When President Obama signed the fiscal cliff deal in January, he hoped that the threat of automatic sequestration spending cuts would force Republicans to raise taxes. But now that sequestration has started and the federal government is functioning just fine at sequestration funding levels, Obama is looking to increase the spending pain. Enter the Federal Aviation Administration and the furloughing of on-duty air traffic controllers. After high winds and heavy traffic caused some minor East Coast airport delays Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., rushed to the Senate floor to score political points.It goes on to point out
Problem, not only does the FAA have enough money to pay all their scheduled on-duty air traffic controllers, even after the sequester they actually have more money then they requested for 2013.
Here are the facts: President Obama’s 2013 FAA Budget Request asked for just $15.172 billion. But Congress gave them an extra $1.1 billion for the Grants-in-Aid for Airports program, bringing their total 2013 funding to $16.668 billion. Then the sequester lopped off $669 million in FAA funding, leaving them with $15.999 billion.
Yeah they want to make it hurt. This is a purely political move that has nothing to do with sequester cuts. Ridiculous
If the FAA adjusted its budget, though, to the increased level, then it doesn’t matter if they still have more than they were initially planning to use. It’s like if my boss gives me a 10% raise, and I adjust my spending to my new salary—let’s say I buy a home or purchase a car or decide to send my kid to a better daycare—and then 6 months later, my boss says, “We’re going to cut your salary by 8%.” I might still be making more money than I was 6 months before, but if my expenses have changed because I expected that 10% increase to be permanent (or at least to last longer than 6 months), then I’m actually worse off.