet the Pres­i­dent in the mid­dle. We can­not sim­ply cut our way to pros­per­ity, and if Repub­li­cans con­tinue to insist on an unrea­son­able, cuts-only approach, Idaho risks pay­ing the price.

IDAHO IMPACTS

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

  • Teach­ers and Schools: Idaho will lose approx­i­mately $3.7 mil­lion in fund­ing for pri­mary and sec­ondary edu­ca­tion, putting around 50 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addi­tion about 5,000 fewer stu­dents would be served and approx­i­mately 30 fewer schools would receive funding.
  • Edu­ca­tion for Chil­dren with Dis­abil­i­ties: In addi­tion, Idaho will lose approx­i­mately $2.9 mil­lion in funds for about 30 teach­ers, aides, and staff who help chil­dren with disabilities.
  • Work-Study Jobs: Around 170 fewer low income stu­dents in Idaho would receive aid to help them finance the costs of col­lege and around 40 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 200 chil­dren in Idaho, reduc­ing access to crit­i­cal early edu­ca­tion. 2
  • Pro­tec­tions for Clean Air and Clean Water: Idaho would lose about $1.2 mil­lion in envi­ron­men­tal fund­ing to ensure clean water and air qual­ity, as well as pre­vent pol­lu­tion from pes­ti­cides and haz­ardous waste. In addi­tion, Idaho could lose another $857,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.
  • Mil­i­tary Readi­ness: In Idaho, approx­i­mately 2,000 civil­ian Depart­ment of Defense employ­ees would be fur­loughed, reduc­ing gross pay by around $6.8 mil­lion in total.
  • Army: Base oper­a­tion fund­ing would be cut by about $1.7 mil­lion in Idaho.
  • Air Force: Fund­ing for Air Force oper­a­tions in Idaho would be cut by about $1 million.
  • Law Enforce­ment and Pub­lic Safety Funds for Crime Pre­ven­tion and Pros­e­cu­tion: Idaho will lose about $82,000 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 Idaho find Employ­ment and Train­ing: Idaho will lose about $280,000 in fund­ing for job search assis­tance, refer­ral, and place­ment, mean­ing around 10,490 fewer peo­ple will get the help and skills they need to find employment.
  • Child Care: Up to 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 Idaho around 890 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 $61,000.
  • Pub­lic Health: Idaho will lose approx­i­mately $150,000 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, Idaho will lose about $340,000 in grants to help pre­vent and treat sub­stance abuse, result­ing in around 400 fewer admis­sions to sub­stance abuse pro­grams. And the Idaho Depart­ment of Health & Wel­fare will lose about $41,000 result­ing in around 1,000 fewer HIV tests.
  • STOP Vio­lence Against Women Pro­gram: Idaho could lose up to $33,000 in funds that pro­vide ser­vices to vic­tims of domes­tic vio­lence, result­ing in up to 100 fewer vic­tims being served.
  • Nutri­tion Assis­tance for Seniors: Idaho would lose approx­i­mately $202,000 in funds that pro­vide meals for seniors.  

