But think of all the money that can now be redirected to welfare and the entitlement seekers....Air shows are a big business. Cutting back on them is going to put a hit on a lot of summer income for folks.
But think of all the money that can now be redirected to welfare and the entitlement seekers....Air shows are a big business. Cutting back on them is going to put a hit on a lot of summer income for folks.
I think he was referring to the DOD's paycheck to paycheck mentality. Unless I missed something (which I wouldn't doubt) our personal paychecks aren't on the chopping block... yet.
This is very true, we have fewer aircraft scheduled to come through here this year and I've been told that number could be cut even more. On the up swing, we are seeing more commercial work coming in.While that may be true for active duty, the DoD/Navy civilians who provide engineering and logistic support to Naval Aviation have 20% of their paycheck on the chopping block beginning in April and continuing through the end of FY13. More importantly, this means 20% (or greater, in some key areas) less time available to help keep aging Navy aircraft platforms in an "up" status.
MAX
VFA-106 is putting a big kabbash on the F-18 East demo. Skipper said just that, "How can we run a demo when CAG-3 doesn't have money to deploy?" How much it will be cut I am uncertain. I'm just a CONE and that stuff is way about my status.
I am sorry, I just can't seem to rationalize what is being done because of the sequestration threat and the numbers. 2013 DOD budget $671B. $553B of that is discretionary. $118B is for the lingering war effort, which will (hopefully) be next to zero in a short couple years. Sequestration amounts to cuts of $492B OVER TEN YEARS. OK, OK. I know there is a big chunk of the budget going to pay and benefits that aren't going to be cut, in the short term at least, and I am guessing that retirement pay and care for us old guys is included, not to be cut. Then there are the big ticket items already contracted for that we can't go without. But hey, just do the math and it amounts to roughly $50B a year for ten years. That is about 10% of the current budget. Come on, all this angst and anguish over a 10% cut? Most of it is in the out years with plenty of time to adjust. The one time I had a job (active duty) where I was responsible for budgeting I am absolutely certain I could have found 10% and not broken a sweat. Back in 2003 I took a 23% pay cut to keep my airline out of bankruptcy. Not one employee group took less than a %10 cut in pay. I know what a 10% or more cut looks and feels like. What I see DOD doing doesn't look like it to me. What am I missing here?
OK, I get that, to a degree. Are you telling me that the chuck of untouchable money in the aggregate DOD budget is so large that a larger proportion of the cuts fall to OMN? I can understand that. But from 10% (across the board proportional) to 25%? A 150% increase in share? I'd sure like to see what DOD thinks is so important to be set aside from their share of cuts only to have it befall disproportionally on OMN. After all, the military is nothing if not operational and trained.I think the problem is from the operating forces perspective, it's not really 10%.
For the part of the FY13 DON budget that most people and the operating forces will see, it's more like a 25% operating budget cut (~$40B OMN budget, ~$10B shortfall with sequester+year long CR). That's 25% to the budget to operate and maintain forces at readiness.
That and we basically are playing a game of chicken with Congress, and it looks like they may call our bluff. In the long run, there's time to move funds around to mitigate the OMN shortfalls, but the way that it's being triggered now, it's not an option in the short term. And throw in the fact we went through the first half of the year with a fiscal model where the cuts associated with sequestration and CR wouldn't happen...
I'm not a PPBE expert, but that's how I understand it.
OK, I get that, to a degree. Are you telling me that the chuck of untouchable money in the aggregate DOD budget is so large that a larger proportion of the cuts fall to OMN? I can understand that. But from 10% (across the board proportional) to 25%? A 150% increase in share? I'd sure like to see what DOD thinks is so important to be set aside from their share of cuts only to have it befall disproportionally on OMN. After all, the military is nothing if not operational and trained.
Military personnel pay is explicitly protected and many procurement programs have already been paid for so far this FY leaving operations and maintenance one of the main things left to cut. DoD civil servants are also looking at being furloughed once a week from April until 30 Sept for a total of 22 days meaning they will lose a month of pay out of 5.
Not a thing, Wink. Not a thing.What am I missing here?
I understand some line items are more sacred than others. Still, just cyphering with the 'ol #2 pencil on a Big Chief paper tablet, it doesn't look right. Something did occur to me whilst erasing some mathematics I attempted beyond my ability. We are half way through the fiscal year, and as pointed out, some money that would have otherwise not been spent or reduced, is already gone. So are they going to take a full year's budget cut over just six months? That is simply bull shit. Also something that could be corrected with a wave of the legislative wand.