Government Shutdown 2011

[93henfan]

The last furlough was in 1995/6 for 21 days and the furloughed employees had their pay retroactively restored.

Mrs89 was fondly remembering that last night. Nothing like a few extra weeks of vacation!

I'm all for it, as long as it's paid, eventually.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

TTBF: You care to explain how that's even possible given current OPTEMPO? The military is even cutting PRD windows to two freaking months to save PCS travel costs AS WE SPEAK. They're trying. But unless and untill missions get cut, spending HAS to increase. You gotta remember medical costs for people who get hurt, ammo and equipment replacement, maintenance, and a zillion other things. Do you really want a late-Soviet-era type military where people cannibalize equipment for spare parts, with vehicles literally rusting out from under people and ships sitting at the pier not training to do the jobs they're there for? That's the end result of what you're asking.

The problem with our government as it stands is that they live in la-la land. They SAY they're going to cut defense spending, then the poop hits the fan, causing secondary spending bills to cover it, and wonder why the defense budget ballooned.

short and simple - the defense budget has ballooned for three reasons...

1. current military operations in Asia - setting that aside
2. we've cut actual defense spending exactly 3 times since 1938.
3. political reality - you cut $1 of defense spending and you get attacked for "being soft on defense" - a political death sentence.

[SuperHornet]

But that only addresses the symptoms, TTBF. Outside of #1, it does NOTHING to actually cut anything.

BTW, I agree that we should let our people rest a bit. But if we wanna cut spending, then the President had better quit dialling 911 for a while afterward. He's likely to have nothing left if he cuts and jacks up the workload after.

[93henfan]

we could cut defense spending very responsibly without jeopardizing force readiness,

Yes, as long as we cut back the current mission.

mission success or

Debatable. What do you consider success? Stable, self-governing democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan or just an honorable withdrawal and hope they can go it alone (that would be fine with me, btw)?

future r&d for weapons, tactics, technology or training.

No. If you cut the defense budget, these are the areas that will suffer badly.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

we could cut defense spending very responsibly without jeopardizing force readiness,

Yes, as long as we cut back the current mission.

mission success or

Debatable. What do you consider success? Stable, self-governing democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan or just an honorable withdrawal and hope they can go it alone (that would be fine with me, btw)?

future r&d for weapons, tactics, technology or training.

No. If you cut the defense budget, these are the areas that will suffer badly.

if you take broad hacks at the budget (percentage cuts across the board) then yes... i'm talking about surgical cuts. removing wasteful and unnecessary line items

i also realize that surgical cuts won't save nearly the amount of money that % based hacking will... but I think in light of the current situation it makes more sense than doing nothing.

[SuperHornet]

You ever take part in unit-level budgeting, TTBF? I have. I'll tell you EXACTLY how it goes.

You sit down and figure out what you plan to do for the year. Then you figure out what it'll take to accomplish that. You write a detailed proposal with cost figures (padded by 10%, of course, to cover cost variances) and submit it. Later, you get force-fed a round figure much less than what you asked for, and somehow have to shoehorn your mission into that figure. And that usually means dropping some programs. The problem with that round figure is that usually your descaled program doesn't come up to that figure, and if that money isn't spent by a certain date WELL before the end of the fiscal year, the command confiscates that $$ and redistributes it (Obamaism at its very best), unless you buy needless stuff that doesn't fit your mission (that usually translates into extra toner and paper for the printer). Plus, that $$ doesn't reappear during the next FY because "obviously" you didn't need it.

Put that process on steroids, and see commands try to make do with nothing. That's the logical result. There are OTHER areas of government (i.e. education (a state function), Napolitano's Gestapo, etc.) that should be axed FIRST.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

You ever take part in unit-level budgeting, TTBF? I have. I'll tell you EXACTLY how it goes.

You sit down and figure out what you plan to do for the year. Then you figure out what it'll take to accomplish that. You write a detailed proposal with cost figures (padded by 10%, of course, to cover cost variances) and submit it. Later, you get force-fed a round figure much less than what you asked for, and somehow have to shoehorn your mission into that figure. And that usually means dropping some programs. The problem with that round figure is that usually your descaled program doesn't come up to that figure, and if that money isn't spent by a certain date WELL before the end of the fiscal year, the command confiscates that $$ and redistributes it (Obamaism at its very best), unless you buy needless stuff that doesn't fit your mission (that usually translates into extra toner and paper for the printer). Plus, that $$ doesn't reappear during the next FY because "obviously" you didn't need it.

