HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Pentagonís 46,000 Tempora...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:25 AM

Pentagonís 46,000 Temporary Workers May Lose Their Jobs

Source: Bloomberg

The Pentagon has given managers authority to start firing some of its 46,000 temporary workers now in anticipation of across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect in March according to Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

By mid-February, the Defense Department is also likely to begin notifying its 800,000 civilian employees that they face mandatory unpaid leave one day a week starting in April unless Congress and President Barack Obama agree on a way to avert the spending cuts aimed at reducing the federal deficit, Carter told reporters in a briefing at the Pentagon today.

ďThere will be 800,000 people subject to furlough all over the country who will not be getting a fifth of their paycheckĒ if the cuts take effect, he said.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/pentagon-s-46-000-temporary-workers-may-face-immediate-job-cuts.html

74 replies, 6461 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pentagonís 46,000 Temporary Workers May Lose Their Jobs (Original post)
Purveyor Jan 2013 OP
lexw Jan 2013 #1
Igel Jan 2013 #59
lexw Jan 2013 #70
annm4peace Jan 2013 #2
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #3
annm4peace Jan 2013 #4
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #21
Purveyor Jan 2013 #24
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #49
Purveyor Jan 2013 #50
lunatica Jan 2013 #27
shanti Jan 2013 #65
modrepub Jan 2013 #32
Hugin Jan 2013 #52
modrepub Jan 2013 #74
annm4peace Jan 2013 #60
Revanchist Jan 2013 #7
Kolesar Jan 2013 #10
valerief Jan 2013 #19
jeff47 Jan 2013 #40
Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2013 #66
SoapBox Jan 2013 #5
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Jan 2013 #11
SoapBox Jan 2013 #6
lunatica Jan 2013 #28
fasttense Jan 2013 #8
lunatica Jan 2013 #30
WorseBeforeBetter Jan 2013 #35
unhappycamper Jan 2013 #9
Hugin Jan 2013 #16
DCBob Jan 2013 #12
underpants Jan 2013 #13
Hugin Jan 2013 #14
olddad56 Jan 2013 #15
Hugin Jan 2013 #17
jeff47 Jan 2013 #36
Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #18
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #23
jeff47 Jan 2013 #41
Sunlei Jan 2013 #20
jeff47 Jan 2013 #42
Sunlei Jan 2013 #53
jeff47 Jan 2013 #55
Sunlei Jan 2013 #57
jeff47 Jan 2013 #58
Hugin Jan 2013 #62
Katashi_itto Jan 2013 #63
Hugin Jan 2013 #67
Katashi_itto Jan 2013 #73
patrice Jan 2013 #22
Hugin Jan 2013 #26
patrice Jan 2013 #31
Hugin Jan 2013 #34
patrice Jan 2013 #38
Purveyor Jan 2013 #69
Hugin Jan 2013 #71
tabasco Jan 2013 #25
Hugin Jan 2013 #29
jeff47 Jan 2013 #44
Hugin Jan 2013 #51
jeff47 Jan 2013 #54
jeff47 Jan 2013 #37
tabasco Jan 2013 #46
jeff47 Jan 2013 #47
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #48
sofa king Jan 2013 #45
jeff47 Jan 2013 #56
think Jan 2013 #33
jeff47 Jan 2013 #39
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #43
Brigid Jan 2013 #61
shanti Jan 2013 #64
AnnieBW Jan 2013 #68
DCBob Jan 2013 #72

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:35 AM

1. "Firing" ?

I'm a little shocked that Bloomberg's article used the term "firing." It sounds like those being let go (laid off), were all involved in wrong doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lexw (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:51 PM

59. Perhaps.

I've always understood "laid off" to usually mean "we'll call you back when there's the need."

"Fired" has always meant "goodbye, we don't expect to see you again and if we need somebody you're free to apply again."

You can be fired or terminated for cause. Or just fired or terminated because the company's going out of business or reducing forces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:08 AM

70. Everywhere I look....

"firing" means it was the employee's fault.
My wife used to work H.R., and was always correcting me when I said "fired" as opposed to "laid off."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:47 AM

2. maybe the should also cut the billion dollar toys

how many nuclear subs, drones, missles do we really need ?

