SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: 60 Border Agents get pink slip< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3866
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 8:12 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
(CNN) -- The U.S. government on Thursday notified 60,000 federal workers responsible for securing borders and facilitating trade that they will face furloughs due to government-wide spending cuts.
Customs and Border Protection said it expects furloughs and other austerity will cause delays at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports, and reduce the number of border patrol officers on duty at any one time.
David Aguilar, the agency's deputy commissioner, said it must cut about $754 million by September 30, the end of the fiscal year.

http://www.cnn.com/2013....t=hp_t3

Way to play to that tea party base GOP.  How's that working for ya?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9841
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 8:34 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ha! There is no other way to cut $754 from their operating expenses than cutting hours for EVERY employee? Riiight. Gotta maximize the damage for the dramatic effect, though.

Here'a a good article regarding how different agencies might handle the furloughs:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013....at.html


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Buggyboo Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 1153
Joined: Feb. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 8:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"Even with these cuts though, individuals apprehended illegally crossing the southwest border will still be processed as usual," she said.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

The pig will always squeal when it cant eat all the slop it wants and has to eat normally again.

Looks like the shark is belly up;

http://online.wsj.com/article....op_read


--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

Charlton Heston
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
dnlskier Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1187
Joined: Jun. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 9:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

But hey - we sent 200+ million to Egpyt (NYT Article) & 60+ million to Syria (NYT article)  

Highgravty - keep American jobs or send it overseas?  or just blame each others party even though were all in this together -  I love partisan folks!
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 9:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Why did they release all those illegals ???

I doubt that our borders will suddenly fall apart....they are probably overdue for a review of their expenses. When you pour this kind of money at a group they tend to get wasteful. By all reports, the (illegal) migration has all but reversed, so I imagine we can tighten our belts a bit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....of-them


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8237
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 10:34 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Mar. 08 2013, 5:55 am)
QUOTE
"Even with these cuts though, individuals apprehended illegally crossing the southwest border will still be processed as usual," she said.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Well of course they'll be processed as usual, how else would they processed?  There will just be fewer to process, that's all.

When you say "win-win"...it would be for guy trying to sneak across the border, not for citizens concerned with curbing illegal immigration.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42808
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 11:30 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They'll (the 60 unemployed Border agents)* be joined by about 20,000 (formerly) NIH funded medical researchers.

That's knowledge never to be regained. Lost knowledge, lost people. Unfortunate and unnecessary as I see it.

Interesting comparison this morning: since 2011 the United States, NOT going nutso with austerity (up to this point), has GAINED jobs, while the Eurozone, going the fullbore austerity wet dream of the Tea Partiers: has LOST jobs.

* ETA: clarity.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Buggyboo Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 1153
Joined: Feb. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 11:38 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 10:34 am)
QUOTE
When you say "win-win"...it would be for guy trying to sneak across the border, not for citizens concerned with curbing illegal immigration.


"Even with these cuts though, individuals apprehended illegally crossing the southwest border will still be processed as usual," she said.

Those are not my words, those are the words of the spokeswoman.

Second, no where in that article does it say "it would be for guy trying to sneak across the border, not for citizens concerned with curbing illegal immigration".

If you can cite a credible source for that statement, I would be most interested in reading that.

Till then it's unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture with all due respect.


--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

Charlton Heston
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9841
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 11:48 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 11:30 am)
QUOTE
They'll be joined by about 20,000 (formerly) NIH funded medical researchers.

That's knowledge never to be regained. Lost knowledge, lost people. Unfortunate and unnecessary as I see it.

Interesting comaprison this morning: since 2011 the United States, NOT going nutso with austerity (up to this point), has GAINED jobs, while the Eurozone, going the fullbore austerity wet dream of the Tea Partiers: has LOST jobs.

Nevermind... I mis-read your post.


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8237
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 11:57 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Mar. 08 2013, 8:38 am)
QUOTE

(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 10:34 am)
QUOTE
When you say "win-win"...it would be for guy trying to sneak across the border, not for citizens concerned with curbing illegal immigration.


"Even with these cuts though, individuals apprehended illegally crossing the southwest border will still be processed as usual," she said.

