Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Halt sequestration cuts in U.S. defense
Daily Times ^ | February 02, 2013 | Editorial Board

Posted on 02/03/2013 6:12:33 AM PST by SkyPilot

n 2012, Republicans ran against the massive cuts to defense that might occur in early 2013 under the congressionally mandated budget sequester. At an Oct. 23 presidential debate, President Obama responded that his opponent, Mitt Romney, was blowing the risk out of proportion: The cuts, he said, “will not happen.”

Well, those cuts are now scheduled to take effect on March 1 — and, by the look of things, they will. The GOP has changed its tune; the Republican majority in the House seems content to let them happen. Meanwhile, President Obama, whose defense secretary has warned in the direst terms against imposing the cuts — hardly mentions the subject.

How did we get here?

The authors of sequestration, which was supposed to scare Congress into agreement on an alternative, did not anticipate the GOP’s postelection maneuvering. The party is abandoning its unpopular threat to block a debt-ceiling increase — and using the threat of the sequester instead. The goal, apparently, is still more spending cuts without any tax increases, a deal Obama properly refuses and which is less sensible for the country than is a combination of entitlement cuts and higher revenue through closing tax loopholes, which Obama might accept.

So much for the erstwhile GOP concern about gutting national security. And who cares if the sequester’s cuts leave entitlements and other Democratic pet causes, such as Pell grants, unscathed?

Obama is hardly blameless. He’s the commander in chief, yet in signing off on sequestration as a “forcing mechanism,” he embraced a political calculation that implied national defense was more of a Republican worry than a Democratic one. The Pentagon was already planning to trim a manageable $450  billion from its spending plans over the next decade. If sequestration happens, and continues over a decade, that figure would more than double. As a result, the United States could have to terminate major weapons programs and would be left with the smallest ground force since prior to Pearl Harbor, according to estimates by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Those kinds of cuts always raise wary eyebrows here in Delaware County, where Boeing Helicopters produces the fuselage for the tilt-rotor V-22 aircraft. It has been fending off moves to kill off the program that go back to the first President Bush. The sequestration cuts would likely put the program back on the chopping block.

The sequester would force the Pentagon to reduce its planned spending by 16.3  percent between now and Sept. 30, and to do so in an undifferentiated, across-the-board manner. The resulting furloughs, training reductions and procurement hassles would sow disorder and diminish readiness — while more selective cuts that might improve long-term efficiency would be bypassed.

Jobs and economic growth are not reasons to spend more than one dime than is absolutely necessary to prepare for war. But, as the most recent negative gross domestic product report shows, slowing defense production is already hurting the broader economy.

Given the uncertain global security environment, we are more skeptical than others of the need to downsize defense. But even those who disagree should recognize that sequestration is no way to go about it. It’s become a cliche of sorts to predict that partisan gridlock will undermine national security. If sequestration goes forward unchanged, that prediction will come true.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cuts; defense; sequestration
So much for the erstwhile GOP concern about gutting national security. And who cares if the sequester’s cuts leave entitlements and other Democratic pet causes, such as Pell grants, unscathed?

Way to go GOP!

1 posted on 02/03/2013 6:12:41 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

So much for the erstwhile GOP concern about gutting national security. And who cares if the sequester’s cuts leave entitlements and other Democratic pet causes, such as Pell grants, unscathed?


Yet another reason the current GOP leadership has me scratching my head. When they cut defense, they are mauling their own base. But, of course, they leave Pell grants and other entitlements intact because to do otherwise would be “mean”. Who is the moron who comes up with these self-destructive strategies? Its either a clueless Republican or a Democrat in deep cover.


2 posted on 02/03/2013 6:20:36 AM PST by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

The faces above should be considered a Poster for the GOP.

It is certainly what we have seen from the GOP for the last 4 years or more.

Whatever Obama wants in the sequestration is what Obama will get. We do not have two parties any more, we have the hard left as democrats and the easy left as Republicans.

None of our politicians in Washington seems to care about the country any more.The Only care is to get re-elected by passing out the goodies.


3 posted on 02/03/2013 6:25:16 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
"The sequester would force the Pentagon to reduce its planned spending by 16.3  percent between now and Sept. 30, and to do so in an undifferentiated, across-the-board manner." I believe this cut is appropriate, along with similar cuts in ALL other government spending. It would be nice if such cuts could be targeted on a macro level, but that would take some intelligence on the part of our "leaders", which they lack... IMHO, the only way to do it is across the board cuts.
4 posted on 02/03/2013 6:26:38 AM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

While I wouldn’t support slashing the military budget , surely they can find plenty of fat they could cut from the military spending?
I’m sure I’ll get plenty of replies from “budget hawks” saying how we should spend even more money we don’t have on 1,000 dollar paper clips.


