View Full Version : What are YOU willing to give up?
With our fiscal house in complete disarray, there are some hard choices that are going to have to be made. We in the DoD can't stand by and have our choices dictated to us. So my question to you all is this: What are you PERSONALLY willing to give up? I am not talking about weapons systems.
I don't like the thought of fulough any more than anyone else, but I have come to the POV that Budget savings of any kind are a step in the right direction.
1) So yes, I am not opposed to our family loosing 28% of my husband's salary.
2) I think the commissaries (except those overseas) should be shut down.
3) There should only be one service academy
4) Military Pay raises should not be across the board, but targeted to specific MOS, AFSC, etc..
Streck-Fu
03-08-2013, 12:11
There are entire staff organizations and redundant commands that can be eliminated. It seems we have far more flag officers and staffs/commands for them now than in years past. I'm sure we can cut several such commands/staffs and save a ton of money before cutting pay and benefits.
I like the the idea of merging service academies. There would be some serious infighting to determine which remains...
If I thought for a second that our government would actually apply savings to paying down debt, I would be okay with losing pay. I don't, however, believe they will.
What they should do is reduce the number of GOs and commands that the Army has and reduce the tooth to tail ratio as well as deepsix cold war focused weapons programs.
They will do none of these.
Peregrino
03-08-2013, 13:45
I'm willing to give up ALL benefits being paid to illegal immigrants, all Social Security payments to individuals who have never contributed to the system, unemployment benefits in excess of six weeks, foreign aid, payments to the United Nations, and every vote buying pork scheme in both parties budget proposals. I'll throw in postponing the F-35, all new vehicle programs, and any program more than 25% over budget or behind schedule. While we're at it, lets eliminate DOE, HUD, Education, BATFE, and DEA. Oh - almost forgot Homeland Security and TSA. They can pack their bags too.
In return I'm willing to accept a 10% tax on every dollar earned by every person in the country and limiting all entitlement programs to NMT 20% of the federal budget.
AFCHIC... How about we cut the OSA fleet?? That should about take care of most of this...no? :D
(1VB)compforce
03-08-2013, 14:18
2) I think the commissaries (except those overseas) should be shut down.
I disagree. Personally, I hate the whole AAFES thing. That said, if you keep any of them you have to keep all of them. The reason is that the large number of outlets contributes to significantly lower cost of goods (COGS) to the exchange. I'm talking about economy of scale.
The exchange system actually uses very little taxpayer money, it has very low earnings, but it turns a profit. In 2005 on 8.7B in revenue, only 378M were earnings (Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20070422174222/http://www.aafes.com/pa/factsheet-9.pdf)). The key point here is that they had positive earnings. They didn't need taxpayer money to subsidize them, they did it straight from revenue.
If you were to cut back the number of outlets as you suggest, the costs would go up due to the loss of economy of scale. The thin margins that they already have would go negative if they didn't drive up prices to make up the difference (which they would).
As much as I hate AAFES, the model they have is a decent one that provides money back into the MWR system and only uses taxpayer money in the form of providing oversight and those military folks' salaries who are assigned to work with them. Eliminating CONUS AAFES would have the net effect of INCREASING government costs, not reducing them.
AFCHIC... How about we cut the OSA fleet?? That should about take care of most of this...no? :D
OK - just how many ships does the Orchid Society of Arizona have? (_o^o_) :D
Restrict the 'earmarking' of allocated funding which encourages a 'spend it or lose it' fiscal attitude in lieu of a more pragmatic reallocation for 'real' vs 'perceived' budget management matters.
Richard :munchin
AFCHIC... How about we cut the OSA fleet?? That should about take care of most of this...no? :D
I am sure your boss will love that one
I agree with you.
Along that line I also think that household staffs for GOs need to go by the wayside.
If they are travelling CONUS, they can take a plane, train, or automibile like the rest of us.
I thought I heard Speaker Boehner say that house members could no longer use the OSA aircraft.
