PDA

View Full Version : Furlough fever epidemic.



MajesticThunder
02-19-2013, 08:13 PM
More good news …

http://www.stripes.com/defense-department-set-to-announce-furlough-plan-wednesday-1.208662 :twitch

VFFTSGT
02-19-2013, 08:37 PM
Nothing but political posturing....

I'm sorry, but $50 Billion from a $600+ Billion budget is not that much money - especially when the "cuts" are not real cuts and only a cutback of projected increased spending.

efmbman
02-19-2013, 08:57 PM
Why won't someone think of the children!!??

MilPhD
02-19-2013, 09:24 PM
Why won't someone think of the children!!??

The children will be responsible for the OVER One Trillion dollar deficit each year. Currently each US taxpayer is $146,203 in debt.

I would gladly take a 20% cut in pay, if EVERY and I mean EVERY expenditure by the US also is cut by 20%. Starting with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, unemployment.

The budget would then be balanced.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

FLAPS
02-19-2013, 10:06 PM
Nothing but political posturing....

I'm sorry, but $50 Billion from a $600+ Billion budget is not that much money - especially when the "cuts" are not real cuts and only a cutback of projected increased spending.

ACC flying hour funding runs out beginning in May. Flying ops will cease at most bases, with only deployed ops continuing. This is not "political posturing," it's the real deal, real cuts. Next FY will be more manageable, but rest assured the rest of FY13 will be disastrous, with depot mx, training, hiring backlogs lasting the next several years.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
02-20-2013, 12:32 AM
ACC flying hour funding runs out beginning in May. Flying ops will cease at most bases, with only deployed ops continuing. This is not "political posturing," it's the real deal, real cuts. Next FY will be more manageable, but rest assured the rest of FY13 will be disastrous, with depot mx, training, hiring backlogs lasting the next several years.


It looks like the real deal from another HQs perspective as well. I guess we'll know if it's smoke and mirrors or not NLT 27 March.

Nickymaz
02-20-2013, 01:05 AM
So here's my thought, if the DoD doesn't go through with the furloughs would it just destroy any credibility they have in this process, which is why I think they will do it. I'm seeing some very specific instructions for how this would be implemented as well.

imnohero
02-20-2013, 01:48 AM
ACC flying hour funding runs out beginning in May. Flying ops will cease at most bases, with only deployed ops continuing. This is not "political posturing," it's the real deal, real cuts. Next FY will be more manageable, but rest assured the rest of FY13 will be disastrous, with depot mx, training, hiring backlogs lasting the next several years.

Flying hours funding runs out in May because that is when the continuing resolution to fund the whole government runs out. It has nothing (or very little) to do with Sequestration.

VFFTSGT
02-20-2013, 01:55 AM
ACC flying hour funding runs out beginning in May. Flying ops will cease at most bases, with only deployed ops continuing. This is not "political posturing," it's the real deal, real cuts. Next FY will be more manageable, but rest assured the rest of FY13 will be disastrous, with depot mx, training, hiring backlogs lasting the next several years.

We are operating on CR's...Continuing Resolutions....budgets under last years figures. We didn't run out of money last year...we shouldn't run out this year - poor planning and erroneous spending is the problem if we are really broke.

More than likely, it's political posturing on behalf of the defense department trying to protect the military industrial complex. Sorry, there has been so much hyperbole from congress and the pentagon...nothing is trustworthy anymore.

If peoples are going to get laid off....it's because a General think he's too important to reduce his expense account and cut a couple over priced paperweights aka F-22 and other waste than protect the masses.



Wall Street Journal columnist Brett Arends, a long-time advocate of defense spending cuts, has looked at numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and found that the proposed defense spending cuts don't actually add up to cuts, but rather a slightly decreased rate of increase.
http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/defense-spending-cuts-look-more-like-a-slightly-moderated-increase-7223.html

Cannot wait for the end of year spending later this year and my unit wastes tens of thousands of dollars on useless furniture again like last year.

FLAPS
02-20-2013, 10:22 AM
Flying hours funding runs out in May because that is when the continuing resolution to fund the whole government runs out. It has nothing (or very little) to do with Sequestration.

I was wrong, as I lumped it all (CR and sequestration) together. It's too easy to confuse what is the cause of our impending a**-raping. Either way, it will hurt!

FLAPS
02-20-2013, 10:25 AM
....it's because a General think he's too important to reduce his expense account and cut a couple over priced paperweights aka F-22 and other waste than protect the masses.

