Sequestration 5 cuts

Bullet said:
BTW, it really isn't the Chinese and Soviet future airplanes that are the big problem (although they WILL become a problem).

It's their CURRENT, and robust, Integrated Air Defense systems, with double digit Surface to Air Missiles using advanced and agile radars and digital networks that are the big problem.

And it's not just China and Russia. Ask yourself, why HAVEN'T we set up no-fly zones in Syria?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that there are Gargoyle's (or worse) lying in wait...and as no plane I flew had a WSO with wizardly gear...

NOT a nice thought!! :eek:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Bullet and aglages: Very well said.

Considering the line of absolutely stupid decisions coming out of our poloticians in DC why do we collectively keep sending them back. So long as the American public can so easily be manipulated and hood winked we don't have a prayer. Whoever promises the most free stuff wins.
 
Bullet said:
BTW, it really isn't the Chinese and Soviet future airplanes that are the big problem (although they WILL become a problem).

It's their CURRENT, and robust, Integrated Air Defense systems, with double digit Surface to Air Missiles using advanced and agile radars and digital networks that are the big problem.

And it's not just China and Russia. Ask yourself, why HAVEN'T we set up no-fly zones in Syria?
Click to expand...

I guess you will be voting for Bush Jr for a third term. I know sometimes best defense is offense, but are we planning to invade another country again?

Ask yourself, why do we need to set up no-fly zones in Syria? Hopefuly not to justify F35 production or another aircraft carrier.

Another question to ask if if we set up a no fly zone in Syria, where would our planes fly out from - Italy, Turkey, aircraft carriers, Iraq, Israel (kidding)? Yes, we have the best military in the world, but with a finite budget, there are limitaiton to what we can do even if we have planes to defend against the most advance air defense network. Additionally, what are we going to do if there is no fly zone and Syria shots some missiles at our planes? Are we ready to turn no fly zone operation into attack against Syria's ground air defense network, what happens if one of our planes get shot down?
 
Here's an article that explains why the sequester so badly impacts the military. Explains it better than I did above.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth...dget-will-cause-major-damage-to-the-military/

I've met and worked with Mr. Thompson several times. Smart and articulate guy, but I don't always agree with his assessments (he tends to be overly agressive in his "cheerleading" for F-35, and knowing his consulting firm is under contract to Lockheed Martin tends to make us all go "Hmmmmm".)
 
MemberLG said:
I guess you will be voting for Bush Jr for a third term.
Click to expand...

Actually, I lean more independent or libertarian these days. But, please, let's not try to go down that trite route of demonizing someone with a different opinion by making insinuations that they support this so-and-so or that so-and-so.

Whom I vote for is also only between me and the booth, and no one else. I knida spent a few years of my life working to ensure this.

MemberLG said:
I know sometimes best defense is offense, but are we planning to invade another country again?
Click to expand...

Goodness gracious, I hope not! I aslo hope we learned this lesson over the past few decades.

But then I look at how we got involved in Bosnia, all becuase our NATO allies begged for our help. Simply put they couldn't tolerate what was going on right on their doorstep, and they simply didn't havethe military power to stop it without us. So, we "invaded".

And I look at Libya. Again, not our problem. But guess what, as much as you think our European Allies led this fight, we supported it. And if Libya was defended with stuff better than 70s technology, we would have led it (for the same reasons as mentioned above). So, we "invaded".

Afghanistan? Well, we really didn't expect to be there in 2000, did we? But a little thing happened in 2001. So, we "invaded".

Look, NO ONE wants to go to war, or invade another country if its not necessary (OK, maybe the last adminstration was a little stupider than most and didn't follow this rule. There are always exceptions. :smile:). But, that is what the military is for. To be there when the unexpected happens, and ensure the security of the US (and, more importantly, the security of our strategic interests).

Please look into your crystal ball and tell me we WON"T have to invade some place, sometime, over the next 20 years.

MemberLG said:
Ask yourself, why do we need to set up no-fly zones in Syria? Hopefuly not to justify F35 production or another aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...

Tens of thousands of people dead over the past year, fighting an oppressive regime. THAT tends to get the attention of the leaders of the civilized world, and results in a lot of folks demanding action be taken.

Like I said above, see Bosnia.

And what do you think will happen if the violence spills over into Turkey? Or worse yet, Israel?

MemberLG said:
Another question to ask if if we set up a no fly zone in Syria, where would our planes fly out from - Italy, Turkey, aircraft carriers, Iraq, Israel (kidding)?
Click to expand...

All of the above. Israel? Weeeeeell, maybe, but only as a last resort for our fighter jets. Doesn't mean other "assets" won't be coming in from the south into Syria.

MemberLG said:
Yes, we have the best military in the world, but with a finite budget, there are limitaiton to what we can do even if we have planes to defend against the most advance air defense network.
Click to expand...