5 posted on 02/03/2013 6:28:47 AM PST by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I think sequestration is good.

Sequestration is the only way to get spending cuts. Spending cuts are not going to happen otherwise.

There will be necessary sequestered projects added back minus the marginally necessary or completely unnecessary pork. Keep soldiers and sailors, eliminate the rail gun.


6 posted on 02/03/2013 6:29:15 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Adm. Mike Mullen, has famously said that the single biggest threat to U.S. national security is not Al Qaeda, China, Iran or North Korea. It’s the national debt.
7 posted on 02/03/2013 6:35:00 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

I’m. Not blaming the GOP right now. The super committee came up with this and 0bama signed it, that’s it.

Republicans are playing the hand that it dealt. Notice that the tone of the article is crying about the Republicans...”gee, I thought they’d never cut defense”. That’s a ruse. How many Defense plants and suppliers are in Dem districts?????? The Boeing Plant mentioned in the article is a Dem district.

, Dems stand to lose a ton on sequestration, including some pet programs in other areas besides defense. Don’t let the weenies in the media convince you otherwise....that’s why they come out NOW with all of this print. Their bluff has been called, we will get across the board spending cuts..and we will move on. I think the big defense companies have been planning on this for awhile....but you can bet your pipe that the bureaucracy that supports favorite demsocialprogams has not. And now they’re panicking and try to blame Republicans as usual.


8 posted on 02/03/2013 6:44:24 AM PST by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
The fact that the GOP agreed to the Sequester in 2011 was the mark of sheer cowardice.

I have read many, many articles and analysis about that period, and the consensus was the GOP was deathly afraid of being blamed for people not getting their Social Security checks on time and any other fall out from a temporary government shut down. Congress said it would authorize payments on the national debt and for Social Security, but Obama controlled the Treasury Dept and played politics with it. So, the GOP caved like a wet cardboard box.

Sequestration came right out of the White House (the authors were Jack Lew, OMB Director, and Obama himself). Bob Woodward confirmed this. They came up with the formula. Defense at 17% of the budget took 50% of the hits. Entitlements are 2/3 of the Federal outlays, but they would be exempt from ANY cuts.

The Repulicans agreed to this Faustian bargain.

Then, they had buyers remorse. Look at what Paul Ryan wrote just a few months ago (along with a good man named "Buck McKeon" who is the House Armed Services Committee Chairman):

Military-Crippling Sequester Must Be Stopped - By Reps. Buck McKeon and Paul Ryan - May 9, 2012

Last week, shirtless Paul gets on Meet the Press and is the Sequester's greatest cheerleader in front of David "High Capacity Magazine" Gregory.

That was the "old" Paul Ryan. The "new" Paul Ryan is now a "Well, burn it all down then!" kind of guy.

Paul Ryan: 'The Sequester Is Going To Happen'

The GOP isn't known as "The Stupid Party" for nothing.

Why defense spending plunged 22% last quarter — and killed GDP

Not only is Sequestration going to gut the military (note: the word "gut" was used by every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the SECDEF), not only is it unfair to levy $600 Billion in cuts on top of the $450 Billion that Defense has already been cut, but when the economy goes into the tank (again) after Sequestration next quarter, the GOP will get the blame and they will deserve it.

Honestly.

The Republicans have had three opportunities in 2 months to stop Sequestration. They have done nothing. During the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations it was an after thought to them. All they cared about were taxes. Those are important, mind you, but they threw Defense in front of the bus in the first place and didn't lift a finger to save it.

The GOP keeps saying that twice it passed alternatives to replace the Sequester. They keep passing things they know the Senate will not agree to. I hate Harry Reid, but he still runs the place.

They should quit licking their wounds and get off their duffs. We don't need another last minute crisis negotiation at midnight, and we don't need for them wait for this train wreck to happen and they say it wasn't their fault.

We need adults in the room. That is supposed to be the Republicans.

9 posted on 02/03/2013 6:52:46 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
I agree with him, but Defense is not what is bankrupting this nation. It is 17% of the budget and about to get even smaller.

2/3 of all Federal spending is on Entitlements, and those are not touched one iota under sequestration.

62 Percent of the Federal Budget Goes to Entitlements

Defense has taken a huge hit already - over $450 Billion over 10 years. In the last 5 fiscal quarters, Defense has cut dramatically, but Entitlements are on a logarithmic curve upwards.

This madness is akin to asking your son, who get a $17 a week allowance, to take a pay another huge pay cut so that your live-in mother in law can invite her friends over for another wine party.

10 posted on 02/03/2013 7:04:06 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Meanwhile bring back US jobs.