Generals do not have the final vote on what, or how many planes to cut/retire. Congress makes that decision. Unfortunately, I've seen too many times where Congress forced us to keep planes (e.g., B-1s) that needed to be retired.

SomeRandomGuy
02-20-2013, 02:10 PM
We are operating on CR's...Continuing Resolutions....budgets under last years figures. We didn't run out of money last year...we shouldn't run out this year - poor planning and erroneous spending is the problem if we are really broke.

More than likely, it's political posturing on behalf of the defense department trying to protect the military industrial complex. Sorry, there has been so much hyperbole from congress and the pentagon...nothing is trustworthy anymore.

If peoples are going to get laid off....it's because a General think he's too important to reduce his expense account and cut a couple over priced paperweights aka F-22 and other waste than protect the masses.


Cannot wait for the end of year spending later this year and my unit wastes tens of thousands of dollars on useless furniture again like last year.

Thank you for adding some common sense to this argument. You are exactly right. If we didn't run out of money last year why would we run out this year? Especially considering travel has been essentially cut back to nothing. Where is all the money from last year going? During the end of year spending spree last year my unit was throwing money like crazy. It makes absolutely no sense that everything is being cut and civilians are taking a 20% pay cut.

Mcjohn1118
02-20-2013, 05:13 PM
Thank you for adding some common sense to this argument. You are exactly right. If we didn't run out of money last year why would we run out this year? Especially considering travel has been essentially cut back to nothing. Where is all the money from last year going? During the end of year spending spree last year my unit was throwing money like crazy. It makes absolutely no sense that everything is being cut and civilians are taking a 20% pay cut.

SRG...I think you are a civilian where I am stationed. I've asked around and no one can answer. I was looking for some insight on the 20% pay cut and where that number comes from. I have some civilians that work for me but I never got into their pay information. Maybe that makes me a bad supervisor but that's a different thread. Anyway, from 1 Apr - 30 Sep 2013, there are 149 work days (excluding weekends/holidays). So, 149 x 8 = 1,192 hours of work. Now, 22 days of unpaid days is 176 hrs. 176 hrs is about 15%. I know any paycut sucks when it doesn't seem necessary. Just get streamline and get rid of some useless stuff (like Tattoo or Corona Top Conference) and furloughs could be eliminated. But I still don't see 20%. Please let me know, if you know.

SomeRandomGuy
02-20-2013, 05:31 PM
SRG...I think you are a civilian where I am stationed. I've asked around and no one can answer. I was looking for some insight on the 20% pay cut and where that number comes from. I have some civilians that work for me but I never got into their pay information. Maybe that makes me a bad supervisor but that's a different thread. Anyway, from 1 Apr - 30 Sep 2013, there are 149 work days (excluding weekends/holidays). So, 149 x 8 = 1,192 hours of work. Now, 22 days of unpaid days is 176 hrs. 176 hrs is about 15%. I know any paycut sucks when it doesn't seem necessary. Just get streamline and get rid of some useless stuff (like Tattoo or Corona Top Conference) and furloughs could be eliminated. But I still don't see 20%. Please let me know, if you know.

I am at the same base as you. I am a contractor though. I work with almost entirely civilians so this furlough thing is a big deal around here. From what they tell me the 20% cut is because they are going to be asked to take one day off per week. That means they lose 2 days of pay out of 10 days (two weeks). The interesting part is that not all civilians are affected. Most likely mission essential civilians such as law enforcement and medical will be exempt. I also heard that dual status civilains (people who are in ART positions or National Guard positions) will be exempt also. That actually leaves a lot less people than what the DoD is quoting in public.

As I mentioned above the plan seems to be for everyone to take one day off per week. In my building the plan right now is for everyone to simply take every friday off. When you think about that it makes you wonder how much, if any, money that would actually save. Most contracts at this base are firm fixed price. That means the contractors get paid regardless. So if your job (like mine) relies on working with civilians it seriously cuts into effiency having all of them gone one day every week. In a lot of ways that is still better than having people take 20 days in a row off. It would be impossible to know who is going to be at work during what times. Can you imagine trying to schedule meetings while also factoring in that at some point every civilian will be gone for 20 days? Those are the kind of things that make me agree with Bob that the furlough will most likely not happen.

