What are YOU willing to give up?

[afchic]

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]

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...

[sinjefe]

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]

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.

[JimP]

AFCHIC... How about we cut the OSA fleet?? That should about take care of most of this...no?

[(1VB)compforce]

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). 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.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by JimP

AFCHIC... How about we cut the OSA fleet?? That should about take care of most of this...no?

OK - just how many ships does the Orchid Society of Arizona have? (_o^o_)

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

[afchic]

Originally Posted by JimP

AFCHIC... How about we cut the OSA fleet?? That should about take care of most of this...no?

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.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by 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. 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Firelord

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/...ad.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.

[stfesta]

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

[Box]

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]

Originally Posted by Firelord

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