The one that always gets me at Scott, is how many times a year do they plant different kinds of plants around Bldg 1600 and 1800? In the fall it is tulips for the spring, once they die off, it is some other flower, and when it gets too hot in the summer for those, some other new plant arrives. I am not saying get rid of all the grounds maintenance contract, but how much does Base "Beautification" cost us each year? And other than cutting the grass, is it really needed?
I agree with Richard, that a lot of this has beem foisted on us by Congress, by having a completely and totally out of whack fiscal planning cycle, as well as having so many different colors of money.
The end of fiscal year buying sprees that everyone goes on because if we don't spend it this year, we are going to get less next year.
I'm willing to give up ALL benefits being paid to illegal immigrants, all Social Security payments to individuals who have never contributed to the system, unemployment benefits in excess of six weeks, foreign aid, payments to the United Nations, and every vote buying pork scheme in both parties budget proposals. I'll throw in postponing the F-35, all new vehicle programs, and any program more than 25% over budget or behind schedule. While we're at it, lets eliminate DOE, HUD, Education, BATFE, and DEA. Oh - almost forgot Homeland Security and TSA. They can pack their bags too.
In return I'm willing to accept a 10% tax on every dollar earned by every person in the country and limiting all entitlement programs to NMT 20% of the federal budget.
Where can I send my donation to your campaign fund?
Pat
Firelord
03-08-2013, 15:58
I keep hearing that even with the cuts that the government still has more money than it did last year, whcih in my mind, makes it difficult to accept furloughs and other extreme measures. I assume that the bulk of the new money covers personnel costs probably associated with new hires. Just seems to me that a hiring freeze should be implemented first prior to any furloughs.
Javadrinker
03-08-2013, 16:12
I'm willing to give up the POTUS vacationing in Hawaii, and going to Camp David instead, the taxpayer sponsored shopping trips of the first lady and children, the various congressional junkets, and like Peregino has been said above "ALL benefits being paid to illegal immigrants, all Social Security payments to individuals who have never contributed to the system, unemployment benefits in excess of six weeks, foreign aid, payments to the United Nations, and every vote buying pork scheme in both parties budget proposals. I'll throw in postponing the F-35, all new vehicle programs, and any program more than 25% over budget or behind schedule. While we're at it, lets eliminate DOE, HUD, Education, BATFE, and DEA. Oh - almost forgot Homeland Security and TSA. They can pack their bags too.
In return I'm willing to accept a 10% tax on every dollar earned by every person in the country and limiting all entitlement programs to NMT 20% of the federal budget."
Tell me where I too can contribute to your campaign fund?
(1VB)compforce
03-08-2013, 16:18
I keep hearing that even with the cuts that the government still has more money than it did last year, whcih in my mind, makes it difficult to accept furloughs and other extreme measures. I assume that the bulk of the new money covers personnel costs probably associated with new hires. Just seems to me that a hiring freeze should be implemented first prior to any furloughs.
They expect to raise a record amount of revenue (tax money) this year according to the CBO. They also are cutting against future increases (cost avoidance), not current expenditures (Cost reduction). BMT posted a really good explanation of the cuts over here: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41162 The short version is that, if I say that I am going to buy a new car this year for $20,000 but then decide not to do it, I cannot then use the same $20,000 that I didn't spend on a car to go buy a boat for $16,000 and claim the $4,000 remainder as a spending cut unless I had the cash all along. This is exactly what the government is doing. They are financing everything and claiming anything they don't finance as a spending cut. It just doesn't work like that for anyone other than a government.
It's all based on future projections which are easily manipulated by all and sundry (including us). If you want real cuts and real money, build a real baseline budget starting with last year's actual spend along with your actual cash in the bank and work from that including allowances for short-term increased spending. If someone wants a new initiative like Obamacare, the bill should be written so that the 3 years of funding they collect before the first actual expense is banked and legally earmarked only for that initiative. I've said several times here that I think there should be a law limiting the cost avoidance Congress uses to fund other projects. (There are at least a few here that don't agree)
A hiring freeze is impractical. There are critical positions that MUST be filled and, if the incumbent leaves, require a new hire. The challenge is that there has not been a workable solution to determine WHICH jobs are critical so they can be treated differently (you know, we have to be fair...). Until we have that designation, hiring freezes aren't practical. In the meantime, I think that since it was Obama's idea to tie the spending cuts to a failure of a body that has not had a big success in years, he and Michelle (along with all of congress and the SCOTUS) should have to suffer the same furlough without pay as they are enforcing on everyone else. If Obama stepped up to that standard, I'd have to respect him for leading even though I hate his social policies.