MilPhD
02-20-2013, 05:33 PM
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-administrative-furloughs.pdf

VFFTSGT
02-21-2013, 12:43 AM
Generals do not have the final vote on what, or how many planes to cut/retire. Congress makes that decision. Unfortunately, I've seen too many times where Congress forced us to keep planes (e.g., B-1s) that needed to be retired.

The DOD is CHOOSING to use the furlough option...the SECDEF sent that notice to Congress. The DOD could choose to use other cost cutting measures.

It's a political play and a bunch of hyperbole.


Thank you for adding some common sense to this argument. You are exactly right. If we didn't run out of money last year why would we run out this year? Especially considering travel has been essentially cut back to nothing. Where is all the money from last year going? During the end of year spending spree last year my unit was throwing money like crazy. It makes absolutely no sense that everything is being cut and civilians are taking a 20% pay cut.

This is what i want to know... I am guessing the money is being hoarded by someone in the chain and we will have a large fallout/end of year spending spree just like we did last year.

My unit spent over $50,000 for approximately 15 new desks and chairs last year and remember we were so broke last year we [military] almost didn't paychecks and they were screaming furloughs for civilians too then. That's over $3,000 per desk/chair set.

I also had to replace an equipment item part a few weeks ago. $10,000 for an obsolete touchscreen display based on 1990's technology.

And we wonder why the DOD budget is out of control...

SomeRandomGuy
02-21-2013, 12:12 PM
The DOD is CHOOSING to use the furlough option...the SECDEF sent that notice to Congress. The DOD could choose to use other cost cutting measures.

It's a political play and a bunch of hyperbole.



This is what i want to know... I am guessing the money is being hoarded by someone in the chain and we will have a large fallout/end of year spending spree just like we did last year.

My unit spent over $50,000 for approximately 15 new desks and chairs last year and remember we were so broke last year we [military] almost didn't paychecks and they were screaming furloughs for civilians too then. That's over $3,000 per desk/chair set.

I also had to replace an equipment item part a few weeks ago. $10,000 for an obsolete touchscreen display based on 1990's technology.

And we wonder why the DOD budget is out of control...

Yesterday the Secretary of Defense sent out a release about furloughs and sequestration. Here is one of the lines that is apparantly their excuse for why furloughs are necessary.


Meanwhile, because another trigger for sequestration is approaching on March 1, the department's leadership has begun extensive planning on how to implement the required spending reductions. Those cuts will be magnified because the department has been forced to operate under a six-month continuing resolution that has already compelled us to take steps to reduce spending.

When I look at this statement I wonder what he means by it. For those of you who do not know a continuing resolution is supposed to be a short term measure when congress has not been able to agree on a budget. It allows the DoD to continue to operate at the previous year's budget but new programs are not supposed to be created. Based on what the media is reporting the DoD is supposed to take a Half Trillion cut over the next 10 years. That equals 50 billion per year. The current budget is right at 900 Billion. So if we divide 50 by 900 we come up with 5.5%.

Again, looking at the fact that we are operating on a contiuing resolution (last year's numbers) how hard would it be to take a 5.5% cut? Even with that being said why are we asking civilians to take furlough's which reduces their pay by 20% for roughly the last six months of the year. If the furloughs end up happening it basically means the civilains took the entire cut for the DoD. That would mean everything else could continue as business as usual. We all know that is not the case though as unnecessary travel and conferences have already been cut as well as many other expenses. So again WTF? This is either one huge political ploy or the finance people at the pentagon are the worst accountants in the world.

Pullinteeth
02-21-2013, 12:53 PM
Thank you for adding some common sense to this argument. You are exactly right. If we didn't run out of money last year why would we run out this year? Especially considering travel has been essentially cut back to nothing. Where is all the money from last year going? During the end of year spending spree last year my unit was throwing money like crazy. It makes absolutely no sense that everything is being cut and civilians are taking a 20% pay cut.

Ah....and there is where you go wrong... Just because the budget for a Department hasn't changed, doesn't mean they are spending it the same way it was spent last year. That spending spree your unit had last year? There is a decent chance that is the main reason you got the $$ you have now. Just because you aren't supposed to spend on anything new doesn't mean things cost the same or that the money is being spent on the same things. Also, if you have a pet project, you CAN spend on something new, you just have to take the money from someone else...thus the budgets for a lot of units was greatly reduced, travel has been cut, and now furloughs... The money is being spent....just might not be being spent on the same things or in the same places...