Concur, 1000%. In fact, like I mentioned in an earlier post (I think), I beleive we DO need to cut our military budget, by at least 20%. We also need to do it smartly, however. We need to re-think our national security strategy (which is what the size of the military is based on), and reduce our committments and requirements.

MemberLG said:
Additionally, what are we going to do if there is no fly zone and Syria shots some missiles at our planes? Are we ready to turn no fly zone operation into attack against Syria's ground air defense network, what happens if one of our planes get shot down?
Click to expand...

And that, my lord, is why we (USAF, NAvy, Marine Corps, and 10 other nations) want the F-35. To reduce the risk of everything you just mentioned, and more importantly meet the mission requirements in these heavily defended places. No matter where they may be (which, as explained above, we just don't know where that is, and what they will have to try to stop us).
 
Packer said:
Considering the line of absolutely stupid decisions coming out of our poloticians in DC why do we collectively keep sending them back. So long as the American public can so easily be manipulated and hood winked we don't have a prayer. Whoever promises the most free stuff wins.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Isn't it amazing that Congress has a 10% approval rating, but when asked about their own MOC it is not 10%? It's not my MOC it is all of the other ones!

Alas, until we have term limits there will always be the same results in DC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3960aa-7f6c-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html

Members of Congress adore flying on Air Force jets, particularly for overseas trips — there are no security lines, check-in is a breeze, the service couldn’t be better, and all seats are business-class.

But if the government-wide cuts aren’t thwarted and the military has to pinch pennies, lawmakers might have to kiss those perks goodbye, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told the crowd at the Air Force Association’s winter conference in Orlando, according to a transcript. They might have to nix “interagency and congressional senior leader travel,” he warned.
Click to expand...

I bet this will motivate them to work it out more than anything else!:wink:
 
"The thinking it took to get us into this mess is not the same thinking that is going to get us out of it." attributed to Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

Said another way:

Q: General, what program should be cut?
A: Any but mine.
 
The $995 billion Sequester Cut Is Actually a $110 Billion Spending Increase

The Congressional Budget Office gives its baseline budget projections for fiscal years 2013 to 2023 in its February 5, 2013 Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023. Table 1-5 shows how the CBO incorporates the $55 billion per year in sequestered defense cuts and the $37 million per year in sequestered non-defense cuts into its projections of discretionary spending.

The sequester “cuts” are subtracted after increasing appropriations subject to the sequester at the rate of inflation and adding back in more than a trillion dollars (over ten years) of spending exempted from the sequester.

The sequester has been advertised as “cutting” discretionary spending over a ten year period by $995 billion. After inflation adjustments and exempting more than a trillion dollars of defense and non defense discretionary spending from the sequester, the CBO projects (in its Table 1.1) discretionary spending to increase by $110 billion over the decade. There is no actual $995 billion cut after the CBO applies its magic adjustments. Rather there is a $110 billion increase.

Sequester alarmists will respond that it is impossible to run the federal government without annual inflation adjustments and without exempting certain government spending. We American voters might respond that most of us do not receive automatic inflation adjustments to our earnings and we are expected to tighten our belts when times are tough and our personal debt has gotten out of control.

Whatever the case, it is hard to characterize a $110 billion increase as a draconian cut that will bring America and its federal government to its knees.
Click to expand...
 
I remember a quip when it was all about taxes, but it works here too.

Don't tax you.
Don't tax me
Tax the man
Behind the tree!

That's what I think most feel about sequestration. Not me, not someone I know, do it to an area that I have no connection to in any shape.

My issue in all of this is the politics on both sides.
 
The GS job system is done to excess in a lot of areas. I have seen 5 people literally slotted for one job. In addition I have observed some people literally call in sick every chance they get or seem to be constantly on leave. Upon being an an office setting. In some instances I have witnessed employees actually working maybe 3-4 hours of the 8 hour work day. I understand about unemployment and I recognize there are a lot of hard working GS employees out there but for some I don't feel bad at all. The tenure issues as well as process to fire someone in a GS position is so convoluted it's almost not worth it. I truly feel sorry for the hardworking GS employees out there but something has to change for those riding the gravy train. The civvy world doesn't put up with that when you are expected to perform or they will just find someone who does.

I might get flamed for this, but some of the stuff I have seen even being relatively new to the military makes me sick.
 
Last edited:
Aglahad said:
The GS job system is done to excess in a lot of areas. I have seen 5 people literally slotted for one job. In addition I have observed some people literally call in sick every chance they get or seem to be constantly on leave all the time. Upon being an a office setting. In some instances I have witnessed employees actually working maybe 3-4 hours of the 8 hour work day. I understand about unemployment and I recognize there are a lot of hard working GS employees out there but for some I don't feel bad at all. The tenure issues as well as process to fire someone in a GS position is so convoluted it's almost not worth it. I truly feel sorry for the hardworking GS employees out there but for many I don't feel bad at all. The civvy world doesn't put up with that when you are expected to perform or they will just find someone who does.

