Pentagon Weighs Firing Thousands Under 2014 Spending Cuts

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

By Tony Capaccio - Aug 22, 2013
The Defense Department may have to fire at least 6,272 civilian employees if automatic cuts known as sequestration slice $52 billion from its fiscal 2014 budget, according to a Pentagon planning document.

Additional budget analysis is “likely to produce further reductions” as the services focus on shrinking their contract labor forces, according to a Pentagon “execution plan” obtained by Bloomberg News. The job cuts, although less than 1 percent of the non-uniformed workforce, would mark an escalation from the unpaid leave mandated under sequestration in the current fiscal year.

The services should expect a $475 billion budget after sequestration cuts for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, almost 10 percent less than the pending $526.6 billion request, according to the document dated Aug. 1. Sequestration would result in 16 percent reductions in the Pentagon’s procurement and research spending and 12 percent cuts in operations, maintenance and military construction.

For the most part, major weapons programs aren’t being targeted for extensive reductions, according to the plan, which was a presentation by Pentagon budget and cost-assessment officials for generals and admirals who oversee force structure and resources for their respective services.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-22/pentagon-weighs-firing-thousands-under-2014-spending-cuts.html

---

Quick somebody...get the US involved in Syria and go ahead and start lobbing missiles into Iran.

That'll bring out the 'good ole USA, USA' fighting spirit and a return to full funding plus for the MIC.

Now just where did I put that US flag to mount on the roof of my pick-em up truck?

[Arctic Dave]

1. Chop, chop, chop.

Making war and misery should not be a career opportunity.

[Zorro]

2. So you approve of thousands of job losses because of sequestration?

Nice.

[earthside]

3. Better there than in education, infrastructure, NASA, etc.

We need to end the military-contractor gravy train.

So, if sequester finally starts reducing the bloat and waste and transfer of wealth to defense contractors -- good.

Maybe we will find out that we don't need all these make-nothing military jobs and when we get a Democratic House again we can restore productive jobs and slash the military 'jobs program'.

[former9thward]

18. It is not either/or

Its both. Sequester affects all agencies.

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. I strongly approve of cutting the Pentagon budget.

Sequestration is a chicken shit way to do it.

[Purveyor]

5. So you approve of more bastard wars and killing of innocent civilians just to keep the 'war machine'

fed?

Nice.

[pscot]

6. Good

[seabeckind]

7. I have a big problem with:

"major weapons programs aren’t being targeted for extensive reduction"

So we continue funneling taxpayer money as pork into the congressional districts, continue to fund large system development projects that haven't seen a success since Korea,

but get rid of the people whose job it is to oversee these systems.

Well done. There'll be a nice little present in your christmas card this year, general.

So how about closing a few bases? Like Germany, Japan and Korea? Last I heard those wars ended long ago.

[Revanchist]

12. That's because Congress (both parties) won't let the Pentagon scrap any programs of that nature

Politicians want to keep jobs in their home sates and force many of these weapon programs onto the military, whether they want them or not.

Over the course of my military career I saw a lot of needless spending at the end of the fiscal year because if you don't spend every single cent of your allocated budget you get it slashed next year, regardless of your upcoming commitments. So during the years that my squadron was deployed we saw lean times and struggled for money for things like fuel and replacement parts and during the years we were back in the states we had to find things to buy come September to spend it all.

If the military budget system didn't punish you for being fiscally prudent it would be one thing but the current system is a joke, especially when we have to accept some congresscritter's pet project so they can brag about the jobs they brought back to their district.

Edited to add a list produced last August:

M1 Abrams:
The Pentagon wants to suspend tank upgrades at the Lima plant until a new version is ready, possibly in 2017, saying it can save $3 billion. Legislators question the savings and lament the loss of 800 jobs in Ohio and more elsewhere, and are budgeting more than $250 million to keep the plant running.

Global Hawk Block 30 drone:
The Pentagon says it can rely on the older U-2 spy plane and save $2.5 billion by 2017 by ditching the drone, managed from Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Congress balked and put $278 million the program.

C-27J:
The Pentagon says the cargo plane, used heavily by the Air National Guard, is unneeded and that grounding the fleet could save $400 million by 2017. Some fear this could shutter the Mansfield Air National Guard base and cost hundreds of Guard jobs around the country. Congress put funding in to keep the planes flying.

Air National Guard:
The Pentagon wants to scale back the size of the Air National Guard by roughly 5,100 positions, saving an estimated $300 million next year. This could impact jobs at bases in Springfield, Columbus and Mansfield. Local congressmen are fighting the cuts.

East Coast missile battery:
The Pentagon says it has no need for a missile battery on the East Coast to protect from countries such as Iran. But U.S. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, disagrees and has put in $100 million next year for the project, which could cost $3.6 billion by 2017.

The Military is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to deciding how to spend the funds they receive.

[seabeckind]

13. Nah.

You are correct, the allocation of funds is determined by congress. The disbursement of those funds is at the discretion of the pentagon.