VFFTSGT
02-21-2013, 03:59 PM
Ah....and there is where you go wrong... Just because the budget for a Department hasn't changed, doesn't mean they are spending it the same way it was spent last year. That spending spree your unit had last year? There is a decent chance that is the main reason you got the $$ you have now. Just because you aren't supposed to spend on anything new doesn't mean things cost the same or that the money is being spent on the same things. Also, if you have a pet project, you CAN spend on something new, you just have to take the money from someone else...thus the budgets for a lot of units was greatly reduced, travel has been cut, and now furloughs... The money is being spent....just might not be being spent on the same things or in the same places...

That sounds like a bunch of pathetic excuses for some irresponsible spending behavior and poor planning...something I referenced earlier

SomeRandomGuy
02-21-2013, 04:06 PM
Ah....and there is where you go wrong... Just because the budget for a Department hasn't changed, doesn't mean they are spending it the same way it was spent last year. That spending spree your unit had last year? There is a decent chance that is the main reason you got the $$ you have now. Just because you aren't supposed to spend on anything new doesn't mean things cost the same or that the money is being spent on the same things. Also, if you have a pet project, you CAN spend on something new, you just have to take the money from someone else...thus the budgets for a lot of units was greatly reduced, travel has been cut, and now furloughs... The money is being spent....just might not be being spent on the same things or in the same places...

I understand your point but I actually work in finance. I was trying to make my point simple so it could be understood. If I were allowed to quote actual numbers I have access to i could illustrate my point a lot better. My point is every unit gets a base budget every year. That base budget is to cover supplies, training, certain deployments, as well as other unit specific requirements. The types of things you are talking about from year to year are special requirements. Those are managed at the MAJCOM and higher level. My point (which I stole from VFF) is taht you could easily give every unit the same budget as last year. I realize that certain things will of course increase (fuel, electricity, flying hours) but that is where some of the special requirements should be cut. If we need to cut something lets make it fair all the way down. If every single appropriation took the same cut we would all be just fine. The problem is that certain "special units" seem to get priority in wasting money. I know this because I came froma unit where we had a hard time getting enough paper to make required copies. At my current unit I have an office instead of a cubicle. I also have a scanner on my desk (even though another is 10 feet away at the copier) and access to just about any office supplies I could ever want. That is the biggest problem with the DoD budget some financial managers are better at playing the game and their pet projects seem to get priority while other units struggle just to get by.

Pullinteeth
02-21-2013, 04:07 PM
That sounds like a bunch of pathetic excuses for some irresponsible spending behavior and poor planning...something I referenced earlier

What I am saying though, is that generally, it isn't the unit's fault they are out of money... It is someone at a much higher level that decided they could do without so they (those on high) could redirect the funds somewhere else... That is the reason you now have to get a statement from you commander saying it is mission critial if you want to go anywhere farther than the smoke pit....

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
02-21-2013, 09:23 PM
What I am saying though, is that generally, it isn't the unit's fault they are out of money... It is someone at a much higher level that decided they could do without so they (those on high) could redirect the funds somewhere else... That is the reason you now have to get a statement from you commander saying it is mission critial if you want to go anywhere farther than the smoke pit....


Well maybe. There's multiple layers to that onion, and the unit must have some degree of accountability.

efmbman
02-21-2013, 10:02 PM
I posted this on another site, and it had a decent response. Let's see what happens here... might show that I am racist, however.

There are 2 possible outcomes that I see once furloughs hit the DoD:

1) Leaders report that because of furloughs, the mission is not accomplished. This shows an poor leader, one that cannot manage to overcome adversity to accomplish the mission. Leader is fired, find someone lese that can accomplish the mission.

2) Leaders report that despite the furloughs, the mission was accomplished. This shows that the DoD was overstaffed all along and can do the same job with less people.

It is a double edged sword, and neither outcome favors the DoD sacred cows. In a way, this is oversight in most bizarre way possible. To be honest, if it leads to a long-term fiscal policy that is sound, I am for it.

VFFTSGT
02-21-2013, 10:41 PM
I posted this on another site, and it had a decent response. Let's see what happens here... might show that I am racist, however.

There are 2 possible outcomes that I see once furloughs hit the DoD:

1) Leaders report that because of furloughs, the mission is not accomplished. This shows an poor leader, one that cannot manage to overcome adversity to accomplish the mission. Leader is fired, find someone lese that can accomplish the mission.

2) Leaders report that despite the furloughs, the mission was accomplished. This shows that the DoD was overstaffed all along and can do the same job with less people.

