Richard
04-24-2012, 06:29
Politics and the Guard - who'd uh thunk it... ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Air National Guard Lobbies Successfully Against Budget Cuts
NYT, 24 Apr 2012
In combat zones, National Guard units generally take their orders from active duty commanders. Not so in Washington.
For two months, the Air National Guard, with the help of governors from every state, has been battling the active duty Air Force over proposed budget cuts that would have trimmed the Guard’s force by more than 5,000 people and more than 200 aircraft.
On Monday, the two sides declared a temporary truce, as Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said that he would restore some of the cuts in the budget proposal he has sent to Congress, including at least 2,200 Guard positions and 24 C-130 cargo planes.
“These aircraft play a vital role in our support to civil authorities, particularly in the event of natural disasters,” Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said. “It’s the right thing to do, and the secretary urges Congress to consider it.”
The restorations, worth about $400 million over five years, underscored that the National Guard, long influential in Congress, had gained new clout in the Pentagon as well, largely through an organization created in 2010, the Council of Governors, to help coordinate responses to natural disasters.
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat who as co-chair of the council helped lead the fight against the cuts, called the compromise plan “a major, major step” and said she would urge every Air National Guard unit to consider supporting it.
Still, Governor Gregoire hinted that some Guard units would probably continue the fight on Capitol Hill, where Congress has just begun debating the Pentagon budget. In particular, some states are upset that the Air Force still plans to retire their combat aircraft, including faster F-16 fighter jets and slower A-10 Thunderbolts, known as warthogs.
The Air Force, which has had to maintain a steely public silence on the budget fight even as the Guard and the governors protested cuts loudly and publicly, said it hoped the revised spending plan would pass muster.
“I think the secretary has offered a serious and constructive proposal that we hope will be the basis for the Congress to respond favorably,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher D. Miller, the deputy Air Force chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.
Though the Guard and active duty forces often clash over spending, this year’s dustup was colored by two new factors: the requirement that the Pentagon cut nearly $500 billion from its budget over the coming decade, and the emergence of the Council of Governors as a lobbying force.
In February, the Air Force released its initial budget proposal, calling for reducing the active duty force by 3,900 airmen, the reserves by another 900 and the National Guard by 5,100.
The plan also called for retiring about 500 aging aircraft over five years, as well as canceling the procurement of some new cargo planes. Many of those aircraft would come from Guard units, under the proposal.
The proposed cuts fell disproportionately on the Guard, which is much smaller than the active duty force. The Air Force justified the plan by saying that the active duty component had been trimmed significantly more in recent decades than had the Guard or the reserve.
As a result, the Air Force maintains, its active duty units have been deploying at a rapid tempo almost nonstop since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and will continue to do so even as the United States draws down forces in Afghanistan.
But almost immediately after the Air Force plan became public, the Council of Governors mobilized, sending letters of protest to Mr. Panetta and the senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They argued that the Guard was more cost-effective than the active duty force and that cuts to the Guard fleet would hamstring states’ responses to emergencies.
Within days, governors and congressional delegations had organized news conferences across the country, generating news coverage in states expected to take large cuts, including New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Then the Council of Governors, with assistance from the National Governors Association and the National Guard Association, developed an alternative proposal that called for eliminating 2,500 additional positions from the active duty Air Force and restoring more than 3,000 Guard positions. They also proposed restoring nearly 90 Guard aircraft, including 72 F-16s.
The Air Force dismissed the alternative proposal as unrealistic and costly, saying it would strain the active duty force. But continued pressure from the governors led Mr. Panetta to review the competing plans himself.
The turn of events has clearly rankled many in the active duty force, who contend the governors have inserted themselves into national security policy. But Governor Gregoire denied that, saying that the council had simply pointed out the importance of the Guard.
But she added that the budget restorations might not have happened without the Council of Governors, which, under the presidential order that created it, is authorized to meet with the secretary of defense on matters involving the National Guard. That access made all the difference, Governor Gregoire said.
