View Full Version : Senator vs. Pentagon
1stindoor
10-27-2010, 06:40
Fed up with what he says is a lack of answers from the Pentagon about its decision to shutter Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va, a critical jobs lifeline to that military-centric area of the state, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va, is taking his frustration to the next level --- to block DOD nominees and promotions until he gets what he wants.
"This failure to respond to a request for basic information that should be readily available is indicative of the lack of cooperation that has characterized the proposal to close" JFCOM, Webb wrote in a letter Monday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, adding, "For this reason, I will place a hold on all Department of Defense civilian and flag/general officer nominations until such time as my request for information is satisfied."
...
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/26/dem-senator-standoff-dod-no-info-no-nominees
This should prove to be entertaining.
".....Va, a critical jobs lifeline to that military-centric area of the state, ............"
The military is not a jobs program. Far too many treat it as such.
Could the Senator give a good argument for keeping the Command - without mentioning "jobs"? If not then maybe it is time to get rid of it.
The military is not a jobs program. Far too many treat it as such.
Could the Senator give a good argument for keeping the Command - without mentioning "jobs"? If not then maybe it is time to get rid of it.
As the DoD is not big on lay-off's, I suspect the good D-VA Senator is more worried about HIS Pork Barrel Voting Civilian Constituents and not the gals & guys in uniform..
The military is not a jobs program. Far too many treat it as such. Jimmy Carter comes to mind...Could the Senator give a good argument for keeping the Command - without mentioning "jobs"? I doubt it...not in this election cycle...
1stindoor
10-27-2010, 08:02
I think it's pretty telling of his arrogance to think he's owed answers...or else.
What chaps my fourth point of contact is that he feels he has the right and the authority to hold up promotions for both military and civilians who have nothing to do with the issue.
I don't know the man or this issue, and would likely disagree with his politics, however IIRC this is the same gentleman and military author who won the Navy Cross, and pairs of Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, and Purple Hearts in Vietnam with the Marine Corps, and his son also served in Iraq. With this background I'd like to think he cares more for the troops than the average politician.
This butt-clown was one of those who has been brow-beating SECDEF about why we have so many damned GO/FO's in the services. When JFCOM gets the pink slip, the little rat shows his true colors and starts screaming "not in MY backyard"... Hypocrite.
Remember this?
Gun charges dropped against Senate aide
Posted 4/27/2007 5:27 PM | Comment | Recommend E-mail | Save | Print |
WASHINGTON (AP) — Authorities dropped charges Friday against an aide to Virginia Sen. Jim Webb who carried a loaded gun into the U.S. Capitol complex.
"After reviewing and analyzing all of the evidence in the case, we do not believe the essential elements of the crime of carrying a pistol without a license can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt," U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor, top prosecutor in the District of Columbia, said in a short statement.
Webb senior aide Phillip Thompson, 45, was arrested on March 26 after Capitol Police spotted the loaded pistol and two other loaded magazines in a briefcase being scanned by an X-ray machine at the entrance of the Russell Senate office building.
Thompson told the officer at the building's entrance that the weapon belonged to Webb. The senator said later he did not give Thompson the gun but refused to say whether it was his. Webb told reporters Thompson had carried the gun into the building "completely inadvertently."
District of Columbia law prohibits carrying a handgun or concealed weapon without a license.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-27-3351505355_x.htm
and this:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18750&highlight=thoughts+senator+webb
time for a change
v/r
jago
1stindoor
10-27-2010, 14:09
This butt-clown was one of those who has been brow-beating SECDEF about why we have so many damned GO/FO's in the services. When JFCOM gets the pink slip, the little rat shows his true colors and starts screaming "not in MY backyard"... Hypocrite.
I think this pretty much sums it all up. I am waiting to see if anything from his little "rant" with President Bush comes up again as a result of his latest "hissy-fit."
For more than twenty three years, I've been saying that senators and congressmen need to do a better job at reminding everyone which branch of the federal government is supposed to be the most powerful.
This specific instance is not exactly what I had in mind.I don't know the man or this issue, and would likely disagree with his politics, however IIRC this is the same gentleman and military author who won the Navy Cross, and pairs of Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, and Purple Hearts in Vietnam with the Marine Corps, and his son also served in Iraq. With this background I'd like to think he cares more for the troops than the average politician.AKV--
That Senator Webb (a) is attempting to embarrass SecDef Gates by making public the content of his letter to SecDef Gates,* (b) is making so much noise over a "very basic request for information,"** and (c) lists his home state as the first area that may experience the "significant ramifications" of the closure, all suggest that he's being driven by political considerations on this specific issue.
_____________________________________________
* A point of emphasis in every edition of the U.S. Naval Institute's Marine Officer's Guide that I've read is "praise in public, criticize in private."
** Bluntly, I find it difficult to believe that neither the CRS, Senator Webb's own staff, nor the staff of the senate committee on armed services could not find ways to get this information through open source materials and back channel requests. The search button is everyone's friend.
From what I see day to day. Only about 10% of DOD contractors actually contribute to DOD. They could get rid of the rest.
Contracting is totally out of control. The company I work for now is the Sub of the Sub of the Sub. It's such a waste of money it should be criminal.
For example. Why can't DOD hire someone like me without three different large companies attached to my ass. Just pay me to show up and work. A simple contract is all it would take. These companies do absolutely nothing for me.
Over 50% of what DOD pays for me to instruct go's back to these companies. I hope DOD shuts more of these places down. DOD pays close to $200.000 a year for me. They could cut that in half and still maintain what I take home a year.
The Reaper
10-27-2010, 16:59
From what I see day to day. Only about 10% of DOD contractors actually contribute to DOD. They could get rid of the rest.
Contracting is totally out of control. The company I work for now is the Sub of the Sub of the Sub. It's such a waste of money it should be criminal.
For example. Why can't DOD hire someone like me without three different large companies attached to my ass. Just pay me to show up and work. A simple contract is all it would take. These companies do absolutely nothing for me.
Over 50% of what DOD pays for me to instruct go's back to these companies. I hope DOD shuts more of these places down. DOD pays close to $200.000 a year for me. They could cut that in half and still maintain what I take home a year.
Well, you are not an 8A, small, minority veteran female-owned business in a Hub Zone, are you?
What would happen to them if the US government hired you directly?
TR
Why hire a company. Just hire the individuals. Let the Army/Marines handle the paperwork. Its not much. Definitely not enough to warrant an entire office staff.
Why hire a company. Just hire the individuals.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a defense contractor for quite some time now.
You must not have experienced how long it takes govt contracting offices to deal with only a handful of omnibus contracts. Consider how incredibly slow and inefficient they would become if they suddenly had to oversee and manage thousands upon thousands of small scope contracts. That would be akin to making you instruct each student invidually, even if you're teaching each one the same POI. Seems a bit inefficient and silly, right? Not to mention there's no way you could achieve the same throughput you get by teaching a class of students all together.
To maintain throughput while handling the number of contracts you're suggesting, you'd have to add tens of thousands of more govt civilian contracting officers required to handle the workload...that's tens of thousands of new govt employees that will require money set aside for a retirement pension, health care insurance, leave benefits, etc., and unless they're completely inept or corrupt, they're permanent. At least with contract firms, you can "descope" (i.e., fire them) almost overnight, and have no obligation to find them substitute jobs, unlike govt employees. All those soon-to-be-unemployed JFCOM GS folks will have priority hire for jobs all over the country, and will be provided govt assistance to find another GS position either locally or worldwide. Even if they have to take a much lower-rated job, they'll get paid at their current rate for two years before they take a pay cut comensurate with the job rating.
Using prime contractors to manage subcontrators puts the administrative workloads on the companies themselves. Yes, it sounds convoluted, but it frees up the govt contracting officers to manage the contracts and performance, not the fees, awards, personnel management, etc. of each individual company or employee.
Contracting with private firms is a little like buying a refundable airline ticket--you pay more for a similar service, but you maximize your flexibility to respond to a changing environment.
longrange1947
10-28-2010, 19:56
I contracted directly as an instructor from 94 until 98 at SOTIC. It was painful. I wold finish one contract and start another and not be paid until the next contract was half over. NET 90 is the gov't by word. :(
While it seems easier, it is not. The gov't sucks at watching over contractors. :munchin