Posted on 12/02/2007 7:11:31 AM PST by do the dhue
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29, 2007 – Installation operations and quality of life programs for soldiers and their families would be affected worldwide if the Army doesn’t receive additional funding from Congress soon, a senior officer said here today. “Absolutely, it’s an urgent need,” Maj. Gen. Edgar E. Stanton III, director of the Army’s budget office, said of the necessity for the Army to obtain nearly $55 billion from Congress to fund operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The active Army is now using $26 billion in appropriations that were earmarked for base-support operations to fund its overseas global war on terrorism operations, Stanton said.
Congress has approved supplemental funding for war operations, but the legislation comes attached with timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. President Bush has vowed to veto any such legislation that crosses his desk.
The Army is now spending about $7 billion monthly to support worldwide installation operations and overseas war fighting requirements, Stanton said. Without additional funding, the Army will exhaust its base operations and maintenance accounts by mid-February, he said.
In a memorandum dated Nov. 26, Gen. Richard A. Cody, vice chief of staff of the Army, directed that all Army commanders and agency directors begin planning to curtail operations and related expenses that do not directly support warfighters engaged in the global war on terrorism.
Cody’s instructions tell Army commanders and civilian leaders to review all operations and to forward recommendations to cut costs back to him by Dec. 4.
“We are only in the prudent planning phase,” Cody said in a statement released yesterday. The Defense Department has instructed all military services to review operational costs at installations as well as to prepare for possible furloughs of government civilian employees.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates directed the Army and Marine Corps to begin planning to reduce operations at all Army bases by mid-February and all Marine installations by mid-March.
About 200,000 Army civilians and contractors worldwide could be furloughed or temporarily laid off if the funding isn’t provided, according to senior Defense Department officials. Persons affected by potential furloughs would need to be notified by around mid-December, Stanton noted, since 60 days of notice is required.
Soldiers will receive their paychecks even if the additional funding doesn’t come through by February, Stanton said. However, installation child care services and other quality of life programs likely would be adversely affected, he said.
Also, available soldiers at Army installations could be called upon to perform security duty and other key tasks previously performed by civilians and contractors, Stanton said.
In view of a potential budget crunch, the call out to Army commanders to review installation and agency spending is simply part of responsible planning, Stanton explained.
If the Army doesn’t receive the needed funding by mid-February, “there will be impacts,” Stanton predicted, and he said officials are working to identify the specific effects a budget crunch would have on quality of life and family programs.
I wish there was a way the American people could stop funding Congress.
This has to be the worst Congress in our history. I say we must IMPEACH Congress during the next election.
ping
How to win votes and influence people!
How to lose wars and influence your enemy.
Being familiar with bureaucracy, especially military bureaucracy, I will admit that they are doing a tactic to hold the politicians feet to the fire for playing politics with their budget.
It is called “Cut the meat and leave the fat”. That is, most people would expect that when a large organization like the Pentagon is threatened with budget cuts for petty reasons, the first thing to go will be wasteful and bloated, unimportant programs. Nope.
Instead they threaten to cut the most politically painful programs, to “right back at you” the politicians. You want to abuse us? See what it feels like yourself.
So the first thing you cut is the “widows and orphans fund”. Then put a bunch of starving orphans dressed in rags in front of the congresscritter’s office, carrying signs about how cruel the politician is to want to hurt starving orphans. Meanwhile the head office continues to hold its semi-annual symposiums in Tahiti.
In the military, it is often even easier. They announce cuts in pork projects in the home districts of powerful congressmen. In turn, these congressman scream bloody murder at whoever is trying to budget cut.
In this case, the Pentagon is taking it directly to “the troops”, offering to cut back on “quality of life” issues on military installations. The troops hate this, and tell their families and friends. The word gets back to congress pretty quickly.
In the final analysis, all this is doing is reflecting reality. Nancy Pelosi despises the military, which is why she is holding up its money. So all the Pentagon is doing is passing the pain right along to the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors, and cut to the chase. Just to let Pelosi know that when she hates the military, she is hating the people, as individuals, in the military as well.
And if they don’t like it, they know who to complain to.
And I think a few Democrap Congressman may get a phone call or two from their constituents when this one hits the fan next year.
Bush needs to stick his neck out and make a major speech to the American (and world) public. Subject of the speech: We have won the war. We are mopping up. The Iraqi's can handle the heavy lifting but will need our continued help. Don't believe the Democraps when they tell you that we have lost. They are lying to you. They want us to lose. They cannot be trusted with the defense of this country.
Thanks for the post. Interesting perspective that I have not heard before. What other weapon could the Pentagon use against the likes of Congress?
I concur that Bush needs to step up to the front and lead the way. The only ting I have seen is that he will veto any bill with strings attached to the bill.
Just the other day I was having a conversation with a civil engineer who told me that a newer aspect of his firm’s business - as well as other firms like his - had to do with building new residential and other facilities for military base family housing. I was very pleased to hear that and hope it is not cut off.
Why doesn’t the military simply stand down? If there is no money to operate with, then send all the troops home and leave the country defenseless. And make that public knowledge. (IE - ‘Hey, terrorist! If you want to bomb Congress, we’ll be at home - on an unpaid furlough!’)
THAT would get Congress to do something quickly, AND cut out all the b@llsh@t.
Essentially, it appears that that is the tactic the Pentagon is using. Cut something that will infuriate the people enough to get Congress to act.
Which fat filled programs do you recommend be cut?
When Eisenhower coined the expression, “The US military-industrial complex”, it was a profound understatement. Here is a small map of the United States just showing the *most recent* “earmarks” individual congressmen have included in the *most recent* defense budget:
http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/files/google_earth_earmarks_08.jpg
If you look at the entire US military industrial complex, there are so many businesses involved that it looks like the entire United States is affiliated with the Pentagon, excepting modest sized chunks of wilderness.
This means that there is tremendous vulnerability of elected officials in the US to Pentagon pressure. Ordinarily this would be a dangerous situation, but the Pentagon has been pretty honorable in only applying pressure so that it can do its job.
When Pentagon budget cutbacks are mentioned, someone will often say, “Why don’t they use their black budget or reserve money to pay for it?” It doesn’t work that way. Though the Pentagon does get a budget, that doesn’t mean that it actually gets money from the treasury. It just means that the Pentagon is authorized to create that given amount of debt, that will then be paid by the treasury.
There are times when there is little the Pentagon can do but accept cuts. But most of these cuts are just in the rate of increase, so a much less painful.
What Pelosi and company are doing is more blunt. She has decided not to fund “ongoing operations”. This is a different kettle of fish, and a very hostile move on her part. It goes to the very heart of the Pentagon’s mission, so there will be no hesitation about them punishing her long and hard for that.
Not quite right. The cuts, if they come, will all be out of the Army’s operations and maintenance account. That is the account that is used to fund combat operations and also the account that is used to keep bases open, conduct training, and sustain other worldwide operations.
The reason that the cuts will come from here is because the Congress will not let the military use procurement funds to fund operations. Procurement is where most of the pork projects live. Moreover, most of these projects are specifically enumerated in the appropriations bills, can’t be touched without the OK of Congress.
The Congress is playing this silly little game because they haven’t got the guts to do what their left wing masters are demanding that they do - cut off all war funding. Unfortunately, this is a deadly game and young soldiers who are everything that politicians are not will die as a result.
It goes to the very heart of the Pentagon’s mission, so there will be no hesitation about them punishing her long and hard for that.
I hope they punish her and I would hope the American people would punish her and her friends during the next election.
Now, it seems to me that with Peloser's hostile move she should be deemed as a National Security threat.
Democrats MUST try to insure defeat.
Without chaos in Iraq next summer, THEY LOSE.
It’s really as simple as that.
Iraq doesn’t poll as well for Democrats as does things like “Free” healthcare, and gimme’s, so they must do everything they can to change the subject away from National Security.
And you can count on the Largely-Gay MSM to help...
“The active Army is now using $26 billion in appropriations that were earmarked for base-support operations to fund its overseas global war on terrorism operations, Stanton said.”
Isn’t this some sort of misappropriation or fraud? Should Stanton be in jail?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