It is a double edged sword, and neither outcome favors the DoD sacred cows. In a way, this is oversight in most bizarre way possible. To be honest, if it leads to a long-term fiscal policy that is sound, I am for it.

The furlough crap is political hyperbole....last year, it was the military won't get paid. They spoke of furloughs last year too...

While the DOD is playing a poor hand of poker at the moment, your points are good and the military is going to lose its hand if they play it.

Lets not forget that both houses of Congress, while screaming budget crisis last year, also had no problems passing a bipartisan bill to deny American citiznes basic liberties with authorization indefinite detention.

mjt
02-21-2013, 11:02 PM
We are operating on CR's...Continuing Resolutions....budgets under last years figures. We didn't run out of money last year...we shouldn't run out this year - poor planning and erroneous spending is the problem if we are really broke.



You're missing a couple of key points. The CR's have an end date, and spending is only approved at previous years amounts up until that date, so it's not like they have access to the full amount as the previous year, only a percentage of it. If a units spend plan changes year over year and projected quarterly loads are different then it can seriously impact them Granted, most units are smart enough to front load 1QFY, not everyone can do that.

The other key point is that Commander's often limit spending to a percentage of the budget authorized under a CRA, and they do it for a multitude of reasons, most commonly to use the excess to fund mission essential programs/equipment that has a year over year cost increase. They also withhold that percentage to ensure units don't spend money they're not guaranteed to receive. Once a CRA is issued there's still no guarantee congress approves the same amount as the previous year. Aside from fenced in appropriated funds, MAJCOM and wing commanders have significant leeway in how they appropriate funds down the chain.

When FM's do their usual FY budget drill and compile every units requirements and the funding needed for them. Once Congress approves the budget and the money flows down to the MAJCOMs, the commander at that level makes a decision how to fund each of the wings based on their requested budgets. Once money flows down to the wings, the commander does the same thing, and it continues to flow downward until it reaches the unit.

In recent years there's been a pretty big disparity between what a unit requests and what they actually receive, so spending at last years amounts can be a recipe for disaster. Hence, why commanders limit the amount units can spend to a percentage of last years budget.

I wouldn't put the onus only on poor planning and erroneous spending. Sitting in the FWG and FMB, there's a ton of meetings and planning that takes place to ensure the right requirements are funded. It never fails that something comes up that costs an arm and a leg that could not be forecasted. I've asked the question more than a few times why we don't place more of an emphasis on dollar cost averaging repair/replacement costs over life expectancy but often get the deer in the headlights look and usually get the response that unless it's a bona fide requirement you can't factor in funding for it (flight line aircraft/equipment notwithstanding, my understanding is there's tables that spell this out for them).

Another big issue that I often see happen is a DoD/congressional mandate to institute so and so policy or program but not providing funding for it. It's then left up to the commanders to re-prioritize funds and then find a way to make ends meet for those things funding was pulled from.

raider8169
02-22-2013, 12:03 AM
Im calling bluff, it wont happen.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
02-22-2013, 12:42 AM
You're missing a couple of key points. The CR's have an end date, and spending is only approved at previous years amounts up until that date, so it's not like they have access to the full amount as the previous year, only a percentage of it. If a units spend plan changes year over year and projected quarterly loads are different then it can seriously impact them Granted, most units are smart enough to front load 1QFY, not everyone can do that.

The other key point is that Commander's often limit spending to a percentage of the budget authorized under a CRA, and they do it for a multitude of reasons, most commonly to use the excess to fund mission essential programs/equipment that has a year over year cost increase. They also withhold that percentage to ensure units don't spend money they're not guaranteed to receive. Once a CRA is issued there's still no guarantee congress approves the same amount as the previous year. Aside from fenced in appropriated funds, MAJCOM and wing commanders have significant leeway in how they appropriate funds down the chain.

When FM's do their usual FY budget drill and compile every units requirements and the funding needed for them. Once Congress approves the budget and the money flows down to the MAJCOMs, the commander at that level makes a decision how to fund each of the wings based on their requested budgets. Once money flows down to the wings, the commander does the same thing, and it continues to flow downward until it reaches the unit.

In recent years there's been a pretty big disparity between what a unit requests and what they actually receive, so spending at last years amounts can be a recipe for disaster. Hence, why commanders limit the amount units can spend to a percentage of last years budget.