NATIONWIDE IMPACTS

  • The Office of Man­age­ment and Bud­get (OMB) now cal­cu­lates that seques­tra­tion will require an annual reduc­tion of roughly 5 per­cent for non­de­fense pro­grams and roughly 8 per­cent for defense programs.
  • How­ever, given that these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effec­tive per­cent­age reduc­tions will be approx­i­mately 9 per­cent for non­de­fense pro­grams and 13 per­cent for defense pro­grams. These large and arbi­trary cuts will have severe impacts across the government.
  • Cuts to edu­ca­tion: Our abil­ity to teach our kids the skills they’ll need for the jobs of the future would be put at risk. 70,000 young chil­dren would lose access to Head Start, 10,000 teacher jobs would be put at risk, and fund­ing for up to 7,200 spe­cial edu­ca­tion teach­ers, aides, and staff could be cut.
  • Cuts to small busi­ness: Small busi­nesses cre­ate two-thirds of all new jobs in Amer­ica. Instead of help­ing small busi­nesses expand and hire, the auto­matic cuts would reduce loan guar­an­tees to small busi­nesses by up to approx­i­mately $900 million.
  • Cuts to food safety: Out­breaks of food­borne ill­ness are a seri­ous threat to fam­i­lies and pub­lic health. If seques­tra­tion takes effect, up to 2,100 fewer food inspec­tions could occur, putting fam­i­lies at risk and cost­ing bil­lions in lost food production.
  • Cuts to research and inno­va­tion: To com­pete for the jobs of the future and ensure that the next break­throughs to find cures for crit­i­cal dis­eases are devel­oped right here in Amer­ica, we need to con­tinue to lead the world in research and inno­va­tion. Most Amer­i­cans with chronic dis­eases don’t have a day to lose, but under seques­tra­tion progress towards cures would be delayed and sev­eral thou­sand researchers could lose their jobs. Up to 12,000 sci­en­tists and stu­dents would also be impacted.
  • Cuts to men­tal health: If seques­tra­tion takes effect, up to 373,000 seri­ously men­tally ill adults and seri­ously emo­tion­ally dis­turbed chil­dren could go untreated. This would likely lead to increased hos­pi­tal­iza­tions, involve­ment in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, and home­less­ness for these individuals.
  • Secu­rity and Safety — FBI and other law enforce­ment – The FBI and other law enforce­ment enti­ties would see a reduc­tion in capac­ity equiv­a­lent to more than 1,000 Fed­eral agents. This loss of agents would sig­nif­i­cantly impact our abil­ity to com­bat vio­lent crime, pur­sue finan­cial crimes, secure our bor­ders, and pro­tect national security.
  • Cus­toms and bor­der patrol – U.S. Cus­toms and Bor­der Pro­tec­tion (CBP) would not be able to main­tain cur­rent staffing lev­els of bor­der patrol agents and CBP offi­cers as man­dated by Con­gress. CBP would have to reduce its work hours by the equiv­a­lent of over 5,000 bor­der patrol agents and the equiv­a­lent of over 2,750 CBP offi­cers. Fund­ing and staffing reduc­tions would increase wait times at air­ports, weaken secu­rity between land ports of entry, limit CBP’s abil­ity to col­lect 4 rev­enue owed to the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment, and slow screen­ing and entry for those trav­el­ing into the United States. At the major gate­way air­ports, aver­age wait times could increase by 30–50 percent.
  • At the nation’s busiest air­ports, like Newark, JFK, LAX, and Chicago O’Hare, peak wait times could grow to over 4 hours or more. On the south­west land bor­der, our biggest ports of entry in Cal­i­for­nia and Texas could face wait times of 5 hours or more dur­ing peak hol­i­day week­ends and travel peri­ods. And at our sea­ports, delays in con­tainer exam­i­na­tions could increase from 2–3 days to 4–5 days, result­ing in con­ges­tion at ter­mi­nals, increased trans­ac­tion costs to the trade com­mu­nity, and reduced avail­abil­ity of con­sumer goods and raw mate­ri­als crit­i­cal to our economy.
  • Avi­a­tion safety – The Fed­eral Avi­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion (FAA) would be forced to undergo a fund­ing cut of more than $600 mil­lion. This action would force the FAA to undergo an imme­di­ate retrench­ment of core func­tions by reduc­ing oper­at­ing costs and elim­i­nat­ing or reduc­ing ser­vices to var­i­ous seg­ments of the fly­ing com­mu­nity. A vast major­ity of FAA’s nearly 47,000 employ­ees would be fur­loughed for approx­i­mately one day per pay period, with a max­i­mum of two days per pay period. The fur­lough of a large num­ber of air traf­fic con­trollers and tech­ni­cians would require a reduc­tion in air traf­fic to a level that could be safely man­aged by the remain­ing staff, result­ing in slower air traf­fic in major cities, as well as delays and dis­rup­tions across the coun­try dur­ing the crit­i­cal sum­mer travel season.
  • Avi­a­tion secu­rity – The Trans­porta­tion Secu­rity Admin­is­tra­tion (TSA) would reduce its front­line work­force, which would sub­stan­tially increase pas­sen­ger wait times at air­port secu­rity checkpoints.