The real problem is we, the makers, are having these type of talks.
Are the takers having these same talks? I doubt it.
I agree with everything Peregringo wrote.
EVERYONE should pay taxes. If you have "skin in the game" you will be concerned how the "game" is being played.
The takers are starting to out number the makers and we are trying to find a compromise, not them.
There is not such thing as compromise.
If you compromise food and poison, no matter the compromise, you still die.
Just my $0.02.
sf
If I fuck up my checkbook...
...then I should be expected to make the needed sacrifice to fix my finances.
So am I to understand that since congress fucked up the checkbook that I should ponder what sacrifices I can make while congress gets a pay raise and unmolested benefits?
...are you shitting me?
I agree 100% with Peregrino:
I'm willing to give up ALL benefits being paid to illegal immigrants, all Social Security payments to individuals who have never contributed to the system, unemployment benefits in excess of six weeks, foreign aid, payments to the United Nations, and every vote buying pork scheme in both parties budget proposals. I'll throw in postponing the F-35, all new vehicle programs, and any program more than 25% over budget or behind schedule.
In addition, I am willing to sacrifice the purchases of drones and armored trucks for the DHS. I am willing to sacrifice up to 90 percent of the small arms ammunition purchases for the DHS .
I am also willing to sacrifice ALL welfare payments to citizens that cannot pass the same urinalysis testing that I am required to pass in order to earn my paycheck that is used as tax revenue to fund that welfare payment.
...I am also willing to sacrifice the retirement pay for any member of congress, the judicial branch or the executive branch that fails to meet the same 20 year service requirement for 50% of base pay that I am currently entitled to...
...I think the things I am willing to sacrifice should be a good start.
The Reaper
03-08-2013, 19:07
I keep hearing that even with the cuts that the government still has more money than it did last year, whcih in my mind, makes it difficult to accept furloughs and other extreme measures. I assume that the bulk of the new money covers personnel costs probably associated with new hires. Just seems to me that a hiring freeze should be implemented first prior to any furloughs.
Pay attention.
Furloughs are necessary due to multiple cuts-
1. Sec Gates agreed to almost a trillion in military spending cuts over ten years when he was SECDEF.
2. Congress has failed to pass a budget (in the Senate) in years. The Continuing Resolution keeps military spending at last year's allocation (no increases or inflation allowance).
3. In case anyone missed it, we are still at war. This is largely funded (on the ground force side) by the Overseas Contingency Operations funding. This fund has been cut (again), and is going away. 2013 is requested to be funded at roughly 24% less than 2012. Is the war reduced by 24%? I must have missed that.
4. Sequestration cuts close to a trillion over ten years from the military budget. Note that they waited six months (since the POTUS said to the voters, "Sequestration isn't happening") before implementing it, which means you have to cut the budget in less than half the FY, AFTER spending for the first six like it wasn't going to happen.
These cuts combine to reduce the military budget by 20-30%, IN SIX MONTHS, rather than over the full FY. Many things and programs cannot be cut, which means the remainder get cut even more. Civilian pay is one of those pots they can cut.
Those who tell you it isn't a real cut are ignorant or lying. You pick.
My opinion? The Carter years are coming back. Strap in and hang on for a bumpy and unpleasant ride, and pray we don't actually have to fight again for a long time.
TR
Peregrino
03-08-2013, 19:13
---- My opinion? The Carter years are coming back. Strap in and hang on for a bumpy and unpleasant ride, and pray we don't actually have to fight again for a long time.