I wouldn't put the onus only on poor planning and erroneous spending. Sitting in the FWG and FMB, there's a ton of meetings and planning that takes place to ensure the right requirements are funded. It never fails that something comes up that costs an arm and a leg that could not be forecasted. I've asked the question more than a few times why we don't place more of an emphasis on dollar cost averaging repair/replacement costs over life expectancy but often get the deer in the headlights look and usually get the response that unless it's a bona fide requirement you can't factor in funding for it (flight line aircraft/equipment notwithstanding, my understanding is there's tables that spell this out for them).

Another big issue that I often see happen is a DoD/congressional mandate to institute so and so policy or program but not providing funding for it. It's then left up to the commanders to re-prioritize funds and then find a way to make ends meet for those things funding was pulled from.



It appears there may be yet another FMer in this house.

VFFTSGT
02-22-2013, 03:07 AM
You're missing a couple of key points. The CR's have an end date, and spending is only approved at previous years amounts up until that date, so it's not like they have access to the full amount as the previous year, only a percentage of it. If a units spend plan changes year over year and projected quarterly loads are different then it can seriously impact them Granted, most units are smart enough to front load 1QFY, not everyone can do that.

The other key point is that Commander's often limit spending to a percentage of the budget authorized under a CRA, and they do it for a multitude of reasons, most commonly to use the excess to fund mission essential programs/equipment that has a year over year cost increase. They also withhold that percentage to ensure units don't spend money they're not guaranteed to receive. Once a CRA is issued there's still no guarantee congress approves the same amount as the previous year. Aside from fenced in appropriated funds, MAJCOM and wing commanders have significant leeway in how they appropriate funds down the chain.

When FM's do their usual FY budget drill and compile every units requirements and the funding needed for them. Once Congress approves the budget and the money flows down to the MAJCOMs, the commander at that level makes a decision how to fund each of the wings based on their requested budgets. Once money flows down to the wings, the commander does the same thing, and it continues to flow downward until it reaches the unit.

In recent years there's been a pretty big disparity between what a unit requests and what they actually receive, so spending at last years amounts can be a recipe for disaster. Hence, why commanders limit the amount units can spend to a percentage of last years budget.

I wouldn't put the onus only on poor planning and erroneous spending. Sitting in the FWG and FMB, there's a ton of meetings and planning that takes place to ensure the right requirements are funded. It never fails that something comes up that costs an arm and a leg that could not be forecasted. I've asked the question more than a few times why we don't place more of an emphasis on dollar cost averaging repair/replacement costs over life expectancy but often get the deer in the headlights look and usually get the response that unless it's a bona fide requirement you can't factor in funding for it (flight line aircraft/equipment notwithstanding, my understanding is there's tables that spell this out for them).

Another big issue that I often see happen is a DoD/congressional mandate to institute so and so policy or program but not providing funding for it. It's then left up to the commanders to re-prioritize funds and then find a way to make ends meet for those things funding was pulled from.

Whatever...we don't have money for mission items such as personal protective equipment but my unit just spent $1,000 on award plaques. Go bark up another tree with your nonsense/excuses for poor planning and irresponsible spending.

Nickymaz
02-22-2013, 03:17 AM
I posted this on another site, and it had a decent response. Let's see what happens here... might show that I am racist, however.

There are 2 possible outcomes that I see once furloughs hit the DoD:

1) Leaders report that because of furloughs, the mission is not accomplished. This shows an poor leader, one that cannot manage to overcome adversity to accomplish the mission. Leader is fired, find someone lese that can accomplish the mission.

2) Leaders report that despite the furloughs, the mission was accomplished. This shows that the DoD was overstaffed all along and can do the same job with less people.

It is a double edged sword, and neither outcome favors the DoD sacred cows. In a way, this is oversight in most bizarre way possible. To be honest, if it leads to a long-term fiscal policy that is sound, I am for it.

The effects of the furloughs are going to depend on the unit, some units are heavy on civilians and furloughs would hurt them harder than lose with no or few civilians. At the end of the day all units do the best they can with the resources allotted them, and if their resources are cut clearly there will be shortfalls in the mission. The argument the Pentagon is trying to make is that this is going to lead to shortfalls so not only will they happen I think commands will highlight them as a part of the PA campaign against the sequester.

mjt
02-22-2013, 10:31 AM
Whatever...we don't have money for mission items such as personal protective equipment but my unit just spent $1,000 on award plaques. Go bark up another tree with your nonsense/excuses for poor planning and irresponsible spending.