Put that process on steroids, and see commands try to make do with nothing. That's the logical result. There are OTHER areas of government (i.e. education (a state function), Napolitano's Gestapo, etc.) that should be axed FIRST.

dude - I write CAMPAIGN budgets... I assure you - I am all too familiar with budgeting of scarce resources - putting together a plan - and having the whole works shot to hell 3 hours later... (it's how i make my living)

[93henfan]

You ever take part in unit-level budgeting, TTBF? I have. I'll tell you EXACTLY how it goes.

You sit down and figure out what you plan to do for the year. Then you figure out what it'll take to accomplish that. You write a detailed proposal with cost figures (padded by 10%, of course, to cover cost variances) and submit it. Later, you get force-fed a round figure much less than what you asked for, and somehow have to shoehorn your mission into that figure. And that usually means dropping some programs. The problem with that round figure is that usually your descaled program doesn't come up to that figure, and if that money isn't spent by a certain date WELL before the end of the fiscal year, the command confiscates that $$ and redistributes it (Obamaism at its very best), unless you buy needless stuff that doesn't fit your mission (that usually translates into extra toner and paper for the printer). Plus, that $$ doesn't reappear during the next FY because "obviously" you didn't need it.

Put that process on steroids, and see commands try to make do with nothing. That's the logical result. There are OTHER areas of government (i.e. education (a state function), Napolitano's Gestapo, etc.) that should be axed FIRST.

Your post rambles like a son of a bitch, but makes a valid point about federal budgeting. It's one of the dumbest processes ever invented. The use-or-lose aspect encourages wasteful spending. Being a DoD procurement official myself, I can't tell you how many times I've had to bite my tongue and buy a rash of completely unnecessary shit or services at the end of a fiscal year simply to maintain the budget. I'd love to blow the whistle, but it's not, by definition, illegal or unethical.

If Gates really wanted to trim the budget (and it's not his call - it's Congress'), he'd immediately do away with the use-or-lose annual budget. I've been discussing it for years with colleagues. There should be a system where a unit gets a prorated giveback of the amount they can save over a certain percent. If your goal was 5% savings, it could look like:

You unit saves 0% - We take away 10% of your budget next year. (90% vs prior year)
Your unit saves 5% - You met goal. Budget stays the same as last year's spend. (95% vs prior year)
Your unit saves 10% - You exceeded the goal. You get your full budget going forward. (100% of prior year)
etc.

These numbers are obviously for illustration only.

[kalm]

If the Republicans were to get their way, that's a whole lot of demand removed from the economy. Might not be the best time to make cuts. Then again, when is?

You mean Goldman, the scourge of the earth There must be a dollar in it for them somewhere

\

Kalm is digging the anti G.S. vibe in this thread.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

So the already in place 6 year terms for Senators, the even representation by state in the Senate, the veto power of the President, and countless other Constitutional devices that actually are there to prevent the country from lurching too much from one direction to another are not enough in your opinion? We need to muzzle freshmen in the legislature for a couple of years before we let them be part of the legislative process so they can learn, as you said, "how the game is played"? Not a very pretty picture of government you paint there.

you don't let the rookies run the team... simple as that.

Im willing to try it, since the veterans are the ones that fu*ked everything up the way it is.

But hey I dont expect you to get that, just keep dumping money on it......it will go away....

[Col Hogan]

Yes, as long as we cut back the current mission.



Debatable. What do you consider success? Stable, self-governing democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan or just an honorable withdrawal and hope they can go it alone (that would be fine with me, btw)?



No. If you cut the defense budget, these are the areas that will suffer badly.

if you take broad hacks at the budget (percentage cuts across the board) then yes... i'm talking about surgical cuts. removing wasteful and unnecessary line items

i also realize that surgical cuts won't save nearly the amount of money that % based hacking will... but I think in light of the current situation it makes more sense than doing nothing.

Just wondering where you'd take that surgical knife to...

the millions we waste on sponsoring NASCAR teams and $500,000 flyovers of sporting events would be a nice start to the cuts.

