PDA

View Full Version : Agencies failed to prepare for sequester cuts, hearing reveals



VFFTSGT
03-21-2013, 12:44 AM
As if we already didn't know...but here it is in writing....


Executive agencies did not prepare for the sequester despite knowing about impending cuts for over a year and a half, a congressional hearing on Tuesday afternoon revealed.


He cited the FCC as an example of an agency that cut costs before March 1, resulting in smaller cuts across the board within the agency.

“The FCC, by comparison, anticipated a law that has been on the books for 19 months, and began making sensible, if you will, austerity, while agency after agency acts surprised that a law signed by the president 19 months ago actually meant what it said,” he said.

The failing to prepare is why troops are without TA right now. DOD leaders (and other federal agencies) continued to spend at the proposed increased rate without regard to possible impacts to their people once sequestration kicked in.

http://freebeacon.com/unprepared/

Robert F. Dorr
03-21-2013, 12:49 AM
As if we already didn't know...but here it is in writing....

The failing to prepare is why troops are without TA right now. DOD leaders (and other federal agencies) continued to spend at the proposed increased rate without regard to possible impacts to their people once sequestration kicked in.

http://freebeacon.com/unprepared/

Perfectly understandable. Sequestration wasn't meant to actually happen. No one imagined it would happen.

Why is TA so important? (I assume you mean tuition assistance and not the first meaning of TA that popped into my mind). If funding should be provided for TA, where should savings be achieved instead?

VFFTSGT
03-21-2013, 12:55 AM
Perfectly understandable. Sequestration wasn't meant to actually happen. No one imagined it would happen.

Why is TA so important? (I assume you mean tuition assistance and not the first meaning of TA that popped into my mind). If funding should be provided for TA, where should savings be achieved instead?

I figured it would and anyone halfway keeping up with current events should have known. The military is suppose to have 749 contingencies for every scenario...hurting the troops shouldn't have been one of those scenarios.

Foreign aid is the first thing that comes to mind. Bailouts for all those solar companies is another. Obama's trips everywhere is another. John Kerry's world tour cost us quite a few millions as well. I could go on all day.

It's not that Tuition Assistance shouldn't be cut (we do have the GI Bill) but there are 59,421 other things that should be cut first.

imnohero
03-21-2013, 01:40 AM
where should savings be achieved instead?

Take your pick:
F-35
Zumwalt Destroyer
Near-precision Artillery
Abrams electronic upgrade
Continue buying C17s to replace old aircraft and skip the development of a new large airlift

CrustySMSgt
03-21-2013, 04:36 AM
The failing to prepare is why troops are without TA right now. DOD leaders (and other federal agencies) continued to spend at the proposed increased rate without regard to possible impacts to their people once sequestration kicked in.

There have been problems with TA's budget for years. If more people actually used it, it would have been cut years ago. Great for those actually using it, but of course the public blindly jumping to our defense would be shocked to see what percentage of people actually take this FREE MONEY!

If they bring back TA, that $100M will have to come from somewhere.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
03-21-2013, 02:52 PM
"The current program growth is unsustainable,"


Talk about an inconvenient truth.

sandsjames
03-21-2013, 03:25 PM
Why would anyone prepare for the cuts? RFD clearly stated, several times, that it wouldn't happen. I'm trying to find the post that states what he would do if it actually did happen. I'm pretty sure he made some sort of guarantee.

sandsjames
03-21-2013, 05:09 PM
Thought this was pertinent to the conversation. Can't figure out why we're broke:

"ALCON,

XXXX has a 57" Samsung LNT5781 LED TV with remote and wall mount that is not on anyone's account. If any shop would like to take ownership please send reply to SSgt XX & SSgt XX. "First Come First Serve"

imported_chipotleboy
03-21-2013, 05:35 PM
This is definitely the result of politicians playing "chicken", and there seems to be the desire to make the detrimental impacts as large and as public as possible.

For example, some of my colleagues are not on fully-funded positions. They are required to bring in external dollars to fund their activities, and if they don't, they get furloughed. However, they are successful at what they do, and in fact, bring in more than enough to pay their own salaries, equipment, and travel. But even though they are essentially entirely exernally funded, they are still not allowed to travel or buy equipment, and they will still be furloughed like the rest of us.

The leadership is trying to inflict as much pain as possible.

tiredretiredE7
03-21-2013, 09:04 PM
Bullshit bob, white house designed and democrat loved.

Yes, taking it to the military is the democratic way but then a majority of the AD did vote for Obama.

tiredretiredE7
03-21-2013, 09:04 PM
Bullshit bob, white house designed and democrat loved.

Yes, taking it to the military is the democratic way but then a majority of the AD did vote for Obama.

Mcjohn1118
03-21-2013, 09:28 PM
Well, now, the furlough has been pushed back a couple of weeks. Earlier today I received notification that our Wing was still planning on issuing furlough notices out tomorrow. The furloughs were to take place 21 Apr - 21 Sep 2013 with the first day 25 Apr 2013. Now, however, the DoD pushed it back until 5 Apr 2013 for notifications to go out. I believe the civilian employees must get 30-days notice so furloughs now won't begin until May 2013. I am still trying to figure out if it will be the full 176 hours per employee. Here's the story link:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2013/03/military-furloughs-delayed-032113/

CrustySMSgt
03-22-2013, 05:41 AM
There have been problems with TA's budget for years. If more people actually used it, it would have been cut years ago. Great for those actually using it, but of course the public blindly jumping to our defense would be shocked to see what percentage of people actually take this FREE MONEY!

If they bring back TA, that $100M will have to come from somewhere.

PTGOD, thanks for the feedback; BTW, if I "responded without saying nothing" that means the reponse actually said something. But them I know English is a second language for you, so the misunderstanding is understandable.

Mcjohn1118
03-22-2013, 08:34 AM
I posted a link to the MilTimes story that the DoD is suspending furlough notices until at least 5 Apr 2013. But the moderators (didn't know they existed), informed me my post would have to be approved first. Odd. The DoD is looking at the possibility of finding more funds since the CR through Sep 2013 was recently passed. Anyway, Mr. Dorr, may be right after all.

Shrike
03-22-2013, 12:09 PM
I posted a link to the MilTimes story that the DoD is suspending furlough notices until at least 5 Apr 2013. But the moderators (didn't know they existed), informed me my post would have to be approved first. Odd. The DoD is looking at the possibility of finding more funds since the CR through Sep 2013 was recently passed. Anyway, Mr. Dorr, may be right after all.

Make the post without the hyperlink. Then edit the post and put in the hyperlink. It skips that whole moderator thing.