Why would I go bark up another tree when you're talking about your units spending habits? I'm shedding some light on how the process works. It's pretty obvious that some units overstate their requirements to ensure they don't have their funding cut beyond a point that they can't really afford, and in turn may end up with more money than actually need. It happens. And apparently your unit does this, doesn't that mean you're part of the problem?

Pullinteeth
02-22-2013, 03:20 PM
Thought this was interesting;

Two members of Congress returned part of their office budgets to the Treasury this week.

Standing in front of an oversized check for $600,000 -- or 20% of his budget -- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said his office treated funds "like it's our money, or your money, and we look at every expenditure."

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-South Carolina, said he would return $160,000 to the federal government, or 12% of his office budget.

Ironically, one of the biggest opponents of Congress cutting its pay is one of the wealthiest, Nancy Pelosi.

The House Democratic leader says she knows other members of Congress are not as financially fortunate.

"Most of my colleagues are the breadwinners in their families, said Pelosi. "A pay cut, to me, doesn't mean as much."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/politics/budget-congress-pay/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

SomeRandomGuy
02-22-2013, 03:59 PM
Why would I go bark up another tree when you're talking about your units spending habits? I'm shedding some light on how the process works. It's pretty obvious that some units overstate their requirements to ensure they don't have their funding cut beyond a point that they can't really afford, and in turn may end up with more money than actually need. It happens. And apparently your unit does this, doesn't that mean you're part of the problem?

The other thing that units do is "obligate" fake money on their GPC cards. When higher headquarters looks at lower levels for where to snatch money they will take it from the units who do not already have it committed or obligated to something. That is what I meant earlier when I said some units are better at playing the game than others. Luckily, I am at a unit right now where we are pretty good at the game. Other than the furloughs (nothing we can do about that) everything else should be just fine. We could honestly afford to pay our civilians with the money we have if headquarters would let us choose between that and some supply purchases.

WeaponsTSGT
02-22-2013, 05:14 PM
Every year that a particular aircraft is in operation your cost to fly this aircraft will go up, there is no way around this. And as far as stopping sorties at all but non deployed locations this can not happen either. You can not deploy A/C that have not been flying at home, nobody will be qualified in their job and the aircraft can not sit that long. At the unit level I can tell you mine cut spending this year, the first item to get axed was half of newcomers clothing issue. While this might not seem like an issue for those stationed at Luke, it's a big deal for those in Alaska that work outside. Now the only issue items are winter boots, gloves and hats. Myself and others brought in old items for some of the new airmen. Also someone had mentioned that ART's wouldn't be affected, but I work in an integrated unit and have been told from the ART's that they will furlough on Fridays.

technomage1
02-22-2013, 06:25 PM
The crap thing is we won't lose the civilians who it won't hurt us to lose with this, like the lazy ones or the ones near retirement.

We'll lose the ones who can get another job or the young hard chargers who don't have time in the pension plan.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
02-22-2013, 06:50 PM
The other thing that units do is "obligate" fake money on their GPC cards. When higher headquarters looks at lower levels for where to snatch money they will take it from the units who do not already have it committed or obligated to something. That is what I meant earlier when I said some units are better at playing the game than others. Luckily, I am at a unit right now where we are pretty good at the game. Other than the furloughs (nothing we can do about that) everything else should be just fine. We could honestly afford to pay our civilians with the money we have if headquarters would let us choose between that and some supply purchases.


Kinda. I mean, if you're talking about obligating GPC dollars, that's more of an EOY thing. Committed GPC dollars should be fair game when analysts are looking at where we might be able to save a buck, in addition to residuals from PRs, travel orders not used, etc. A budget analyst with time and motivation may want to scrub a programs obligations when reviewing their programs, not just items that have been in 'C' forever or old travel orders. It's not exactly unheard of for some units to do stuff like obligate way more than they need on a shipping MORD, for example. Now, FMA should arguably catch this problem before an obligation even occurs, but stuff happens, so sometimes it's a matter of going back and scrubbing the books. When it comes to those committed dollars, we're just talking about an administrative reservation of funds, or in other words, that money shouldn't necessarily be off limits. Depending on where you sit, you have to hope RAs are honest and Analysts are helping them remain honest, but in reality, money has historically been hidden/parked/whatever you want to call it, at various levels.