  • TSA would need to ini­ti­ate a hir­ing freeze for all trans­porta­tion secu­rity offi­cer posi­tions in March, elim­i­nate over­time, and fur­lough its 50,000 offi­cers for up to seven days.
  • Emer­gency respon­ders – FEMA would need to reduce fund­ing for State and local grants that sup­port fire­fighter posi­tions and State and local emer­gency man­age­ment per­son­nel, ham­per­ing our abil­ity to respond to nat­ural dis­as­ters like Hur­ri­cane Sandy and other emergencies.
  • Research and Innovation
  • NIH research – The National Insti­tutes of Health (NIH) would be forced to delay or halt vital sci­en­tific projects and make hun­dreds of fewer research awards. Since each research award sup­ports up to seven research posi­tions, sev­eral thou­sand per­son­nel could lose their jobs. Many projects would be dif­fi­cult to pur­sue at reduced lev­els and would need to be can­celled, putting prior year invest­ments at risk. These cuts would delay progress on the pre­ven­tion of debil­i­tat­ing chronic con­di­tions that are costly to soci­ety and delay devel­op­ment of more effec­tive treat­ments for com­mon and rare dis­eases affect­ing mil­lions of Americans.
  • NSF research – The National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion (NSF) would issue nearly 1,000 fewer research grants and awards, impact­ing an esti­mated 12,000 sci­en­tists and stu­dents and cur­tail­ing crit­i­cal sci­en­tific research.
  • New drug approvals – The FDA’s Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Research (CDER) would face delays in trans­lat­ing new sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy into reg­u­la­tory pol­icy and decision-making, result­ing in delays in new drug approvals. The FDA would likely also need to reduce oper­a­tional sup­port for meet­ing review per­for­mance goals, such as the recently nego­ti­ated user fee goals on new inno­v­a­tive pre­scrip­tion drugs and med­ical devices.5
  • Eco­nomic Growth — Small busi­ness assis­tance – Small Busi­ness Admin­is­tra­tion (SBA) loan guar­an­tees would be cut by up to approx­i­mately $900 mil­lion, con­strain­ing financ­ing needed by small busi­nesses to main­tain and expand their oper­a­tions and cre­ate jobs.
  • Eco­nomic devel­op­ment – The Eco­nomic Devel­op­ment Administration’s (EDA) abil­ity to lever­age pri­vate sec­tor resources to sup­port projects that spur local job cre­ation would be restricted, likely result­ing in more than 1,000 fewer jobs cre­ated than expected and leav­ing approx­i­mately $50 mil­lion in pri­vate sec­tor invest­ment untapped.
  • Oil and gas per­mit­ting — Devel­op­ment of oil and gas on Fed­eral lands and waters would slow down, due to cuts in pro­grams at the Depart­ment of the Inte­rior (DOI) and other agen­cies that plan for new projects, con­duct envi­ron­men­tal reviews, issue per­mits and inspect oper­a­tions. Leas­ing of new Fed­eral lands for future devel­op­ment would also be delayed, with fewer resources avail­able for agen­cies to pre­pare for and con­duct lease sales.
  • Food safety – The Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion (FDA) could con­duct 2,100 fewer inspec­tions at domes­tic and for­eign facil­i­ties that man­u­fac­ture food prod­ucts while USDA’s Food Safety and
  • Inspec­tion Ser­vice (FSIS) may have to fur­lough all employ­ees for approx­i­mately two weeks. These reduc­tions could increase the num­ber and sever­ity of safety inci­dents, and the pub­lic could suf­fer more food­borne ill­ness, such as the recent sal­mo­nella in peanut but­ter out­break and the E. coli ill­nesses linked to organic spinach, as well as cost the food and agri­cul­ture sec­tor mil­lions of dol­lars in lost pro­duc­tion volume.
  • Vet­er­ans ser­vices – Although the Depart­ment of Vet­er­ans Affairs is exempt from seques­tra­tion, the
  • Depart­ment of Labor’s Vet­er­ans Tran­si­tion Assis­tance Pro­gram, which serves over 150,000 vet­er­ans a year, would have to reduce oper­a­tions – leav­ing thou­sands of tran­si­tion­ing vet­er­ans unserved as they move from active duty to civil­ian life. The Jobs for Vet­er­ansState Grants
  • Pro­gram would also expe­ri­ence cuts, trans­lat­ing into a reduc­tion in the capac­ity to serve tens of thou­sands of vet­er­ans in their efforts to find civil­ian employment.
  • National parks – Many of the 398 national parks across the coun­try would be par­tially or fully closed, with short­ened oper­at­ing hours, closed facil­i­ties, reduced main­te­nance, and cuts to vis­i­tor ser­vices. These clo­sures will hurt the many small busi­nesses and regional economies that depend on nearby national parks to attract vis­i­tors to their region.
  • Edu­ca­tion — Title I edu­ca­tion funds – Title I edu­ca­tion funds would be elim­i­nated for more than 2,700 schools, cut­ting sup­port for nearly 1.2 mil­lion dis­ad­van­taged stu­dents. This fund­ing reduc­tion would put the jobs of approx­i­mately 10,000 teach­ers and aides at risk. Stu­dents would lose access to indi­vid­ual instruc­tion, after­school pro­grams, and other inter­ven­tions that help close achieve­ment gaps. 6
