Massachusetts Would See More Than $91.6 Million in Cuts Under Sequester
Do you wonder what the "sequester" will mean for Massachusetts? A White House report gives examples of where federal aid would be cut.
- By Mark Maley and Karla Vallance
- Email the authors
- February 26, 2013
More than $91 million in federal funds cut from numerous programs in Massachusetts if Congress fails to act this week to avoid the sequester, the Obama Administration said Sunday.
In a move designed to pressure Republicans into accepting new taxes on the wealthy as part of a deal to prevent the sequester from taking effect Friday, the White House released reports that outlined how those cuts would impact individual states, The Huffington Post reported.
Here are some examples of what's on the local chopping block, according to the report:
- Military: Some 7,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing pay by around $43.4 million. Army base operation funding in the state would be cut by about $8 million, Air Force operations by about $5 million
- Teachers and Schools: Some $13.9 million in primary and secondary education funding would be cut, putting around 190 teacher and aide jobs at risk; about 20,000 fewer students would be served and some 60 fewer schools would get funding, according to the administration. Also, Massachusetts would lose some $13.4 million to pay for about 160 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities
- Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: About $4 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, and to prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. The Bay State could also lose another $472,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection
- Public Health: About $625,000 in funds to respond to infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological event threats. Also, $1.7 million for preventing and treating substance abuse, resulting in around 5,200 fewer admissions to programs. And about $367,000 in cuts that mean 9,200 fewer HIV tests
- Job Search Help: About $787,000 in funding, meaning 27,000 fewer people would get help finding work, according to the administration
- Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: About $535,000 for senior meal programs
- Vaccines for Children: Almost 3,000 fewer children would get measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B vaccinations to save about $201,000
- STOP Violence Against Women Program: Up to $140,000 for services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 500 fewer victims being served
- Child Care: Up to 500 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job. No estimate of funding cut size
- Head Start: Services would be eliminated for about 1,100 Massachusetts children. No estimate of funding cut size
After the reports were released, congressional Republicans criticized the Obama administration for the PR move, The Huffington Post reported.
“Rather than issuing last-minute press releases on cuts to first responders or troop training or airport security, he should propose smarter ways to cut Washington spending. After all, Washington spending, even with the sequester, is bigger than it was when he got here,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning disagreed with Republicans who blame the president for failing to lead.
This notion about not having leadership, this is about leadership. And, the President has shown that a balanced approach, which is about cuts and closing loopholes that enables us to invest in things and grow jobs, is more important and appropriate for us at this time.
Unless Congress intervenes, the law requires the Obama Administration to impose $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts to military and domestic programs on Friday, according to The New York Times. Those cuts would be the start of $1 trillion in cuts over the coming decade.
Steven Scott
6:55 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
got to start somewhere, it's going to hurt in the beginning but let's face it they need to cut the spending. Just like our household budgets.
Richard W. Lunt
11:39 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Let the sequester happen, Washington needs to cut spending and live within their means. How about cutting Obamacare in the process.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2013/02/26/gao-report-obamacare-will-add-62-trillion-to-longterm-deficit-n1520770
Tisiphone
7:35 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
As I understand it, the federal budget will be cut $85 Billion. As usual, we are "going to have to fire the police officers, firemen, paramedics, etc".
Last weekend the Boston Herald headline was that the federal government had paid out $140 Billion to people who were "unqualified, or undeserving".
That $140 Billion is about 50% more than we have to cut. Why don't we begin the cuts there and leave the policemen, firemen, teachers and paramedics alone? We'll still have $50 Billion left over to give to the "unqualified, or undeserving".
Tisiphone
8:05 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Just read, and verified, in a Howie Carr column that the National Park Service will have to cut a program in which 3,500 volunteers provided 40,000 work hours. Wait a minute, we are in trouble, so we are cutting volunteers?
At the first of the year,most everyone took a 2% tax increase, the governments attitude "it's nuthin, you can take it". Now the government is expected to take a 2% hit and it is a national catastrophe.
Ken Tenglin
8:10 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
We can start by getting rid of the department on Energy. The DOE was formed by the Carter administration (2nd worst President ever) to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. I think they failed. We can get rid of free cell phones, 2.2 billion dollars. We can stop Obamacare and the advertising expenses alone would save 51 million dollars. Washington needs to stop spending our money, they are crying like children about a small decrease when the reality is we need to do much more.
Tisiphone
11:55 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Get rid of the Department of energy. THink of all of the peopLe who will be hurt by the loss of those winterization loans! Why not the entire Department of Education? Name one educational statistic that has improved since that was invented 40 years ago.