How The Sequester Can Effect Idaho





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


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.  


  • 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