TR
Amen Brother. Especially that the Chinese (or anyone else you care to pick) don't decide to "test" the administration's regionally aligned brigade "flavor of the day" concept with a general war.
Where can I send my donation to your campaign fund?
Pat
I am going to need that address too. Its time for something to hit the fan.
(1VB)compforce
03-08-2013, 20:59
Pay attention.
Furloughs are necessary due to multiple cuts-
1. Sec Gates agreed to almost a trillion in military spending cuts over ten years when he was SECDEF.
2. Congress has failed to pass a budget (in the Senate) in years. The Continuing Resolution keeps military spending at last year's allocation (no increases or inflation allowance).
3. In case anyone missed it, we are still at war. This is largely funded (on the ground force side) by the Overseas Contingency Operations funding. This fund has been cut (again), and is going away. 2013 is requested to be funded at roughly 24% less than 2012. Is the war reduced by 24%? I must have missed that.
4. Sequestration cuts close to a trillion over ten years from the military budget. Note that they waited six months (since the POTUS said to the voters, "Sequestration isn't happening") before implementing it, which means you have to cut the budget in less than half the FY, AFTER spending for the first six like it wasn't going to happen.
These cuts combine to reduce the military budget by 20-30%, IN SIX MONTHS, rather than over the full FY. Many things and programs cannot be cut, which means the remainder get cut even more. Civilian pay is one of those pots they can cut.
Those who tell you it isn't a real cut are ignorant or lying. You pick.
My opinion? The Carter years are coming back. Strap in and hang on for a bumpy and unpleasant ride, and pray we don't actually have to fight again for a long time.
TR
I agree with the majority of what you are saying. I don't disagree that the Carter years are coming back.
The Administration has requested a $702.8 billion defense budget for FY 2012, which is at least $36.5 billion below the estimated FY 2011 budget—a reduction of roughly 5 percent in nominal dollars or 6.4 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars.
Is the cut significant? Of course. When you add in that contingency is getting cut to $97B (24% reduction) (Source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/overseas.pdf)) in CY2013, you are absolutely correct about the Carter years.
The cuts I am quoting here are NOT the sequester, they are from the Obama 2012 budget (Source (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/the-fy-2012-defense-budget-proposal-looking-for-cuts-in-all-the-wrong-places)) and the 2013 proposed budget is worse. These are real cuts (if the budget were to ever get approved). Yes, these will absolutely handicap the military as you suggest.
The sequester is a different animal. The sequester is spending cuts against a future budget built with projected revenue and projected expenses, including projected increases. All of these projections come from the CBO. Can you tell me the last time the CBO was within say 50% in either direction on their estimates? I can't. With that much variance, any budget would fall apart. Heck, it's been what, 2.5 years and they've already modified their projection on Obamacare by over 200% (actually more) and it hasn't even been fully implemented. The low income drug subsidy program is already out of funding for 2013 based on their estimate. They've projected tax revenues for 2013 at $2.7T, a record high. Let's see how that one turns out at the end of the year... I'd bet the real tax revenue for CY2013 is more like $1.6B-$1.8B (a 50% miss) They projected the stimulus would have us around 6% unemployment by 2010... We were at 10+%
As long as we continue to project revenue and plan our expenses against that projected revenue we will never have a budget that works. We have to get back to a surplus and start paying for things in advance rather than arrears or we will fall apart from within as a country just like Greece. I believe the only thing that has kept us from already being there is the vastness of our economy and the opportunity to play a shell game with the money to keep the world from knowing just how badly our national resources and money have been managed. I've seen this played out at least a half dozen times on a smaller scale at ($1B+) companies and it always results in a "turn-around" specialist being called in, who then cuts real spending through a combination of reorganizations (layoffs) and a reduction in spending measured against a previous year's actual expenses at the departmental level.
The only way we get back to a surplus is to cut entitlement programs, and that just ain't going to happen without a major negative event, such as a major downgrade of our credit (say an S&P BB+, which won't happen until China replaces us as the standard) or a massive financial move by someone to rip the economy out from under us. It's going to take something catastrophic that forces the congress critters to stop kicking the can down the road. The only economies that can force our hand this way are China and Saudi (via oil) and, of course, ourselves.