Lets take some of those engineers they are going to lay off and put them to work on roads and solar power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annm4peace (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:55 AM

3. Sadly it doesn't work like that... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:05 AM

4. but a nice thing to remind the letters to the editor

I'm sick of hearing how we have to keep funding the Pentagon or they'll cut staff.

they have bizzzzzion dollars going to toys to create more and more conflicts and wars... get god forbid we have a pentagon employee on furlough.

Ok to furlough those building our bridges, and ok to furlough the social worker who checks on abused kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annm4peace (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:04 AM

21. So you support furloughing Civil Servants?

Do you think people who lend their talents to this nations security should get a 20% pay cut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:24 AM

24. Like most of the rest of the working middle class in this country. Ask the autoworker about 'pay

cuts'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:59 PM

49. Do you support pay cuts for the middle class?

I don't support them for any of the middle class. I don't for Teachers, Civil Servants, Manufacturing jobs, etc.

I'd support them for Wall Street though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:20 PM

50. Of course not but that is what has happened especially in manufacturing. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:30 AM

27. Employees, including Faculty went through Furloughs in UC Berkeley

a couple of years ago. They were on a sliding scale, but we all got unpaid leave days for a year. It meant we all kept our jobs too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:52 PM

65. yea, i worked for the state during furloughs too

it was very painful and really affected morale. i wasn't in any danger of losing my job though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:41 AM

32. Our Office Lost Nearly All of our Contractors

this year. We've had our budget cut several times. My state colleagues have taken unpaid leave. We've had a pay freeze for almost three years. There's talk of furloughs or unpaid leave floating around. Our school district laid off staff, instituted an activities fee and is talking about eliminating kindergarten. The defense budget can not be a sacred cow. I have no idea why we have 11 aircraft carrier task forces which probably eat up billions of $ for support per year. They don't even audit the defense department like every other federal agency so who know how much they waste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modrepub (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:53 PM

52. This article is only about the DoD, the other agencies (social) are going to make similar cuts.

This is Govt wide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:30 AM

74. Sorry

I work for another federal agency and I can tell you we've lost almost all of our contract support already and they're looking to cut more. The DoD has been immune to cuts for almost forever. Heck they don't even get audited properly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:41 PM

60. No that is not what I was saying

I was saying they can cut the civil servants but still have money for military weapons that we don't need.

I was also saying we have too many Pentagon positions when we need more workers in our infrastructure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annm4peace (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:16 AM

7. Blame congress

There are plenty of projects that the Pentagon doesn't want but were forced into by Congress in order to ensure jobs for their home districts. If the military had a say in what they wanted I think the budget would be smaller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Revanchist (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:51 AM

10. Layoffs are a PR gimmick by the Pentagon--they are hiding behind middle class Americans

Look at the families that will be affected!
Don't look at the grotesque mismanagement of the F-35!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annm4peace (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:45 AM

19. But that would only help the 99% and we don't matter to them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:07 PM

40. Because the 99% don't have jobs making that stuff. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annm4peace (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:40 PM

66. yes, cut the old junk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:40 AM

5. Sell off all those fucking golf courses!

What is there...something like 200 of them?

Get rid of them!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:43 AM

11. Also get out of Nascar!

That would save a lot too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:46 AM

6. p.s...

Stop all the "double-dippers".

They "retire" in their 50's and then are hired right back as a "independent contractor", making even MORE money than being on the military wage!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:32 AM

28. How about not picking on those who work and picking on those

who fire workers. Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:57 AM

8. Austerity for workers

While about 50% of all US based corporations pay NO TAXES, while gas and oil corporations do NOT PAY their pumping fees, and while banksters get practically free loans from our Fed.

Austerity for workers while the Pentagon has yet to find that missing $6.6 Billion in cash floating around in Iraq.

Lets cut some more jobs and see how the economy does. Maybe we will get a triple dip Recession like England.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:34 AM

30. And when they cut the jobs then they should make sure to cut the unemployment benefits

after all the American workers are all a bunch of takers aren't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:47 AM

35. North Carolina Republicans are all over that.

They're proposing a maximum weekly benefit of $350, covering only 20 weeks, rather than the current 26. Thank you, Chamber of Commerce.

GOP, N.C. Chamber hatch plan to reduce unemployment benefits, pay state debt
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/gop-nc-chamber-hatch-plan-to-reduce-unemployment-benefits-pay-state-debt/Content?oid=3220017

"North Carolina's debt is the fourth-highest in the nation," and our unemployment rate is the fifth worst. It's hard to imagine how fucked up this state is.