“No question we could not have achieved this without the council,” she said. “It is unprecedented that the Pentagon has ever changed its submission. It is very clear that the secretary and his team listened to us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/air-national-guard-lobbies-successfully-against-budget-cuts.html?_r=2
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Air National Guard Lobbies Successfully Against Budget Cuts
NYT, 24 Apr 2012
In combat zones, National Guard units generally take their orders from active duty commanders. Not so in Washington.
For two months, the Air National Guard, with the help of governors from every state, has been battling the active duty Air Force over proposed budget cuts that would have trimmed the Guard’s force by more than 5,000 people and more than 200 aircraft.
On Monday, the two sides declared a temporary truce, as Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said that he would restore some of the cuts in the budget proposal he has sent to Congress, including at least 2,200 Guard positions and 24 C-130 cargo planes.
“These aircraft play a vital role in our support to civil authorities, particularly in the event of natural disasters,” Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said. “It’s the right thing to do, and the secretary urges Congress to consider it.”
The restorations, worth about $400 million over five years, underscored that the National Guard, long influential in Congress, had gained new clout in the Pentagon as well, largely through an organization created in 2010, the Council of Governors, to help coordinate responses to natural disasters.
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat who as co-chair of the council helped lead the fight against the cuts, called the compromise plan “a major, major step” and said she would urge every Air National Guard unit to consider supporting it.
Still, Governor Gregoire hinted that some Guard units would probably continue the fight on Capitol Hill, where Congress has just begun debating the Pentagon budget. In particular, some states are upset that the Air Force still plans to retire their combat aircraft, including faster F-16 fighter jets and slower A-10 Thunderbolts, known as warthogs.
The Air Force, which has had to maintain a steely public silence on the budget fight even as the Guard and the governors protested cuts loudly and publicly, said it hoped the revised spending plan would pass muster.
“I think the secretary has offered a serious and constructive proposal that we hope will be the basis for the Congress to respond favorably,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher D. Miller, the deputy Air Force chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.
Though the Guard and active duty forces often clash over spending, this year’s dustup was colored by two new factors: the requirement that the Pentagon cut nearly $500 billion from its budget over the coming decade, and the emergence of the Council of Governors as a lobbying force.
In February, the Air Force released its initial budget proposal, calling for reducing the active duty force by 3,900 airmen, the reserves by another 900 and the National Guard by 5,100.
The plan also called for retiring about 500 aging aircraft over five years, as well as canceling the procurement of some new cargo planes. Many of those aircraft would come from Guard units, under the proposal.
The proposed cuts fell disproportionately on the Guard, which is much smaller than the active duty force. The Air Force justified the plan by saying that the active duty component had been trimmed significantly more in recent decades than had the Guard or the reserve.
As a result, the Air Force maintains, its active duty units have been deploying at a rapid tempo almost nonstop since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and will continue to do so even as the United States draws down forces in Afghanistan.
But almost immediately after the Air Force plan became public, the Council of Governors mobilized, sending letters of protest to Mr. Panetta and the senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They argued that the Guard was more cost-effective than the active duty force and that cuts to the Guard fleet would hamstring states’ responses to emergencies.
Within days, governors and congressional delegations had organized news conferences across the country, generating news coverage in states expected to take large cuts, including New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Then the Council of Governors, with assistance from the National Governors Association and the National Guard Association, developed an alternative proposal that called for eliminating 2,500 additional positions from the active duty Air Force and restoring more than 3,000 Guard positions. They also proposed restoring nearly 90 Guard aircraft, including 72 F-16s.
The Air Force dismissed the alternative proposal as unrealistic and costly, saying it would strain the active duty force. But continued pressure from the governors led Mr. Panetta to review the competing plans himself.
The turn of events has clearly rankled many in the active duty force, who contend the governors have inserted themselves into national security policy. But Governor Gregoire denied that, saying that the council had simply pointed out the importance of the Guard.
But she added that the budget restorations might not have happened without the Council of Governors, which, under the presidential order that created it, is authorized to meet with the secretary of defense on matters involving the National Guard. That access made all the difference, Governor Gregoire said.
“No question we could not have achieved this without the council,” she said. “It is unprecedented that the Pentagon has ever changed its submission. It is very clear that the secretary and his team listened to us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/air-national-guard-lobbies-successfully-against-budget-cuts.html?_r=2