I might get flamed for this, but some of the stuff I have seen even being relatively new to the military makes me sick.
Click to expand...

Yes. Agree on all. Want to see a sloth sprint, hang out in a federal office on the day before a holiday weekend.
 
Let's flip this also for a second. Currently in the AF if you are a passed over O4 for O5 with 16 yrs, you are safe. You will retire at 20 with 50% base pay for the rest of your life.

If you have an 80% promotion rate, you have 20% that get to stay if they want for 4 more yrs., and 50% until the day they die. What is their motivation to leave?

Yet, the military has officers that know their career is over and buying time. Just like the flaw in the GS system. Hard to fire them...all you can do is force them to move with the hope they will say NO!

Additionally, GS's no longer get % of pay for retirement they are on their own quasi 401K. The AD with 16 yrs passed over gets 50% from our tax dollars.

DH's office at the Pentagon is 75% down in manning, including AF positions. The GS's are picking this all up. He will be the only one left for the 22 and the 35. No blue suiters, no other civilian. Now he will be off 1 day a week too.

If the AF was filling their positions, I am 1000% with you regarding the civilian cuts, but because they are not, they are now living at bare bones.

This is politics. Nothing more. Dems see IMPO R's as the defender of military cuts, and are using that as their edge. They are playing chicken thinking they will blink, and the R's aren't going to blink.

We as a country are paying the cost.

Honestly, this issue was my last straw with DC. Have any of you filed your taxes yet?

We did on the 17th of Feb., but because of politics, and because we don't do EZ, the IRS has yet to accept our return due to the changes. We have been told March is when they will start processing. Just think about how this will impact you too when sequester happens, and those GS employees are furloughed!

I believe I read right now 10% of what would normally be processed by this date have been processed.

The avg American who is not impacted by sequestration, wanting that nice check will not be happy after they realize that the tax code was changed, and now IRS agents are furloughed slowing down their return.

It will become the new news cycle.

FWIW, I also see the stupidity in this furlough when it comes to the GS world. As another poster stated there are probably more GS13-15's than 7-9s. I disagree, because every base/post has GS7-9s around the world. GS 13-15 are usually only at the higher echelon at the Pentagon. Anyhoo... let's go with that assumption.

A. They get both salary and allowance. Their entire salary is not taxable.

B. Assume 125K a yr.

6 months is 62.5K
6 months (sequestration) 49K

The tax revenue for 800K people will drop. That is revenue they expected for FY14.

LITS you even stated your wife will lose 50% pay every two weeks.

They are planning on that revenue. Nobody is discussing that minimal impact, but it will exist next yr.

We will survive like LITS, we will increase our deductions because we believe getting a refund from the IRS is giving the country a 1 yr free loan. Can't say that is true for every American.
 
Pima said:
FWIW, I also see the stupidity in this furlough when it comes to the GS world. As another poster stated there are probably more GS13-15's than 7-9s. I disagree, because every base/post has GS7-9s around the world. GS 13-15 are usually only at the higher echelon at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

According to a quick internet research,

there are 857275 federal employees in grades GS9-GS15. This figure represents the entire federal workforce, not just those in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. There were 445749 federal employees in grades GS1-GS8.
Click to expand...

http://www.fedsmith.com/2009/08/26/federal-employees-their-pay-how-they/

To clarify when I said more GS 13-15 than GS 7-9, I was referring to the whole federal system. My observation, yes out in military bases don't see too many higher grades, but in DC, IRS, DHS, HHS, Intel agencies, and etc, full of higher grades.
 
There will be some pain felt due to sequestration, but it won't be as bad as the apocalypse so many our of public officials are squealing about.

For the most part, government agencies have been quietly planning for sequestration all year and have eaten a significant chunk of its effects already. The reason being: a 10% cut so late in the year translates to a 20% hit over the last six months - which could be problematic to many.

But sequestration is just an annoyance. The real problem has been the uncertainty due to the never ending string of continuing resolutions. All of our elected leaders should be embarrassed by that.

It would be hard to plan your family's budget if you didn't know when you were getting paid, and when paid, how much it would be. It's just plain insane.

If Congress were to tell agencies: "Here's your budget for FY14, FY15 will be 1% less, FY16 1% less, and FYs 17-19 frozen at FY16 levels" - they would dance a jig.

A chance to do some real planning in regards to contract awards, modernization, refit & repair, manning levels etc.... without Congress manufacturing fiscal crises to derail sound planning and causing undo strife amongst federal employees with constant threats of shutting down the government or furloughs.
 
Just curious is DoDMERB and cadet command staffed by civilans? If so that may have some effect on the processing of physicals, remedials and waivers. Not a good time for that to happen as I would think those folks are about to get very busy with the ROTC and SA kids very soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top