JOBS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to unhappycamper (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:21 AM

16. Thanks for the background links, UHC. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:02 AM

12. This could be a tactic to pursuade the Republicans to make a deal.

I am sure many congressman will be getting thousands of calls and emails from angry DoD employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:09 AM

13. and southern states economies will feel the pain

the Republicans have gone past the wrapped-in-the-flag BS and are openly displaying how much their constituents rely on the FED'RAL GUBMENT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:11 AM

14. Oh, look... It's a pay cut for Federal Employees.

Not to worry, Contractor profits will remain unaffected.

This is EXACTLY what the Republicans wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:13 AM

15. Doesn't temporary usually imply that the jobs are not permanent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddad56 (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:26 AM

17. Those "Temporary" positions are sometimes used to maintain continuity of operations during...

restructuring.

They typically become permanent... But, not being good managers I assume Congress is unaware of the need for continuity when it comes to National Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddad56 (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:00 PM

36. "temporary" includes things like "you'll do this for us for the next 5 years".

It's not like a temp job in the normal world.

Getting all the authorizations for a permanent position to be open, much less filled, frequently results in people being hired as "temporary" or "term" workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:40 AM

18. The pitfalls of looking to the MIC as a jobs program.

The treasure of this nation has been stolen with the help of those we hired to protect it.

The Defense Dept. doesn't even know where the money goes anymore, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "GIVE US MORE!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:18 AM

23. That pretty much nails it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:28 PM

41. Give me another jobs program that can get through Congress, and I'll happily support it

Fact is, unemployment is still WAY too high, and DoD spending is the only stimulus spending we can get through Congress.

I'd far prefer programs like infrastructure spending, but that's not the choice we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:04 AM

20. cut Pentagon management pay FIRST. Cut ALL the percs of the Leadership first!!

Let the Leadership buy their own health insurance.!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:28 PM

42. Yeah, slashing the salary and benes of those 6 people will make all the difference! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:35 PM

53. probably cost us taxpayers a billion a year or more for those 6 people. let them use ss and medicare

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:39 PM

55. Math isn't your strong suit, is it?

You think the Secretary of Defense makes about $200M/year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:01 PM

57. yes with benefits for all his family, his luxury spots vacations, free airfare for all, yes.

They can game the system if they care to and spend way more than that. It's not just the one persons pay.

There is no accountability, no audits nothing stops them from abusing their positions. Costing America millions, probably billions in taxpayer money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:04 PM

58. Um....no.

The President doesn't cost $200M/year, and he gets a much larger salary and spends a ton more on security for his travels.

You might wanna consider strolling back to reality. I think you'll find that you are more successful in getting your goals accomplished when people can't immediately dismiss you for your wildly-wrong statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:09 PM

62. Wow! A $200M a year position in the Pentagon?

Where do I sign up?

No accountability? Pensions and perks!

There seems to be a lot of confusion between Civil Service and Wall Street out there.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:31 PM

63. 200 Million a year is reserved for defense contractor executives...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:30 PM

67. The DoD Civilians I know don't even have Commissary privileges. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:06 AM

73. Yup, I am really glad i don't work for DoD, precious few perks. Commissary privileges are a big one

I rate myself lucky to have access to the Coast Guard commissary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:14 AM

22. The first internet bully I ever encountered, during O's '08 campaign, was a staffing recruiter

out of VA specializing in DOD civilian staffing contracts, who ridiculed me viciously, in a FB thread, for being unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:29 AM

26. Are you sure it wasn't a 12 yo in their folk's basement with daddy's login?

Happens quite frequently.

I'm always suspicious of overblown self-righteous Right Wing blowhards claiming fictitious credentials on FB.

Especially, when they're a bully in a semi-public forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:34 AM

31. Yeah, account security over at FB isn't the greatest, so I guess the probability is about 50:50.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:44 AM

34. Well, never the less, I'm sorry it happened to you.

If someone I supervised did something like that, there would be repercussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:02 PM

38. Thanks. I remember it, because I do think the best most of the time. I know it isn't characteristic

of an entire group.

Staffing recruiters in other sectors aren't all that either!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:19 PM

69. Hey...don't knock the 12 yo in the basement, thats how I started out with a 300 baud BBS. ;) eom

I remain...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:02 AM

71. Yes, but, in those days it was a level playing field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:26 AM

25. The Pentagon is not a jobs program

and is bloated and inefficient. "Defense" taxes should be cut 50 percent.