So, how would you advertise...I'm not a NASCAR fan, but apparently its a very effective way to reach the demographic the military is trying to reach...do you have a more effective medium???

And $500,000 flyovers??? You really had to reach up your ass to pull that number out...you have no idea how a flyover is organized and approved, do you...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

if you take broad hacks at the budget (percentage cuts across the board) then yes... i'm talking about surgical cuts. removing wasteful and unnecessary line items

i also realize that surgical cuts won't save nearly the amount of money that % based hacking will... but I think in light of the current situation it makes more sense than doing nothing.

Just wondering where you'd take that surgical knife to...

the millions we waste on sponsoring NASCAR teams and $500,000 flyovers of sporting events would be a nice start to the cuts.

So, how would you advertise...I'm not a NASCAR fan, but apparently its a very effective way to reach the demographic the military is trying to reach...do you have a more effective medium???

And $500,000 flyovers??? You really had to reach up your ass to pull that number out...you have no idea how a flyover is organized and approved, do you...

i was off by 50 grand...
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Sup ... 09249.html

[93henfan]

If you noticed in the article, TTBF, the cost of the flyover comes out of the unit's training budget, so it didn't cost the taxpayer any more than would have been spent anyway. Plus, the national pride and interest from potential recruits certainly is some payback.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

If you noticed in the article, TTBF, the cost of the flyover comes out of the unit's training budget, so it didn't cost the taxpayer any more than would have been spent anyway. Plus, the national pride and interest from potential recruits certainly is some payback.

i'm not disputing that it, and the NASCAR sponsorships have some potential benefits... but in an environment where we are looking to trim wasteful spending - these are the kinds of things that need to be on the chopping block if we're doing the same (and then some) in every other department in our government.

with defense spending accounting for 23% of federal expenditures... it cannot be exempt from a thorough analysis of its budgets.

[Col Hogan]

Just wondering where you'd take that surgical knife to...



So, how would you advertise...I'm not a NASCAR fan, but apparently its a very effective way to reach the demographic the military is trying to reach...do you have a more effective medium???

And $500,000 flyovers??? You really had to reach up your ass to pull that number out...you have no idea how a flyover is organized and approved, do you...

i was off by 50 grand...
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Sup ... 09249.html

So, you accept that the money was just burned...tossed out...because the military just loves wasting money...right???

That money came out of the units training budget...it was going to be spent one way or another on training...

So, what happened (and happens each and every flyover) is a training mission is planned...any number of training requirements go into the mission...and maybe in the middle, or towards the end of the mission, they "flyover" a sporting event...

And a training mission of that length could cost $450K...but what you are TOTALLY ignoring, is all the training conducted before and after the 5 - 10 seconds they fly over a target (sporting event)...

So, your anti-military media claims DOD wasted $450K on a flyover....you take it hook, line and sinker...

[SuperHornet]

i was off by 50 grand...
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Sup ... 09249.html

So, you accept that the money was just burned...tossed out...because the military just loves wasting money...right???

That money came out of the units training budget...it was going to be spent one way or another on training...

So, what happened (and happens each and every flyover) is a training mission is planned...any number of training requirements go into the mission...and maybe in the middle, or towards the end of the mission, they "flyover" a sporting event...

And a training mission of that length could cost $450K...but what you are TOTALLY ignoring, is all the training conducted before and after the 5 - 10 seconds they fly over a target (sporting event)...

So, your anti-military media claims DOD wasted $450K on a flyover....you take it hook, line and sinker...

[dbackjon]

i was off by 50 grand...
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Sup ... 09249.html

So, you accept that the money was just burned...tossed out...because the military just loves wasting money...right???

That money came out of the units training budget...it was going to be spent one way or another on training...

So, what happened (and happens each and every flyover) is a training mission is planned...any number of training requirements go into the mission...and maybe in the middle, or towards the end of the mission, they "flyover" a sporting event...

And a training mission of that length could cost $450K...but what you are TOTALLY ignoring, is all the training conducted before and after the 5 - 10 seconds they fly over a target (sporting event)...

So, your anti-military media claims DOD wasted $450K on a flyover....you take it hook, line and sinker...

So shouldn't the question be do they NEED that $450K in their training budget? For what purpose does flying over a stadium at a specific time promote readiness/training?