Robert F. Dorr
02-23-2013, 01:38 AM
Every year that a particular aircraft is in operation your cost to fly this aircraft will go up, there is no way around this. And as far as stopping sorties at all but non deployed locations this can not happen either. You can not deploy A/C that have not been flying at home, nobody will be qualified in their job and the aircraft can not sit that long. At the unit level I can tell you mine cut spending this year, the first item to get axed was half of newcomers clothing issue. While this might not seem like an issue for those stationed at Luke, it's a big deal for those in Alaska that work outside. Now the only issue items are winter boots, gloves and hats. Myself and others brought in old items for some of the new airmen. Also someone had mentioned that ART's wouldn't be affected, but I work in an integrated unit and have been told from the ART's that they will furlough on Fridays.

Not necessarily true about cost. If the aircraft is in large-scale production -- a phenomenon that has all but disappeared -- operating cost should go down as numbers increase.

Where can I get recent information about airframe, pilot and aircrew flying hours? On a per capita basis, have they declined? Are our aircrews getting enough practice? How do our average airframe and aircrew hours compare with those of other air forces?

VFFTSGT
02-23-2013, 04:34 AM
F-35 Fleet Grounded after Engine Crack Found

BRUWIN
02-23-2013, 07:46 AM
F-35 Fleet Grounded after Engine Crack Found

F-35 guys are screwed....the F-22 guys have all the good tee times taken.

MajesticThunder
02-23-2013, 08:43 AM
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/22/sequestration-to-shutter-commissaries-wednesdays.html

Furlough ripple effect … no cheap salad bar on Wednesdays.

Comforting to know that local nationals employed at US overseas bases are exempt from DoD furloughs despite the fact US tax dollars pay their salary via assorted host nation SOFA arrangements.

More indirect foreign aid perks from pockets of duped US taxpayers. :wof

Robert F. Dorr
02-23-2013, 08:56 AM
F-35 Fleet Grounded after Engine Crack Found

If you want to know the truth, this is getting really, really tiresome.

I've given three speeches in the last two days. One point I try to make is that we won World War II with very large numbers of "good enough."

Maybe we might have replaced the P-47 Thunderbolt on the production line with the P-72 (for example) but we didn't because we needed a whole s**tcan full of "good enough."

It's time to drop the pretense that stealth matters, ditch this phony "fifth generation" s**t, shoot this turkey, and resume production for U.S. forces of advanced versions of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15ES Silent Eagle and F/A-18F Super Hornet. And, oh, by the way, no more "concurrency," please. Thank you.

F-35? I can't STAND it any more!

If I have to write another f**king word about that airplane I'm going to s**t.

(Sadly, however, the F-35 program is a perfect metaphor for the larger issue of Government At Work).

FLAPS
02-23-2013, 12:30 PM
If you want to know the truth, this is getting really, really tiresome.

I've given three speeches in the last two days. One point I try to make is that we won World War II with very large numbers of "good enough."

Maybe we might have replaced the P-47 Thunderbolt on the production line with the P-72 (for example) but we didn't because we needed a whole s**tcan full of "good enough."

It's time to drop the pretense that stealth matters, ditch this phony "fifth generation" s**t, shoot this turkey, and resume production for U.S. forces of advanced versions of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15ES Silent Eagle and F/A-18F Super Hornet. And, oh, by the way, no more "concurrency," please. Thank you.

F-35? I can't STAND it any more!

If I have to write another f**king word about that airplane I'm going to s**t.

(Sadly, however, the F-35 program is a perfect metaphor for the larger issue of Government At Work).

You know how this is going to end? When it's all said and done our FMS partners will all cancel their orders, further driving up unit costs, the F35B and C models will get canx, and the USAF will end up with only one or two wings that have F35As, while one-by-one, the service life on our remaining F-16s/F-15s run out.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I really believe there's a long range plan to completely dismantle our military...all while POTUS and Congress play the blame game, while claiming individually that "this is not what I wanted to see happen to our great military."

Pullinteeth
03-21-2013, 06:42 PM
Bunch of chickenshits.... They will cut the captive audience but when it comes to civilians...

Department of Defense (DoD) is delaying the release of civilian employee furlough proposal letter for approximately two weeks (estimated April 5).

This delay with allow the DoD to carefully analyze the impact of pending Continuing Resolution legislation on the Department's resources. The legislation could have some impact on the overall number of furlough days; however, no decisions have been reached, especially since the legislation hasn't been signed into law. The number of furlough days remains up to 22 at this point.