End the empire, stop "nation-building" and take care of Americans with LOWER TAXES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:33 AM

29. However, these cuts are not directed at the Contracts.

They are directed at the only watchdogs of DoD malfeasance... The Civilians.

Otherwise, it's business-as-usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:33 PM

44. Contractors got their cuts in October

There was a lot less spent on FY2013 contracts in anticipation of the sequester. Didn't affect long-running programs like the F-35, but greatly affected short-term projects.

Unfortunately, those kinds of contracts are how the DoD funds research, which is the DoD spending with the greatest societal benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:42 PM

51. I don't recall a single Contractor leaving in Oct.

They get paid by the body and they're still there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:38 PM

54. They get paid by the contract, not by the body.

As I said, long-term contracts weren't very affected because they're long-term. For example, if you're talking about the computer helpdesk or the janitors, those are long-term contracts.

Lots of short-term contracts were simply not issued. All the contractors I know were planning to hire, but instead they shuffled people around to keep them employed. And they're getting very concerned about FY2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:01 PM

37. You'd have a good idea if unemployment wasn't extremely high right now. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:40 PM

46. So, you think the Defense Department is a jobs program

I don't.

The money we would save if we paid lower taxes would skyrocket the economy and provide jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:43 PM

47. So you're a Republican then?

Tax cuts are terrible stimulus. How do I know? We just tried it two years ago. And 6 years before that. And 8 years before that. And so on, and so on.

Defense spending is the only stimulus spending that can get through Congress. I'd prefer other forms of stimulus spending, such as infrastructure projects, but that isn't the choice we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:44 PM

48. I don't buy into supply side BS.

Keynes was right. Putting several million people out of a job won't grow our economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:40 PM

45. My impression was different.

I worked with and around DOD for awhile, but never for them. Beginning in the Clinton years, the Pentagon began a massive non-hiring program, using temps and contractors to take over a huge proportion of its administrative work.

Most of those 46000 temp employees are probably filling positions that the Pentagon could no longer afford to fill, but could not do without. DOD actually pays the temp companies much more per person than they would pay an actual employee in wages; the problem is that they don't want to offer benefits to those employees.

The next step will be to out-source those jobs, at three to ten times the price instead of two to three times the wages, with a fraction of the work output, a much higher rate of errors and do-overs, and completely unreliable security.

The parts of Defense that already do this are the parts that don't work at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:43 PM

56. Turning them into more expensive contractors doesn't solve their budget problem

It's a budget problem. You can't solve it by spending more on contractors doing the same problem - they're paid out of the same budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:42 AM

33. How about closing some overseas bases instead........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:02 PM

39. You'd do that if you had time to decide which ones to close

The sequester and the handling of it mean there isn't time for the DoD to figure out which bases to close. It's not as simple as one would think - for example it can have major diplomatic effects.

So they're doing the quick-n-easy thing and firing civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:29 PM

43. The budget doesn't work like that.

Congress has mandated that money go to each program/activity in a certain amount. Now they need to hack out 9% but can't shut down any programs or bases without action from Congress. That leaves only 1 solution - Scrimp on Operations and Maintenance. So they furlough employees and delay maintenance on ships, planes, and buildings. And just like most things, delaying maintenance now could cost us a lot more later.

Congress has failed to act by passing a budget making the appropriate cuts, mainly because the Republicans can't accept that the US budget isn't filled with fat. We just don't collect the taxes needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:45 PM

61. Maybe it would help if . . .

The Pentagon could straighten out their records so that they could be audited, find that $2 trillion Rumsfeld testified was missing (on 09/10/2001, no less), and find the billions in cash that went missing in Iraq (sending truckloads of cash into a war zone--now there's brilliant idea). Who manages the Pentagon's finances anyway: The Three Stooges?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:49 PM

64. furloughs

the new austerity measure for all. i suffered thru furloughs with the state of california for over 2 years. it really hurt. now my son, who is a civilian employee for DOD will have to as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:45 PM

68. It's easier to cut temp workers and contractors

than to discontinue huge contracts for weapons, etc. It's all on how the money is arranged. Money for temps and contractors comes out of Operations and Maintenance money. Programs come out of R&D money, which is locked in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnnieBW (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:20 AM

72. The next round of contracts would be affected.

no one will escape this if it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread