With the political noise in the United States over presidential and other elections, it is easy to lose sight of a looming “sequestration” that on January 2, 2013 will result in:
| 10.0% reduction | non-exempt defense mandatory funding |
| 9.4% reduction | non-exempt defense discretionary funding |
| 8.2% reduction | non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding |
| 7.6% reduction | non-exempt nondefense mandatory funding |
| 2.0% reduction | Medicare |
The report is not a model of clarity/transparency. See: U.S. Sequestration Report – Out of the Shadows/Into the Light?.
Report caveats make it clear cited amounts are fanciful estimates that can change radically as more information becomes available.
Be that as it may, a topic map based on the reported accounts as topics can capture the present day conjectures. To say nothing of capturing future revelations of exact details.
Whether from sequestration or from efforts to avoid sequestration.
Tracking/transparency has to start somewhere and it may as well be here.
In evaluating the data for creation of a topic map, I have encountered an entry with a topic map modeling issue.
I could really use your help.
Here is the entry in question:
Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 009-15-0350, Health Resources and Services, Nondefense Function, Mandatory (page 80 of Appendix A, page 92 of the pdf of the report):
| BA Type | BA Amount | Sequester Percentage | Sequester Amount | |
| Sequestrable BA | 514 | 7.6 | 39 | |
| Sequestrable BA – special rule |
1352 | 2.0 | 27 | |
| Exempt BA | 10 | |||
| Total Gross BA | 1876 | |||
| Offsets | -16 | |||
| Net BA | 1860 |
If it read as follows, no problem.
Example: Not Accurate
| BA Type | BA Amount | Sequester Percentage | Sequester Amount | |
| Sequestrable BA | 514 | 7.6 | 39 | |
| Sequestrable BA – special rule |
1352 | 2.0 | 27 | |
| Total Gross BA | 1876 |
Because there is no relationship between “Exempt BA” and “Offsets” to either “Sequestrable BA” or “Sequestrable BA – special rule.” I just report both of them with the percentages and total amounts to be withheld.
True, the percentages don’t change, nor does the amount to be withheld change, because of the “Exempt BA” or the “Offsets.” (Trusting soul that I am, I did verify the calculations. 😉 )
Problem: How do I represent the relationship between the “Exempt BA” and “Offsets” to either/or/both “Sequestrable BA,” “Sequestrable BA – special rule?”
Of the 1318 entries in Appendix A of this report, including this one, it is the only entry with this issue. (A number of accounts are split into discretionary/mandatory parts. I am counting each part as a separate “entry.”)
If I ignore “Exempt BA” and “Offsets” in this case, my topic map is an incomplete representation of Appendix A.
It is also the case that I want to represent the information “as written.” There may be some external explanation that clarifies this entry, but that would be an “addition” to the original topic map.
Suggestions?
[…] data set and have run across a different question than vagueness/possibility of relationships. (see Topic Map Modeling of Sequestration Data (Help Pls!) if you want to help with that […]
Pingback by Modeling Question: What Happens When Dots Don’t Connect? « Another Word For It — October 13, 2012 @ 6:35 pm
[…] Topic Map Modeling of Sequestration Data (Help Pls!) Second post, question of how to model the “special” rules as written. (September 29, 2012) […]
Pingback by Free Sequester Data Here! « Another Word For It — March 3, 2013 @ 6:02 am