Sequestration, the Military, and Debt as the Enemy

[AZRedhawk44]

There seems to be a lot of NIMBYism on this forum for cuts to the DOD.

A lot of you guys are employed or were employed by DOD or DHS.

I want to discuss debt in the context of this:

Armed Forces:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Civil Servants:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I want to focus on "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

We have no declaration of War anywhere.  We have various police actions, occupation actions, joint military exercises and so on... but nothing worthy of being declared a war by Congress.

However, our debts are staggering.

Our debts ARE the enemy right now most likely to obliterate us.  Is that not an enemy worth fighting?

It would be folly to suggest that the DOD falls on its sword and sacrifices its entire $700 billion annual budget to appease the debt (which would only partially appease it anyways).

But when confronting an enemy that has twice the financial resources as our DOD/DHS... is it proper to expect to face down this enemy with absolutely no casualties?  With less than 10% casualties?  Less than 25% casualties?  Keep in mind, the 2011 budget deficit was $1.5 trillion.  The 2011 DOD budget was $708 billion.  The DHS 2011 budget was $56 billion.

And these casualties I point to are not deaths or dismemberments.  They are simply lay-offs, where people take their various skills they've obtained in the military or DHS and apply them in the private marketplace.

I expect better than a 1:1 attrition rate from our military and DHS, so falling on the proverbial sword in sacrifice isn't the answer.  Even trades with HUD/DOE/DOE/SSA/whatever should be the goal.  So, a 1:5 to 1:10 attrition rate is appropriate, IMO.  This means a net loss in DOD/DHS operating capability of 10 to 20 percent.

Government is too expensive.  We are in debt.  We are dying from it.  Our government employees of all stripes swore an oath to defend this country, up to and including putting their lives on the line.  This doesn't require your lives.  This requires you to find a private sector job that isn't still coming out of the government teat somewhere else as a "contractor," and that the position you left at government doesn't get filled by someone else.

I just don't see it as that big of a deal.

[Fitz]

It's not nimbyism. It's simple statement of fact.

Fact. Current sequestration provisions aren't fixing things

Fact. They are, however, hurting good people.


I'm fine with hurting people. Hell, cut my whole department if you'd like. But to simply give a bunch of people a small temporary pay cut? It accomploishes nothing, doesn't hurt congress, and hurts a lot of middle class folks who do good work.


The point is, casualties are only acceptable when they assist in accomplishing the mission.

Fact: furloughs are not accomplishing the mission.

We need to strike entire departments and programs from the budget. Not just in DOD/DHS/Whatever. All across the board.


Finally, we don't need ANOTHER thread for this. You've stated this position in several. Now you're just shouting from the rooftops. We get it. Most of us AGREE with you. You're just shouting past us.

[dogmush]

To expound on Fitz's comments.

Several of us that are actually facing furloughs have agreed that cuts need to be made.  Kind of a No *expletive deleted*it Sherlock moment there.  But to use your asinine analogy if I have to be a casulty, I'd like it to actually work on fixing the problem.

Since I'm still in the military as well, if I were to die in battle I'd prefer it to advance the mission.

As it is I, and my employees, are taking a pay cut, increasing our output (becuase in my shop anyway, we're damn well still going to make mission - WMS from above be damned) and I STILL get to watch Wic cheaters in front of me buy grocerys and talk on iPhone 5's.

So no *expletive deleted*it, cut government.  But do it in some fashion that has a snowballs chance in hell of fixing the problem instead of making a ton of noise for zero effect.

[Ben]

Just what the last two guys said. Those of us that work in gov can point to a million things that should be cut or eliminated, including in our own programs. As Tommygun pointed out in the other thread, no matter what level of government, waste is rarely targeted. Any revenue decreases put critical infrastructure right in the bullseye. Defense, firefighters, roads. Whatever will hurt most is what gets targeted. The people doing the targeting are the ones that need to be furloughed, or fired. DoD guys are facing furlough. My program director is on his third meeting in Hawaii in two months.

To reiterate on what others have said, I think there's hardly anyone at APS who doesn't want to see significant cuts. And as others have said, if one of those cuts is my job, I'm fine with it. I have skills and can work somewhere else. Cut government, but make the cuts count.

[Fitz]

Just what the last two guys said. Those of us that work in gov can point to a million things that should be cut or eliminated, including in our own programs. As Tommygun pointed out in the other thread, no matter what level of government, waste is rarely targeted. Any revenue decreases put critical infrastructure right in the bullseye. Defense, firefighters, roads. Whatever will hurt most is what gets targeted. The people doing the targeting are the ones that need to be furloughed, or fired. DoD guys are facing furlough. My program director is on his third meeting in Hawaii in two months.

To reiterate on what others have said, I think there's hardly anyone at APS who doesn't want to see significant cuts. And as others have said, if one of those cuts is my job, I'm fine with it. I have skills and can work somewhere else. Cut government, but make the cuts count.

Why, for example, is my pay being cut, but a high up on the project still flies to goddamn detroit for a meeting?

WHY ARE YOU NOT DIALING IN

It's absurd.

[dm1333]

We are facing possible cuts in boat hours, which will impact training.  That hurts readiness now and in the future.  At the same time I see plenty of stuff that should be cut and time wasted on things that we shouldn't be wasting time on.  I'm down with cutting the budget as long as we do it smartly.

[roo_ster]

Why, for example, is my pay being cut, but a high up on the project still flies to goddamn detroit for a meeting?

WHY ARE YOU NOT DIALING IN

It's absurd.

I would look for any reason to dial in to rather than travel to Detroit.  In the winter or anytime.

[French G.]

We're fine with cuts. The problem is the manner of cutting is politicized not because the cuts hurt, but to make it look like they hurt so no cuts happen. Axe the F-35 and buy more super hornets. Half the plane cost, half the hourly operating cost, there, that will save a few billion. I don't think the real financial problem is in operational units, it is in the procurement and sustainment processes, it is good to be a contractor. Build an item of equipment in one congressional district in one plant, not spread out to pork everyone.

So if you cut the military to zero, you would make up half the budget deficit. In reality, not more than a 10% cut will happen. The real sunk cost of the military is the same as got the automakers, it is a mature organization. You have 38 year olds retiring and drawing pension for 40 years. That is not sustainable, look for TSP to become the default military pension for new enlistees soon.

As for the no wars part, I'm more ra-ra military than most here. I think the service we do keeping the world safe for democracy spending money is an excellent return on investment. Bring them all home and I forsee that the world has some tough economic times ahead of us.

Want to cut something, let's start looking at all of the disability, SS schemes, Medicare fraud, etc.

[zxcvbob]

Out-of-control government spending is our biggest enemy right now.

Just don't screw around with the enlisteds' paychecks.  I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of useless officers and contractors at the Pentagon that could be eliminated, in addition to some expensive weapons programs, and overseas bases that could be closed.

Need to take an axe and prune the Dept of Agriculture too.  (there are smaller cabinet-level depts that could be eliminated entirely.)

But don't worry, they won't actually do much of anything except whine about how evil the Republicans are for closing the Post Office and the national monuments and the FAA, and trying to steal Grandma's Medicare.

[Gewehr98]

I saw the hollow force of the Carter Administration.

We do NOT want to go there. 

[French G.]

I'm new, I saw the hollow force of the Clinton admin, that was bad enough. That was a huge program to cut people, not ridiculous procurement waste. Even the BRAC commission probably gave away more money than it saved to mollify congressscritters from the affected districts.