  • Spe­cial edu­ca­tion (IDEA) – Cuts to spe­cial edu­ca­tion fund­ing would elim­i­nate Fed­eral sup­port for
  • more than 7,200 teach­ers, aides, and other staff who pro­vide essen­tial instruc­tion and sup­port to
  • preschool and school-aged stu­dents with disabilities.
  • Head Start – Head Start and Early Head Start ser­vices would be elim­i­nated for approx­i­mately 70,000 chil­dren, reduc­ing access to crit­i­cal early edu­ca­tion. Com­mu­nity and faith based orga­ni­za­tions, small busi­nesses, local gov­ern­ments, and school sys­tems would have to lay off over 14,000 teach­ers, teacher assis­tants, and other staff.
  • Eco­nomic Secu­rity — Social Secu­rity appli­cant and ben­e­fi­ciary ser­vices – The Social Secu­rity Admin­is­tra­tion (SSA) would be forced to cur­tail ser­vice to the pub­lic and reduce pro­gram over­sight efforts designed to make sure ben­e­fits are paid accu­rately and to the right peo­ple. Poten­tial effects on SSA oper­a­tions could include a reduc­tion in ser­vice hours to the pub­lic, and a sub­stan­tial growth in the back­log of  Social Secu­rity dis­abil­ity claims.
  • Senior meals – Federally-assisted pro­grams like Meals on Wheels would be able to serve 4 mil­lion fewer meals to seniors. These meals con­tribute to the over­all health and well-being of par­tic­i­pat­ing seniors, includ­ing those with chronic ill­nesses that are affected by diet, such as dia­betes and heart dis­ease, and frail seniors who are home­bound. The meals can account for 50 per­cent or more of daily food for the major­ity of participants.
  • Nutri­tion assis­tance for women, infants and chil­dren – Approx­i­mately 600,000 women and chil­dren would be dropped from the Depart­ment of Agriculture’s Spe­cial Sup­ple­men­tal Nutri­tion Pro­gram for Women, Infants, and Chil­dren (WIC) from March through Sep­tem­ber. At least 1,600
  • Child care– Cuts to the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices’ Child Care and Devel­op­ment  Fund would leave 30,000 low-income chil­dren with­out child care sub­si­dies, deny­ing them access to child devel­op­ment pro­grams and end­ing a cru­cial work sup­port for many fam­i­lies. Rental assis­tance – The Depart­ment of Hous­ing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Hous­ing Choice Voucher pro­gram, which pro­vides rental assis­tance to very low-income fam­i­lies, would face a sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tion in fund­ing, which would place about 125,000 fam­i­lies at imme­di­ate risk of los­ing their per­ma­nent hous­ing. Emer­gency unem­ploy­ment com­pen­sa­tion – Peo­ple receiv­ing Emer­gency Unem­ploy­ment Com­pen­sa­tion ben­e­fits would see their ben­e­fits cut by nearly 11 per­cent. Affected long-term unem­ployed indi­vid­u­als would lose an aver­age of more than $450 in ben­e­fits that they and their fam­i­lies count on while they search for another job. Smaller unem­ploy­ment checks will also have a neg­a­tive impact on the econ­omy as a whole. Econ­o­mists have esti­mated that every dol­lar in unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits gen­er­ates $2 in eco­nomic activ­ity. Home­less­ness pro­grams – More than 100,000 for­merly home­less peo­ple, includ­ing vet­er­ans, would be removed from their cur­rent hous­ing and emer­gency shel­ter pro­grams, putting them at risk of return­ing to the streets.
  • Men­tal health and sub­stance abuse ser­vices – Cuts to the Men­tal Health Block Grant pro­gram would result in over 373,000 seri­ously men­tally ill adults and seri­ously emo­tion­ally dis­turbed chil­dren not receiv­ing needed men­tal health ser­vices. This cut would likely lead to increased hos­pi­tal­iza­tions, involve­ment in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, and home­less­ness for these indi­vid­u­als. In addi­tion, close to 8,900 home­less per­sons with seri­ous men­tal ill­ness would not get the vital out­reach, treat­ment, hous­ing, and sup­port they need through the Projects for Assis­tance in Tran­si­tion from Home­less­ness (PATH) pro­gram. AIDS and HIV treat­ment and pre­ven­tion – Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assis­tance Pro­gram could result in 7,400 fewer patients hav­ing access to life sav­ing HIV med­ica­tions. And approx­i­mately 424,000 fewer HIV tests could be con­ducted by Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol (CDC) State grantees, which could result in increased future HIV trans­mis­sions, deaths from HIV, and costs in health care. Tribal ser­vices – The Indian Health Ser­vice and Tribal hos­pi­tals and clin­ics would be forced to pro­vide 3,000 fewer inpa­tient admis­sions and 804,000 fewer out­pa­tient vis­its, under­min­ing needed health care in Tribal communities.

 

 

Leave a reply