Those are not my words, those are the words of the spokeswoman.

Second, no where in that article does it say "it would be for guy trying to sneak across the border, not for citizens concerned with curbing illegal immigration".

If you can cite a credible source for that statement, I would be most interested in reading that.

Till then it's unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture with all due respect.

"Processed as usual" does not speak to numbers, it only speaks to process.  Using your logic we could eliminate all but one Border Patrol agent as long as he/she could still "process as usual".

Do you really not see the correlation between the number of agents on the ground and the number of illegal immigrants apprehended?  How they are "processed" has absolutely nothing to do with how many are apprehended.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25454
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 12:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I see this as a form of blackmailing our government.

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42808
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 12:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"Blackmail"?

I disagree: either I have the funds to pay people or I don't, employees won't take an IOU and neither will their landlords, banks or local grocery store. When federal dollars available to be spent are reduced as they have been with the sequester: people formerly paid with that money have to be let go.

Now the one instance I could see where that wouldn't automatically have to happen would be if the verysame budget line contained BOTH the agents being fired and some ego construction project of a new fashion statement building up in D.C.

But I'm not aware of such and such is the idiocy of sequestration that odds are even if there IS a fancy building project it would be in some OTHER budget line that is separately being cut.... just like Interior cannot move money between national parks: they each will take the equivalent hit without regard to any priorities of need of public service. Same with medical research: no judgement involved: just an axe.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9841
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 12:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 12:23 pm)
QUOTE
Now the one instance I could see where that wouldn't automatically have to happen would be if the verysame budget line contained BOTH the agents being fired and some ego construction project of a new fashion statement building up in D.C.

From what I've seen, a vast majority of employees will be temporarily furloughed, not fired (i.e. - transferring payroll from the agency budget to unemployment payments... so the taxpayers will still be paying in form or the other).

QUOTE
odds are even if there IS a fancy building project it would be in some OTHER budget line that is separately being cut....

Yes, typically "operations" and "facilities" operate on different budget lines, and it (literally) takes an act of Congress to transfer one to the other.


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Buggyboo Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 1153
Joined: Feb. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 12:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 11:57 am)
QUOTE
"Processed as usual" does not speak to numbers, it only speaks to process.  Using your logic we could eliminate all but one Border Patrol agent as long as he/she could still "process as usual".

Again, none of my words here.

Your injecting speculation and attempting to demonstrate there will be an issue with "processing" illegals.

The spokeswomen made no mention of that at all!

While it is a possibility that may be a reality, the department that does the processing indicated opposite to your conjecture based on opinion.


--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

Charlton Heston
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25454
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 12:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:23 am)
QUOTE
"Blackmail"?

I disagree: either I have the funds to pay people or I don't, employees won't take an IOU and neither will their landlords, banks or local grocery store. When federal dollars available to be spent are reduced as they have been with the sequester: people formerly paid with that money have to be let go.

Now the one instance I could see where that wouldn't automatically have to happen would be if the verysame budget line contained BOTH the agents being fired and some ego construction project of a new fashion statement building up in D.C.

But I'm not aware of such and such is the idiocy of sequestration that odds are even if there IS a fancy building project it would be in some OTHER budget line that is separately being cut.... just like Interior cannot move money between national parks: they each will take the equivalent hit without regard to any priorities of need of public service. Same with medical research: no judgement involved: just an axe.

You answered your own question there.

The first part of your post above reads like there is no government waste -- that the agency has just enough money to pay their people -- and nothing more that can be cut.  I doubt any of us here would believe that for a second.

But you hit it on with the second part.  Yeah, there are likely perks and projects and consulting fees and myriad of other whatnot's that can be trimmed -- or eliminated.

Methinks the government needs to force its numerous agency and dept heads to higher efficiency standards.  I am not convinced that our government agencies are at their tip top efficiency already...


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8237
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 12:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:38 am)
QUOTE

(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 11:57 am)
QUOTE
"Processed as usual" does not speak to numbers, it only speaks to process.  Using your logic we could eliminate all but one Border Patrol agent as long as he/she could still "process as usual".

Again, none of my words here.

Your injecting speculation and attempting to demonstrate there will be an issue with "processing" illegals.

