Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by HappyKat, Nov 22, 2011.
I'm wondering how all of you think the pending budget cuts will affect the academies?
Oh boy. Here we go. . . .
Sort of like that commercial where the guy has Ginuea pigs rowing powering his comput
I think the Academies will make the fourth years take turns on a row of bicycles hooked up to generators to power the dorms.
Oh, and they'll cut the football programs (he says, ducking for cover)
Ooh - a green solution- Excellent!
I think we need to stop supporting other countries
Maybe they should have all the new Plebes buy the new running shoes mentioned in a recent Popular Science issue. They have a system in the sole that generates a small amount of electricity. Or they could install the same thing in leathers. Extra marching and p-rades!!!
Sure, they will. Right.
I'm guessing that either incoming class sizes will go down, or attrition rates will go up, or both. It's hard to say if it's attrition inspired by the budget, or the change of administration, but over the past year a number of Mids who might previously have gotten by with punishment were shown the gate. As my Mid has said, "They are looking for reasons to kick people out."
HappyKat, I apologize for being so short in my last response. We discussed this issue recently in the context of ROTC, and the discussion became somewhat spirited and exhausting. At the end of the day, no one can really provide you anything more than an educated guess to your question. And things can turn on a dime as the Class of 2001 found out.
In February 2012, the President will release his proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013 (which runs from October 2012 to October 2013), and the military has indicated that it intends to provide Congress with an "advance" look before then (this is being done to accommodate a request by one of the members of the House Armed Services Committee). http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/196435-dod-to-offer-sneak-peek-at-budget This is expected to be a five-year plan.
In the President's budget for FY13, you will be able to find hard numbers for a wide spectrum of military operations, including the service academies. You can obtain this information from the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) and there will likely be plenty of articles available online analyzing the numbers.
Remember this question, and the answers when you go to the polls next year. I certainly will.
more with less.
fewer appointments, although this is more about reduction in officer accession not cost. Just like any business, SAs have "fixed" and "variable" costs. Regardless of the incoming class size, SA staff should stay relatively the same. Can't remember but what cadet pay is, but I don't think it's high.
perhap bigger class sizes - Navy has more civilians faculty members, but West Point uses significant number of rotating faculty members. So with personnel drawdown, there will be prioritization of assignments. Not sure where assignment to SA will rank, but my guess is not high
no major improvements - there was a side discussion in the forum concerning a new cadet barracks at West Point, $100 million plus, no more projects like that. Isn't Bancroft Hall pretty old?
some high cost programs might go away - how much to operate the cadet parachute team? Does all AFA cadet still get glider wing, if so can we afford it?
more endowment fund raising.
I am still not sure how the endowment fund is spent, but West Point has been active about raising funds. Considering the alumni base, I think SAs can raise significant money on par with Ivys. Some Ivy schools have endowment in billions.
Even without sequestration we've been told to expect money to be very tight over the next few years. MILCON will be hard hit. Sustainment dollars are being reduced by 10%. Travel has been curtailed. Conference and training approval has gone up a level or two. And that's all just on the civilian side.
We can assume that as troop levels go down for Army and MC the need for 2nd LT's and Ensigns will go down too. Same with the size of the fleet. Which commissioning source is hit hardest is anyone's guess. But, while it may be less expensive to grow officers through ROTC or OCS, the ones making the decisions are most likely wearing rings.
That's an ignorant viewpoint for two reasons. One, you assume that all the bigwigs are SA grads. That is not true at all. There is a good mix off all types of commissioning sources at the top. Secondly, ROTC and OCS are cheaper but they're also easier to cut. SAs are a large fixed entity with a narrowly defined capacity in terms of throughput. You can't address a lot of the fixed costs. ROTC is easy to cut because it has so few fixed costs. DoD didn't pay for the dorms or the chow halls or the stadiums or the teachers at civilian schools with ROTC. ROTCs biggest cost is people, and those costs are therefore highly variable.
ROTC is an easier money saver because they can choose how many scholarships to give out. You can make an ROTC cadet pay his tuition. You can't do the same at a SA.
I agree that ROTC will likely see a reduction before the SA do. The reasons? Who knows? You're presuming logic plays a part in the decision making process. Talk about a stretch.
According to the Army General Officer Management Website
Out of 11 4 stars, 7 are West Point grads
Out fo 51 3 stars, 26 are Wsst Point grads
draw your own conclusions. If I recall correctly, ROTC is the largest source of commissioning.
I had always heard that the academies are used as the "primary" commissioning source for most of the services providing a relatively consistent number of 2LTs/Ensigns, while ROTC and OCS have traditionally been used as sources that can sort of be expanded or reduced as required (especially OCS).
I know from talking to people pursuing OCS in different services (mostly Army, Navy, and USMC that I've talked to), it's gotten much harder to pursue a commission that route as classes are getting cancelled or reduced in size. Waivers that had been common before are becoming few and far between.
I am not sure I would say they will award even fewer scholarships, what they may determine to do is reduce the amount of host colleges. Few people understand even their offices cost money because they pay rent to the school. A host college will require more space and thus incur more costs than the non-host unit.
In some areas you could have several host units within a 30 mile radius. A host college will also have a larger amount of AD officers assigned than the non-host college. The reduction of host colleges would save costs in both personnel and operations. This is exactly what they did back in the 90's.
The reduction of scholarships has been occurring for several yrs now. Ask Clarkson or Marist and they will tell you the amount entering on scholarship this fall was about 75% less than 4 yrs ago. AFROTC cancelled ISSP for 2 yrs. AFROTC SFT selection rate has been reduced to about 55% nationally. OCS non-rated board was cancelled last yr. NROTC is offering more IS scholarships and fewer private.
They have all been drawing down for sometime, and they still have room to cut, but it is now becoming critical cuts.
The SA's are safer because they are different. What you may see is a reduction in apptmts. The reg states up to 4400 cadets, key word is up to 4400. In yrs past some of the SA's asked for a waiver to surpass that 4400 number, I doubt they will ask for that now.
We are also seeing currently they have changed the DoDMERB system for physicals. Yrs ago, complete your paperwork, be deemed competitive and you took the physical, usually in the summer of your rising SR yr in HS. Now they are holding off the physical until further along. AFA is not sending them until they have a nom or an LOA. The physicals cost money, and it is a waste of money to send an applicant for it if they do not have a nom. Look at how many open packets, how many get noms. It is about 50% on the best day.
We are already seeing fewer waivers being given out. It makes sense, why waive a candidate with a pre-existing health issue over one that does not have any medical issues. Look at your personal health insurance, many people are denied insurance due to pre-existing. Once in the system, the military agrees to cover them medically.
Patenesq, that was an interesting article, but I felt it was short-sighted.
The problem in this approach would be cutting investments would equate into cutting jobs in Congressional districts that these companies are the livelihood for the residents.
It reminds me of the BRAC rounds back in the 90's and even in the early 2000's. Congressmen, even in the Dem party will oppose this because their 1st priority will be to protect their constituents and be re-elected. If they have no military installation in their district, but have Lockheed, or Grumman building hardware they will want personnel cuts. That is not even discussing the purple states where this could be huge.
I understand if that is our Presidents position because reducing personnel will cause unemployment to rise and that is an issue now; expected to be through 12. He wouldn't want it to rise any higher since the avg voter is not going to comprehend it was tied to the reduction of the DOD budget, all they will see or hear is it is still over 9% and how many more are added on the rolls every month.
My pet peeve looking at your other link...the endless amount of duplication in the govt. They have become so big and burdensome that it is almost impossible to navigate and interface within the system.
Presidential Call for a Career-Ready Military: The Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, working closely with other agencies and the President’s economic and domestic policy teams, will lead a new task force to develop reforms to ensure that every member of the service receives the training, education, and credentials they need to transition to the civilian workforce or to pursue higher education. These reforms will include the design of a “reverse bootcamp,” which will extend the transition period to give service members more counseling and guidance and leave them career-ready.
Transition to the Private Sector: The Department of Labor will establish a new initiative to deliver an enhanced career development and job search service package to transitioning veterans at their local One-Stop Career Centers. The Office of Personnel Management will create a “Best Practices” Manual for the private sector to help businesses identify and hire veterans.
How many more GSs or contractors will the tax payers have to pay to be the liaison between all of these organizations? That is on top of the fact that every branch already has programs within their system to provide transitional training. It is required for AD members to attend prior to separating.
How much will it cost for the OPM to create a "Best Practices" Manual that will become dust collectors even if offered for free to every company, big or small in the country?
JMPO, Obama will be our President in 2013 if Newt is the nom, and all of this will be moot. I think even if Newt isn't the nom, Obama will be President, so he can ride rough shod over the DOD and still win.
This may not be entirely true. My son has neither a nom or LOA yet and he was submitted and qualified by USAFA. His DoDMERB was originally ordered by USMA.
That's the key. USMA ordered it, and once in the system, the AFA will accept that DoDMERB physical, they will not order another physical. The same is true for ROTC. ROTC will use the results from the physical ordered by another source.
In your sons case the AFA did not order it. Not every candidate applies to multiple SAs. Our DS only applied to AFA and AFROTC. AFA ordered it and AFROTC accepted the results.
If I recall correctly how MullenLE explained it regarding charging the branch for it, if the candidate was applying to multiple services the branch they selected would be charged. If the candidate was not accepted to any of the branches, the branch that ordered it would be charged.
This makes sense for why the AFA has elected to hold off on sending candidates for DoDMERB until they are deemed competitive. 10K open packets, but only less than 50% will receive noms. That would be a huge fiscal burden to send all 10K for their physical. When our DS went through it back in 07 for 08. He received his ALO letter on June 27th, and hid DoDMERB request on July 5th. He didn't get his 1st nom until Oct.
Separate names with a comma.