[SuperHornet]

Jon: The point is that the flyover is generally a tack-on to an already-scheduled training mission. They're already up in the general vicinity, so the additional cost of the flyover compared to the already existing expenditure is rather minimal. Besides, nobody says a word about bringing military folk in uniform to games in busses that cost the government $$. This is really no different.

[dbackjon]

Jon: The point is that the flyover is generally a tack-on to an already-scheduled training mission. They're already up in the general vicinity, so the additional cost of the flyover compared to the already existing expenditure is rather minimal. Besides, nobody says a word about bringing military folk in uniform to games in busses that cost the government $$. This is really no different.

Just already in the area of the stadium, at the right time...yeah.

[CID1990]

So, you accept that the money was just burned...tossed out...because the military just loves wasting money...right???

That money came out of the units training budget...it was going to be spent one way or another on training...

So, what happened (and happens each and every flyover) is a training mission is planned...any number of training requirements go into the mission...and maybe in the middle, or towards the end of the mission, they "flyover" a sporting event...

And a training mission of that length could cost $450K...but what you are TOTALLY ignoring, is all the training conducted before and after the 5 - 10 seconds they fly over a target (sporting event)...

So, your anti-military media claims DOD wasted $450K on a flyover....you take it hook, line and sinker...

So shouldn't the question be do they NEED that $450K in their training budget? For what purpose does flying over a stadium at a specific time promote readiness/training?

This is why you don't grasp concepts, and post 99% hyperbole, Jon. You either just don't read, or you don't comprehend what you do read. Active pilots have to maintain their currency. That means they fly almost every day while on flight status. In addition to actually being able to fight the aircraft, precision navigation is a very important cog in the machine.

Being able to arrive over an exact location within a window of just a few seconds is a very important skill in combat aviation, Jon.

[93henfan]

So shouldn't the question be do they NEED that $450K in their training budget? For what purpose does flying over a stadium at a specific time promote readiness/training?

This is why you don't grasp concepts, and post 99% hyperbole, Jon. You either just don't read, or you don't comprehend what you do read. Active pilots have to maintain their currency. That means they fly almost every day while on flight status. In addition to actually being able to fight the aircraft, precision navigation is a very important cog in the machine.

Being able to arrive over an exact location within a window of just a few seconds is a very important skill in combat aviation, Jon.

And luckily, in real combat, when you calculate time on target, you don't have to adjust for Christina Aguilera throwing off your time hack by skipping a verse or two.

[blueballs]

So the already in place 6 year terms for Senators, the even representation by state in the Senate, the veto power of the President, and countless other Constitutional devices that actually are there to prevent the country from lurching too much from one direction to another are not enough in your opinion? We need to muzzle freshmen in the legislature for a couple of years before we let them be part of the legislative process so they can learn, as you said, "how the game is played"? Not a very pretty picture of government you paint there.

you don't let the rookies run the team... simple as that.

The people spoke in November 2010. The same people who go out every day and work to support, educate, and create better lives for themselves by competing in the market place only to have the government take at the point of a gun up to half of their life's work.

This is liberal philosophy in a nutshell. "We (liberal elite, entrenched government wonks, bureaucrats, union bosses, and their media allies) know what is better for you than you. All we need is your money and vote."

Thanks for putting it on display so everybody can see it in living color.

[kalm]

you don't let the rookies run the team... simple as that.

The people spoke in November 2010. The same people who go out every day and work to support, educate, and create better lives for themselves by competing in the market place only to have the government take at the point of a gun up to half of their life's work.

This is liberal philosophy in a nutshell. "We (liberal elite, entrenched government wonks, bureaucrats, union bosses, and their media allies) know what is better for you than you. All we need is your money and vote."

Thanks for putting it on display so everybody can see it in living color.

Ironic considering how much taxes have been cut over the last 30 years.

[OL FU]

You mean Goldman, the scourge of the earth There must be a dollar in it for them somewhere

\

Kalm is digging the anti G.S. vibe in this thread.

Who benefits more from corporate statism than the financiers?

[kalm]

\

Kalm is digging the anti G.S. vibe in this thread.

Who benefits more from corporate statism than the financiers?

I think it used to be the dictators and the industrialists, but now it's clearly the bankers.