The spokeswomen made no mention of that at all!

While it is a possibility that may be a reality, the department that does the processing indicated opposite to your conjecture based on opinion.

I've had enough experiences working alongside LEO to understand the term "processing" as it relates to law enforcement.

Apprehension and processing are apples and oranges.

And I never attempted to demonstrate "there will be an issue with processing illegals".  I suggested that with fewer agents on the ground there will be fewer immigrants to actually "process".  Yet the process itself will remain unchanged, thereby the statement: "processed as usual".  Are you unable to see through the veil of such statements made by an agency spokesperson?  

Who do you think actually apprehends the immigrants and brings in for processing?  Agents in the field perhaps?  With fewer agents in the field there will be fewer people doing the apprehending, hence fewer immigrants being processed.

Again, at the end of the day, this is a boon for the guy looking to sneak across the border.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42808
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 12:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:39 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:23 am)
QUOTE
"Blackmail"?

I disagree: either I have the funds to pay people or I don't, employees won't take an IOU and neither will their landlords, banks or local grocery store. When federal dollars available to be spent are reduced as they have been with the sequester: people formerly paid with that money have to be let go.

Now the one instance I could see where that wouldn't automatically have to happen would be if the verysame budget line contained BOTH the agents being fired and some ego construction project of a new fashion statement building up in D.C.

But I'm not aware of such and such is the idiocy of sequestration that odds are even if there IS a fancy building project it would be in some OTHER budget line that is separately being cut.... just like Interior cannot move money between national parks: they each will take the equivalent hit without regard to any priorities of need of public service. Same with medical research: no judgement involved: just an axe.

You answered your own question there.

The first part of your post above reads like there is no government waste -- that the agency has just enough money to pay their people -- and nothing more that can be cut.  I doubt any of us here would believe that for a second.

But you hit it on with the second part.  Yeah, there are likely perks and projects and consulting fees and myriad of other whatnot's that can be trimmed -- or eliminated.

Methinks the government needs to force its numerous agency and dept heads to higher efficiency standards.  I am not convinced that our government agencies are at their tip top efficiency already...

"trimed or eliminated"?

You don't understand the sequestration law do you? Dollar cuts cannot be transferred from one part of a budget to another. That's precisely what makes the cuts so idiotic and why everyone originally assumed that NO ONE would let them hit. That lack of maneuvering ability is almost worse than the doubling of this year's percentage hit since the full fiscal year dollar target has to be deleted in only half the time. So the NIH reduction goes from %5.1 to over %10...

and all this with Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, exempting far over %50 of the enire budget from any reductions whatsoever.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25454
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 1:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:57 am)
QUOTE
You don't understand the sequestration law do you? Dollar cuts cannot be transferred from one part of a budget to another. That's precisely what makes the cuts so idiotic and why everyone originally assumed that NO ONE would let them hit. That lack of maneuvering ability is almost worse than the doubling of this year's percentage hit since the full fiscal year dollar target has to be deleted in only half the time. So the NIH reduction goes from %5.1 to over %10...

and all this with Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, exempting far over %50 of the enire budget from any reductions whatsoever.

We are, of course, in agreement that Sequester is idiotic in the sense that its very existence is solely the result of Congress' inability to come to terms re. a new budget.

Having said that, my understanding is that Sequester affects only discretionary budgets (I'm sure it goes much deeper than that but we don't have any detail except for the loud shrills of heads rolling coming out from dept. heads).

I would not be surprised if discretionary spending covers more than just salary and benefits.  I am sure there is some maneuverability.  The sky likely won't fall on us.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8237
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 1:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 08 2013, 10:03 am)
QUOTE
I would not be surprised if discretionary spending covers more than just salary and benefits.  I am sure there is some maneuverability.  The sky likely won't fall on us.

Yet when the budget axe falls like it did, there is no room for the long-range planning that may address other areas of discretionary spending, much of which is mired in legal contracts with vendors, contractors, etc.  That aside, the biggest portion of most government budgets is people.  Cutting the budget means cutting people - which means reducing services.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25454
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 1:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 10:25 am)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 08 2013, 10:03 am)
QUOTE
I would not be surprised if discretionary spending covers more than just salary and benefits.  I am sure there is some maneuverability.  The sky likely won't fall on us.

Yet when the budget axe falls like it did, there is no room for the long-range planning that may address other areas of discretionary spending, much of which is mired in legal contracts with vendors, contractors, etc.  That aside, the biggest portion of most government budgets is people.  Cutting the budget means cutting people - which means reducing services.

You are absolutely correct -- and I've said as much about my ill feel toward Sequester.

But, you know, in a twisted sense... given our politicians' continued inability to make any kind of rational, cohesive long range budget planning... and the long-festering problem with budget deficits that spans decades (with just a few spotty exceptions) -- maybe it's the best we have!  Better than potentially becoming the next Greece -- when (heaven forbid) China and the IMF wield the budget axe...  If that time should come, you think they would be sensitive to our long range planning needs?

I know this sounds cavalier, but if we have in fact been living well beyond our means -- then yes, some services (and jobs) may have to be curtailed / eliminated.  To think otherwise would be to live in a fantasy world where money on trees will just keep growing back.

Having said all this, I DO NOT believe Sequester will keep happening.  We are in Phase I and there may be another phase or two... but eventually, when the pain becomes too much, we voters will finally howl and threaten our politicians enough to finally do their job.

Right now, voters are still sitting in relative comfort and immersed in partisan debates just as much as the politicians themselves.  Right now, there's still a lot of posturing -- including blackmailing.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42808
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 1:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:31 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 12:23 pm)
QUOTE
Now the one instance I could see where that wouldn't automatically have to happen would be if the verysame budget line contained BOTH the agents being fired and some ego construction project of a new fashion statement building up in D.C.

From what I've seen, a vast majority of employees will be temporarily furloughed, not fired (i.e. - transferring payroll from the agency budget to unemployment payments... so the taxpayers will still be paying in form or the other).

QUOTE
odds are even if there IS a fancy building project it would be in some OTHER budget line that is separately being cut....

Yes, typically "operations" and "facilities" operate on different budget lines, and it (literally) takes an act of Congress to transfer one to the other.

Yes and given the magnitude of the estimated cut:
"Customs and Border Protection
024-58-0530 Customs and Border Protection
Nondefense Function Discretionary Sequestrable BA 8,682 8.2 712 Exempt BA 1,511 Total gross BA 10,193 Offsets -1,511 Net BA 8,682
Mandatory Sequestrable BA 1,464 7.6 111 Total gross BA 1,464
024-58-0531 Automation Modernization, Customs and Border Protection Nondefense Function Discretionary Sequestrable BA 329 8.2 27 Total gross BA 329
024-58-0532 Construction, Customs and Border Protection Nondefense Function Discretionary Sequestrable BA 237 8.2 19 Total gross BA 237

for a total of budget authorituy reduction outside construction and data automation ($46 million reduction) of $823 million those 60 people are NOT where the vast bulk of the reductions are coming from.

Page 89:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites....ort.pdf
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Buggyboo Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 1153
Joined: Feb. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 2:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 12:55 pm)
QUOTE
Again, at the end of the day, this is a boon for the guy looking to sneak across the border.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I see no factual statements that ties in to your assertion that  "this is a boon for the guy looking to sneak across the border", other than opinion, because of agency-wide furloughs, a hiring freeze, and reducing or eliminating overtime, compensatory time, travel and training.
I'm quite sure if that was the case, it would be front and center and screamed from the rafters to bolster the administrations fear based propaganda.


--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

Charlton Heston
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25454
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 2:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Mar. 08 2013, 11:46 am)
QUOTE

(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 12:55 pm)
QUOTE
Again, at the end of the day, this is a boon for the guy looking to sneak across the border.

I think we will have to agree to disagree...

My hunch -- while border guards obviously make a difference -- the biggest determinant of illegal immigration is the state of our economy!

When times are good -- the magnet of American businesses hiring illegals by the millions is far, far more powerful than any bureaucratic attempts at stopping them.

And when times are bad -- many of the illegals who struggled so hard to come over -- they actually go back home on their own!

But hbfa has a point there.  The combination of Sequester and now a recovering economy will likely mean more illegals.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 3:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 12:23 pm)
QUOTE
"Blackmail"?

I disagree: either I have the funds to pay people or I don't, employees won't take an IOU and neither will their landlords, banks or local grocery store. When federal dollars available to be spent are reduced as they have been with the sequester: people formerly paid with that money have to be let go.

Now the one instance I could see where that wouldn't automatically have to happen would be if the verysame budget line contained BOTH the agents being fired and some ego construction project of a new fashion statement building up in D.C.

But I'm not aware of such and such is the idiocy of sequestration that odds are even if there IS a fancy building project it would be in some OTHER budget line that is separately being cut.... just like Interior cannot move money between national parks: they each will take the equivalent hit without regard to any priorities of need of public service. Same with medical research: no judgement involved: just an axe.

Surely no govt agency would continue to waste $$$ with the sequestration looming

http://www.foxnews.com/politic....-across

The MARINES will find it ahrder to trim the fat


"The recently unionized TSA officers are now sporting uniforms with an annual price tag that surpasses a lifetime clothing allowance for a U.S. Marine lieutenant"



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news....rs.html


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9841
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 3:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 1:41 pm)
QUOTE
those 60 people are NOT where the vast bulk of the reductions are coming from.

For clarity... the article referenced in the OP states 60,000 agents to be furloughed, but you and the topic title state 60 agents are getting fired/pink slips.

Am I missing something?


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42808
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 3:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Mar. 08 2013, 12:38 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 1:41 pm)
QUOTE
those 60 people are NOT where the vast bulk of the reductions are coming from.

For clarity... the article referenced in the OP states 60,000 agents to be furloughed, but you and the topic title state 60 agents are getting fired/pink slips.

Am I missing something?

Correct:
"- The U.S. government on Thursday notified 60,000 federal workers responsible for securing borders and facilitating trade that they will face furloughs due to government-wide spending cuts...."

Missed that in the OP and relied on the title. Which is wrong.

Furloughs are NOT "pink slips" it's a way, as a matter of fact, of avoiding having to fire anyone by distributing the payrtoll loss across all the employees (which is what I expect the 60,000 numbers represents, the entire Border agency payroll).

In that vein is someone who is just reduced in hours by being furloughed a day or two per pay period even eligible for "unemployment"? I tend to doubt it as they ARE still employed, just with a reduced income. BUT frankly, as with any of this budget shenannigans, even were they eligible that would be off someone elses budget and so the department administrators would still see little choice given their budget deduction tagets.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9841
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 4:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 3:48 pm)
QUOTE
In that vein is someone who is just reduced in hours by being furloughed a day or two per pay period even eligible for "unemployment"?

A couple years ago they had a "workshare" program that allowed collection of unemployment benefits for people who had reduced hours as a way to avoid firings/lay-offs. Not sure if that program is still in effect.


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42808
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 4:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Mar. 08 2013, 1:04 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 08 2013, 3:48 pm)
QUOTE
In that vein is someone who is just reduced in hours by being furloughed a day or two per pay period even eligible for "unemployment"?

A couple years ago they had a "workshare" program that allowed collection of unemployment benefits for people who had reduced hours as a way to avoid firings/lay-offs. Not sure if that program is still in effect.

I've seen that for sick leave for an employee who had a catestophic issue that required a huge out of work period.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8237
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 08 2013, 4:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Mar. 08 2013, 11:46 am)
QUOTE

(hbfa @ Mar. 08 2013, 12:55 pm)
QUOTE
Again, at the end of the day, this is a boon for the guy looking to sneak across the border.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.
I believe that it's the actual agents in the field that deter and apprehend illegal immigrants along our border.  
You and obviously believe otherwise.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5107
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 09 2013, 9:12 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

What this all illustrates quite well is how unprepared these govt agencies are for anything other than steady annual increases in their budgets.

I think across the board cuts should be the norm for the next several years

And any department head that cannot find any fat in their budget should get canned...which will be a shame since without that skill they will never make it in the private sector.

We should also look at privatizing as many operations as possible....like Canada did with their air traffic control back in the 90's


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
32 replies since Mar. 08 2013, 8:12 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply 60 Border Agents get pink slip
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions