BUDGET

Furloughs Come to Main Street

Automatic spending cuts will affect federal workers wherever they live””even thousands of miles from Washington.

Nancy Cook
See more stories about...
Nancy Cook
Feb. 28, 2013, 3:10 p.m.

Wash­ing­ton is the cap­it­al of the fed­er­al work­force, so it’s un­der­stand­able that fur­lough fright is strongest here. What will hap­pen to the tide of com­muters cours­ing along K Street or Rock Creek Park­way every morn­ing? But for fed­er­al agen­cies, the se­quester is mani­fest des­tiny. The U.S. gov­ern­ment’s work­force is scattered across the coun­try, and the auto­mat­ic spend­ing re­duc­tions that be­gin Fri­day could af­fect em­ploy­ees all the way to New Mex­ico, Texas, and Alaska. Any pay cuts will ripple through the broad­er eco­nomy, cre­ate yet an­oth­er drag on growth, and hurt state and loc­al gov­ern­ment cof­fers.

Only 320,000 of roughly 2.1 mil­lion fed­er­al jobs — 15 per­cent — were loc­ated in the great­er Wash­ing­ton area as of Septem­ber 2012, ac­cord­ing to the Of­fice of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment. The oth­er 1.78 mil­lion re­port in large num­bers to jobs in Cali­for­nia, Flor­ida, New York, North Car­o­lina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. These men and wo­men work at mil­it­ary bases, at re­gion­al of­fices for So­cial Se­cur­ity and the Labor De­part­ment, as bor­der-patrol of­ficers, and at na­tion­al labs.

On av­er­age, the typ­ic­al fed­er­al work­er is 46 years old and earns $75,000 per year. The law says that work­ers can be asked to take up to 22 un­paid days off. Between now and the end of the fisc­al year on Sept. 30, that would mean a 20 per­cent pay cut per work­er, says Nigel Gault, chief U.S. eco­nom­ist for IHS Glob­al In­sight, a mac­roe­co­nom­ics fore­cast­ing firm. “That is enorm­ous for people,” he says. “They’ll have to cut back.” They’re like­li­est to tight­en the belt on en­ter­tain­ment, trans­port­a­tion, food, house­hold sup­plies, and oth­er types of con­sumer spend­ing.

Just ask 33-year-old Ry­an Gib­son about the im­min­ent threat. The of­ficer in the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment’s Cus­toms and Bor­der Pro­tec­tion unit is based in De­troit. His wife is a school­teach­er. They’re a middle-class fam­ily with two chil­dren, ages 8 and 5. In his spare time, he likes to see movies or catch a Ti­gers game, but he says fur­loughs will force him to change his spend­ing habits. He doesn’t look for­ward to the pro­spect of hav­ing to choose be­-tween an oc­ca­sion­al trip to the movie theat­er and the fee for his son’s hockey team. “I’m hold­ing out hope that we won’t have to deal with this,” Gib­son says in a tele­phone in­ter­view. “The only guid­ance we’re hear­ing is that we’re go­ing to have a have a 14-day fur­lough. It’s frus­trat­ing “… be­cause we don’t have any an­swers.”

The sense of un­cer­tainty is bad enough for fed­er­al em­ploy­ees across the coun­try, but their job cut­backs could also take a bite out of their loc­al eco­nom­ies. First, re­duced spend­ing on con­sumer goods would lower states’ and mu­ni­cip­al­it­ies’ in­come-tax and sales-tax rev­en­ues. “I pay De­troit city taxes out of my paycheck,” Gib­son says about his ho­met­own, where the un­em­ploy­ment rate was 11.4 per­cent in Decem­ber.

Second, se­quester cuts would re­duce fed­er­al spend­ing on con­tracts and salar­ies. Roughly 13.3 per­cent of the loc­al gross do­mest­ic product in Alaska, for in­stance, comes from fed­er­al pro­cure­ment and salar­ies, ac­cord­ing to an ana­lys­is by the Pew Cen­ter on the States. Oth­er state eco­nom­ies that de­pend on fed­er­al con­tracts and salar­ies for a sig­ni­fic­ant share of eco­nom­ic growth in­clude New Mex­ico (12.8 per­cent of the state’s GDP), Alabama (8.9 per­cent), and South Car­o­lina (7.4 per­cent). Over­all, states rely on fed­er­al grants for about one-third of their rev­en­ue, mean­ing that even a small fal­loff can have big re­ver­ber­a­tions.

“The fact that fed­er­al gov­ern­ment activ­ity plays a large eco­nom­ic role puts some states in a tough po­s­i­tion when they’re try­ing to plan and budget,” says Anne Stauffer, pro­ject dir­ect­or for the Pew Cen­ter on the States. If the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment em­ploys a large per­cent­age of work­ers in a state, it’s hard to es­tim­ate how much the state gov­ern­ment will be able to col­lect from them in taxes. And, of course, states could take an ad­di­tion­al hit in cuts to fed­er­ally fun­ded pro­grams for edu­ca­tion, men­tal health, and child-care as­sist­ance.

Worst of all, the threat of these fur­loughs and their pos­sible ef­fect on loc­al eco­nom­ies ar­rives just as states are be­gin­ning to re­cov­er from the re­ces­sion. While the fur­loughs won’t cost fed­er­al work­ers their jobs or drag the coun­try back in­to a re­ces­sion, se­quest­ra­tion will slow eco­nom­ic growth by as much as 0.6 per­cent in 2013, ac­cord­ing to Mac­roe­co­nom­ic Ad­visers. The fur­loughs are just one of the in­gredi­ents of the across-the-board budget cuts.

The trick­i­est part of fur­loughs is that their full im­pact won’t be known un­til sum­mer. If they don’t be­gin un­til April — a pos­sib­il­ity, as agen­cies are still sort­ing out what the se­quester will mean for them — ana­lysts say monthly eco­nom­ic data should be­gin to show the fal­lout in Ju­ly and Au­-gust. “The eco­nom­ic ef­fects of se­quest­ra­tion will not be wide­spread at first,” says eco­nom­ist Mark Zandi. “But over time, as you move in­to the sum­mer months, the eco­nomy will start mov­ing more slowly.” And the slow­down will be na­tion­al, mir­ror­ing the pro­file of the cuts, not just centered in Wash­ing­ton.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
22 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×