Your statement that "if you don't spend every single cent of your allocated budget you get it slashed next year" is a determination made by the spenders in the pentagon, not congress. Just because some congresscritter shoved $100 million into a worthless project doesn't mean it has to be spent.

Time to admit to ourselves that the pentagon is even more in love with that money than anyone else.

As for the sequester? I call bullshit. The rules were laying on the table for a year saying that cuts needed to be made or there'd be across the board cuts. All the great "planners" in the pentagon and the oval office ignored it and decided that no one would be crazy enough to do it.

And they were wrong. And even worse they made no contingency plans in case they were wrong. Time to clean house in the pentagon -- and that's the CinC's job.

Why weren't the big shots in the pentagon's staff cut? Why are they still charging around on private junkets?

Even worse: why is Booz-Allen still working with business as usual with hundreds of contractors, Xi still sucking a big chunk of security money, etc...

while our maimed soldiers can't get service because some lowly gs-4 who's supposed to work their case is sitting at home with a cut in pay?

Let the general get his own dam coffee.

[unhappycamper]

16. Please add another 177 Shithooks to your list:

http://pilotsandplanesmilitary.com/2013/06/u-s-army-orders-177-ch-47f-chinooks/

[seabeckind]

17. I like the leadin to the article

"In an agreement that will save the U.S. government more than hundreds of millions dollars, the Army and Boeing have signed a multi-year contract for 177 CH-47F Chinook helicopters, with the Army holding options that could increase its total buy to 215 aircraft."

Hmm, I've got a way to save even more.

I thought we are in the middle of a sequester and trying to cut spending. Seems like business as usual in the pentagon.

So is this a real threat...cut people..or a scare tactic to make sure we don't cut down the flow of money to this pentagon largesse?

[jmowreader]

22. Welcome to the true monetary cost of the Iraq War

After eight years and eight months of high-level activity in a place that's made out of sand, every major end item the military sent to Iraq needs to be replaced. Without exception. We need all new trucks, all new aircraft, all new everything because the sand ground that shit to nothing.

My feeling is that if we need to build a new military from the ground up, which we DO, we also need to sit down and figure out what this military needs to be rather than trying to pull and stretch the old military into a shape that kinda works for this new modern era. For instance, do we really need four military services that don't have domestic missions? (Because of the Posse Comitatus Act, the Coast Guard can't be part of the Department of Defense during peacetime.) Do we absolutely NEED a Marine Corps? Do we need Army bases in the middle of the United States? Come on: Fort Riley was an important post during frontier days, but those days are long past. Should we have a "humanitarian division" that is equipped and trained for disaster relief?

[Tx4obama]

8. Kick. n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. So my family would go from a 20% pay cut to a 100% pay cut.

And the naval hospital will delay medical services for Veterans, active duty, and dependents even more than they have.

[cstanleytech]

10. What if instead they shift as many of the people as they can over to working

with the USACE and put the USACE to work fixing things like the dams, roads and bridges in this country that are degrading?
That way few if any will lose their jobs since they will still be working under the DOD yet the rebuilding of our infrastructure gets done and we all know how republicans hate cutting the DODs budget because they dont want to look "soft" or not in support of the troops so it paints them into a corner of their own making if they try to say no.

[libdem4life]

23. This ^^^ a modern day WPA Program

[unhappycamper]

11. A little clarification:

The services should expect a $475 billion budget after sequestration cuts for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, almost 10 percent less than the pending $526.6 billion request, according to the document dated Aug. 1. Sequestration would result in 16 percent reductions in the Pentagon’s procurement and research spending and 12 percent cuts in operations, maintenance and military construction.



By time you add in nukes, OCO costs ($2 b per week), black budget, military aid (like to Egypt), etc. we're spending nearly one trillion dollars a year on our military budget.

My clarification: $47.5 billion / $1 trillion = a five percent pay cut.

[seabeckind]

14. I think when we look at what's happening,

the pentagon is a microcosm of our whole attitude toward people. Just like in the private sector where the guys in the front office treat employees like a piece of meat, interchangeable people, the guys wandering those halls on the inner ring think more of their power than the welfare of their troops, whether they are in uniform or not.

Cannon fodder.

They cut the things that the people need and depend on so they can maintain their power. And their decisions are made based on how it relates to them not the responsibility they are tasked with.

Disgusting. During WW2 the biggest problem was getting rid of the dead weight at the top so things could be accomplished. And just like during the years leading up to that war, there was lots of brass at the top at the expense of the guys at the bottom.

[Sunlei]

15. 6,272 civie GOV. employees cost Americans 52 billion dollars in spending?. CUT THAT FAT.

probably the cupcake contract where congress has their daily $15 dollar each snack. Let congress bring their own daily snacks.

[adirondacker]

19. Let em all work for walmart. nt

[Supersedeas]

20. too bad they can't start with firing the rogue DHS worker

[Ash_F]

21. Fire the NSA. /nt