As I said, I agree with most of what you said. I don't agree on the sequester being a real cut. It's a reduction in planned future spending based on badly flawed, overly optimistic projections for both income and expense. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point until we see how close the projections actually come.
I leave you with this question: How do you reduce a budget by 20-30% when a budget was never established in the first place?
These cuts combine to reduce the military budget by 20-30%, IN SIX MONTHS,
Most of the cuts you listed are either already in place and have been since the beginning of the FY or don't take effect until next FY. The only cuts that would have to be handled in the six month period between now and the new FY are the sequester cut of $22B or about 4% (depending on how you count it, it could be as high as $65B or about 10%)plus any new cuts that come out of the upcoming debt ceiling talks that take effect immediately. Yes, they are still sizable.
Again, I agree with your conclusion, but disagree on how we get there.
V/R
Bracholi
03-09-2013, 00:42
No need to worry fellas, the UN has our back! We have nothing to fear!
medic&commo
03-09-2013, 09:01
Wife got notice (O-3, AD), her position will be cut from NYANG 42ID, along with several in the same office.
m&c
The military doesn't need to cut programs that will impact families or members. Looking at spending, I go with what Peregrino wrote. Current Admin will never touch what kept them in Office, so programs that support them. Cut Foreign Aid to Egypt, Pakistan, ETC. Stop spending military to support countries in Afghanistan just to have numbers there to "show" support.
I'm willing to give up ALL benefits being paid to illegal immigrants, all Social Security payments to individuals who have never contributed to the system, unemployment benefits in excess of six weeks, foreign aid, payments to the United Nations, and every vote buying pork scheme in both parties budget proposals. I'll throw in postponing the F-35, all new vehicle programs, and any program more than 25% over budget or behind schedule. While we're at it, lets eliminate DOE, HUD, Education, BATFE, and DEA. Oh - almost forgot Homeland Security and TSA. They can pack their bags too.
In return I'm willing to accept a 10% tax on every dollar earned by every person in the country and limiting all entitlement programs to NMT 20% of the federal budget.
Yes to ALL.. AMEN!!
On the Pork belly's have been killing us and both parties are tied into each bill, ETC.
Pay attention.
My opinion? The Carter years are coming back. Strap in and hang on for a bumpy and unpleasant ride, and pray we don't actually have to fight again for a long time.
TR
Funny you bring this up. I was talking about the Carter years and even tho I was a kid, I had my Father always talk about these Years. Funny that no one know what I was talking about or what the Carter years did. The Old FAG/FOG guys had to fill in what it did to the military, life on Bragg, Life in 82nd and how it was in SF back then.
Unemployment numbers are down this month. Well sorry, keep bring them down, because by 2014 it will sky high IMO.
Badger52
03-09-2013, 19:21
BLUF: To answer afchic's question out of the block: nothin'. I've got too many units having to give up rotations or morph them into something of much lesser value because the trans cost of moving them - even w/o line-haul of their equip - is too much to bear. Horsehockey!
My opinion? The Carter years are coming back. Strap in and hang on for a bumpy and unpleasant ride, and pray we don't actually have to fight again for a long time.
TRTR, happen to agree. Was there and it was FUGLY. Thought about this the other night reading the thread discussing reactions (or not) when encountering HN/indig conduct of a human-rights violation nature. That reminded me of the risk-averse Clinton years and you couldn't deal with a source unless they were squeaky-clean, no bad guys (as if they have no value), "we just don't do those things."
Steadily backwards and folks will need to relearn the literal meaning of the FUBAR acronym. Ain't seen nothin' yet.
cbtengr: If you get the address for the Peregrino campaign let me know. If EPA is also on the table I might be interested.
Bracholi
03-09-2013, 23:33
Carter years.
http://images.wikia.com/inciclopedia/images/5/5f/Funny-Army-04.jpg
http://bearingdrift.com/wp-content/uploads/Obama_BOHICA.jpg