Federal Agencies Hit By Budget Cuts Object to Budget Cuts

Shocker of the day: People who manage federal agencies aren't happy that the sequestration might reduce funding for federal agencies. As I noted earlier, The Washington Post looked into what might happen to various agency budgets and programs should the sequestration process actually kick in. Turns out that reducing planned spending might actually mean cutting out a program or two, and the folks who run those programs don't want that to happen. And neither do the private contractors and researchers who rely on public grants to fund their projects.

I'm sympathetic, actually: It's no fun at all to see your program discontinued or your job cut back, and of course everyone has arguments for why their program is valuable and shouldn't be cut. But that's part of what can happen when relying on taxpayers to pay the bills. Public funding inevitably means a politicized funding process, one that's subject to the shifting whims of Congress.

You can see that in the complaints the article notes about how agency managers have had to plan for sequestration: 

“Across the system millions of dollars were spent in shutdown procedures and gearing-back-up procedures,” said Joan Anzelmo, a park superintendent from Colorado who retired four months later.

This time around, a frustrated senior executive at the Department of Homeland Security said he and his staff have spent countless hours remaking budgets for every contingency.

“First we were told not to develop plans” for sequestration, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak frankly. “Then we spent seven days a week coming up with them and [the cuts] got postponed. Now we’re doing it all over with new targets. It’s taking away from what we need to get done.”

Office of Management and Budget spokesman Steven Posner declined to comment on the planning costs. But Jeffrey Zients, the OMB’s acting budget director, warned lawmakers last summer that any planning “would necessarily divert scarce resources” from other important missions and priorities, “to say nothing of the disruptive effects this exercise would have” on federal workers and contractors. 

If one of the biggest problems with the possibility of sequestration is that federal agencies might have to plan for how to deal with sequestration, then there's probably not that much to worry about. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    'm sympathetic, actually:

    I am not.

  • Tim||

    "It’s taking away from what we need to get done.”

    He has a point, but too bad.

  • crazyfingers||

    Honestly, the "Department of Homeland Security" being constrained by busy work sounds like a win to me.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That's what they get for becoming accustomed to the extra little budget-padding projects they started.

  • Tim||

    Let's see what we should cut...hmmm.
    OK we can cut out training week in Las Vegas or we can take away all the trash cans in Yosemite. Maybe remove the picnic tables too.

  • DJF||

    Don’t forget to close the Washington Monument and the Statue of Liberty, those are the first two on the list of what must be cut so that people will complain.

  • GILMORE||

    You can see that in the complaints the article notes about how agency managers have had to plan for sequestration:

    “Across the system millions of dollars were spent in shutdown procedures and gearing-back-up procedures,” said Joan Anzelmo, a park superintendent from Colorado who retired four months later on an inflated pension fund which provided a guaranteed rate of return far out of sync of that of the private sector, backstopped by taxes"


    Government = where even trying to *save money* costs a shitload!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But Jeffrey Zients, the OMB’s acting budget director, warned lawmakers last summer that any planning “would necessarily divert scarce resources”

    You know what? I'll bet those "administrators" ROUTINELY run budget scenarios based on altrnative political outcomes. Those resources are just not scarce enough.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This time around, a frustrated senior executive at the Department of Homeland Security said he and his staff have spent countless hours remaking budgets for every contingency.

    Oh, no.

    They're running out of crayons!

  • buybuydandavis||

    ###
    “First we were told not to develop plans” for sequestration, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak frankly. “Then we spent seven days a week coming up with them and [the cuts] got postponed. Now we’re doing it all over with new targets. It’s taking away from what we need to get done.”
    ###

    Government agencies discover what the private sector has always known - uncertainty over government action costs money.

  • Disgusted Dem||

    I wish I had taken some economic courses back in my college days so that I could better understand the debate amongst the different schools of macro economic thought. But even without such a background, the resistance to spending cuts is sufficient reason for me to be opposed to the fiscal policy recommendations of the Keynesians and the MMT'ers.

  • iggy||

    Modern Keynesians aren't real Keynesians.

    Keynes argued that taxes could be too high and that this would have a deadening effect on the economy. He argued that we should run surpluses in good times in order to fund deficit spending in bad times. Good luck getting a modern 'Keynesian' to concede either of those two points.

  • DJF||

    How about if we cut some military construction projects. Do we really need to be building new elementary and high schools in Germany, Japan, Korea worth hundreds of millions of dollars? How about instead we close those bases and let those countries defend themselves?

    http://comptroller.defense.gov.....isting.pdf

  • waaminn||

    Throw them hands up in the air dude.

    www.ImaAnon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement