Pentagon bracing for 30% reduction in Army base operations

How bad will the cuts to defense spending affect the military readiness of the US? The Pentagon has begun to game out the impact of another round of steep cuts, and even fly-overs at public events will feel the slice of the axe. More importantly, Army base operations will get reduced by 30%, and military leaders are warning of a "hollow force" with a mandate that cannot possibly be met:

According to the Post, the Air Force has already begun implementing cuts but still faces a nearly $2 billion deficit for the rest of this fiscal year. That’s one reason why we won’t be seeing fly-overs at sporting events, and the Air Force’s participation in air shows — a big recruiting environment — will stop as well. The Navy and the Air Force have both imposed a hiring freeze, and the Pentagon says that the pending sequestration could mean furloughs for its entire 800,000 civilian employees.

The sequestration followed a previous round of cuts in Defense that took $500 billion out of projected spending over the next decade already. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has repeatedly warned that the sequestration would be “unworkable” and a “disaster.” Now it appears that the sequestration has become a reality, and the “hollow force” a real possibility.

Into this steps … Chuck Hagel. With Chuck Schumer’s blessing in hand, he’s likely to get confirmed as Panetta’s successor, and it’s become clear that Obama wants Hagel to serve as a hatchet man to reduce defense spending even further. That will not only put Obama on a collision course with Congress, but also on a collision course with the operational philosophy at Defense, which has had the mission to prepare for two hot wars at once since WWII. It’s possible to reduce defense spending significantly, but only if the US wants to retreat from its global position of security leadership and guarantor of safe trade. While that may possibly be Obama’s aim, interventions like Libya would then be off the table entirely (perhaps not a bad idea, considering that outcome), and certainly the same could be said of organizing against terrorism in Asia and Africa, and providing for the defense of Europe.

I think he’s depending on his civilian agency, the DHS, and all the rest .....

Bingo. But that’s not all. Don’t forget the Unions and the Entitlement “Clients” in the inner city. This unholy trinity is Obama’s real army. If, at some point, there’s wide scale rioting, don’t assume the Government will be on the side of those defending their property, businesses, or even their lives. In fact the opposite is true. Armed, law-abiding people are likely to be prosecuted for civil rights crimes against “the People”. And, of course, the MSM will brand these people as reactionary racists. The DOD, which still leans conservative and is sworn to uphold the Constitution, will be castrated.

True. I kinda of, and I know incorrectly, lump DoD civilians into the same category (and i realize I shouldn't). Many are, IMO, contracted out to do the jobs we no longer do. Our airmen used to do chow hall duty...now it's civilians. Our finance used to be 100% military, now we have some civilians. Many of our assistants used to be young airmen...now they are GS-6's.

But yes...they will feel it first. I just got out of 2 meetings where we spoke on furloughs and TDY decreases and freezes. There will be a LOT of DoD Contractors (not vested GS employess but guys who are on a year to year contract) to get non-renewed. There will also be a lot of companies not hiring or laying off people because their DoD $ dries up. I almost got out at 20 and took a contractor job that was renewed year to year...but did not for this very reason.

Civil Servants who are employed by the Federal Government have DEFINED BENEFITS plans.

Up to 1984, new federal employees entered the Civil Service Retirement Service (CSRS) Pension plan - which allowed about 2% per year times average of highest 3 years salary (and any OT or special pays would not be computed.) Someone who retired with 30 years at age 55 would be able to get 55% of their base salary as a retirement benefit. (They contributed the equivalent of a social security payment - about 6.1% - and did not pay into social security, and got no social security credit for their work.)

Because the program was considered a bit too generous - in 1984 - new employees went into the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) - where they would get 1% per year times an average of their highest 3 years salary (again, no OT or special money awards would be added in). They would pay 1% of their salary, and they also paid into Social Security and would be eligible to draw social security.

Both programs are considered ‘contracts’ and benefits could not be taken away. But - the FERS program can be modified for new workers. Starting this January, new employees will have to contribute 2.7% (IIRC - it might be 2.9%) for their FERS benefit instead of the 1%, and all federal workers who started before Jan. 2013 have their program unchanged.

Now - both CSRS and FERS are ‘nice’ programs - nicer than many programs available to the private sector at this time, but these programs are far less lucrative than some State/County/City programs in certain states. Consider some government retirement programs in California where workers might be eligible for a 3% per year of their final year’s salary (INCLUDING Overtime!!) ...and they can retire as early as age 50. So one might get 30 years x 3% x base + OT (a value that might be 30% - 50% higher than normal) - so that from age 50 to perhaps 85 - their retirement salary is greater than their base pay ....and it gets Cost Of Living Adjustments.

In My Opinion - it is not the FERS program that is as much of a problem; the real problem is the BLOAT and growth of government programs. The Federal government has BLOAT. For every DoD program that might need trimming back - there are probably a dozen non-DoD programs that should be ABOLISHED. The size of the Federal Government has grown significantly under Barack Obama - but the DoD hasn’t been growing ... so there are other areas that should be cut back.

In the Federal Government under Barack Obama - the number of high level supervisors (GS-13/14/15 and Senior Executive Service ...SES-1/2/3/4) has grown significantly. Work hasn’t become more efficient - and supervisors and managers are harder to fire than general government workers, who are almost impossible to fire. Hard workers are not rewarded for working efficiently...and ‘management’ doesn’t seem to want to find methods to improve productivity and do more with less, because it means that their own private ‘rice bowls’ would get smaller - which is less desirable than growing an empire.

There is formal information out that indicates that the Navy might have to execute furloughs that would start in mid-late March - and would require workers to take one day off without pay each week - or a 20% pay cut ...for 22 weeks. (This would be the same as 22 days off over 26 pay periods for a year - about a 8.5% pay cut for the year.)

But the other ramifications are more serious. For example - at the Naval Shipyards - all overtime work would be curtailed and the shipyards might work 4 days a week and take 3 day weekends (maintaining fire and security workers, and other work that can’t be shutdown ....). Then the deliveries of ships back to the fleet would be delayed, and this affects existing ships on deployments, etc.

There are probably other more serious issues that haven’t been discussed - but I am sure that they will emerge and bite the military in the a$$ ...to our detriment...but then again, I think that is 0bama’s plan.

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.