We cannot fund a huge defense establishment with a shrinking export machine.

BRING BACK US JOBS.

Now.


11 posted on 02/03/2013 7:13:54 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
unfair to levy $600 Billion in cuts on top of the $450 Billion that Defense has already been cut

"Fairness" is not relevant. There have been no cuts at all, you are talking about hypothetical future cuts. We have no money, we borrow money from China to pay for excessive amounts of stuff (pork projects, set asides, earmarks, by the politicians). To borrow that money we build up China's industrial and military strength. In many cases the parts are from China (electronics, computers, etc).

We need to face the fact that we are done, we are no longer the world's superpower thanks to both parties. We have plenty of momentum and can defend some spaces (mideast) and maybe others (e.g. Taiwan, Japan) for now. But that won't last. Get used to it. I know I am, my defense job will be toast before too long.

12 posted on 02/03/2013 7:16:21 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Yes, what you say is true, the cuts are going to be painful. Hopefully the next round of cuts will not concentrate on defense.
13 posted on 02/03/2013 7:17:17 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bert
I think sequestration is good. Sequestration is the only way to get spending cuts. Spending cuts are not going to happen otherwise.

I'm with you. I'd like to see 16.3% cuts in military spending and in all other categories of spending other than social security. Once the cuts are in place, if Congress wants to make them more sensible, that would be a good thing, but we're spending at least 42% more than we should. It shouldn't be that hard to prioritize and cut a third of the waste from DOD, DOE, HHS, and every other general category of spending.

14 posted on 02/03/2013 7:24:30 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
The authors of sequestration, which was supposed to scare Congress into agreement on an alternative, did not anticipate the GOP’s postelection maneuvering. The party is abandoning its unpopular threat to block a debt-ceiling increase — and using the threat of the sequester instead. The goal, apparently, is still more spending cuts without any tax increases, a deal Obama properly refuses and which is less sensible for the country than is a combination of entitlement cuts and higher revenue through closing tax loopholes, which Obama might accept.

GOP's post-election maneuvering? How about the Democrats' multiple instances of post-agreement maneuvering when they got their "tax increases now" and tomorrow never comes on the promised spending cuts? Not even spending increase cuts.

So, now, for the first time in too many years, we have a situation where the Executive actually has to cut down on the spending increases. And it's cuts across the board, all discretionary spending, not just "targeted" against specific programs. Obama's people will actually have to do their job and figure out what's meat and what's gristle. Now, not later. Everywhere, not just in selected "safe" programs that the Democratic base doesn't care about.

About military spending: Part of the problem is that the practice of military force has morphed from throwing men at the problem to one of relying on technology to wage war. The various States are (supposedly) not equipped to do the R&D necessary to improve war technology. This is one thing our Founders could not have forseen. Think the Manhattan Project, and it's effect on World War II. (Then think Dr. Strangelove as a potential consequence for these technological "advances".)

And we've thrown a ton of money at blue-sky (and black-sky) ideas for waging war. Some of them have proved to be somewhat effective; others have remained black holes for money and brainpower. Trying to identify the latter is an interesting exercise in crystal-ball gazing...and then one realizes that some of the most inane military ideas go on to be civilian-sector successes. (cf http://xkcd.com)

Is sequestration a bad thing? Anything that stops the unbridled flow of money we don't have to people who don't contribute a single thing (other than babies and fat backsides) to the society as a whole is a good thing. The idea is that we are supposed to work together, all of us, to the common good. That's the whole point of the Union. People tend to forget that.

I lay claim to no label: Conservative, Progressing, Democrat, Republican. So my ideas and beliefs don't flow in any particular ideological channel:

We, all of us, are supposed to be equal under the law. Let's practice what our civics teachers have been preaching all these years.

15 posted on 02/03/2013 7:36:47 AM PST by asinclair (B*llshit is a renewable resource.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

All they cared about were taxes. Those are important, mind you, but they threw Defense in front of the bus in the first place and didn’t lift a finger to save it.


The killer is that many high income earners are liberals who frequently say they’re “undertaxed”. If we should be calling anyone’s bluff, its theirs. Of course, I’m my income is up there too, but (on some level) it would be worth the extra $$ just to hear those hypocritical pigs squeal.


16 posted on 02/03/2013 8:08:57 AM PST by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: palmer
There have been no cuts at all, you are talking about hypothetical future cuts.

You are wrong.

Defense has already been cut in real dollars. What do you think that 22.1% decrease last quarter was?

There have already been thousands of industry and military jobs lost by the Obama-Gates-Panetta cuts.

These stories are all from 2011. That is when the deepest cuts began.

$46 Billion Worth of Cancelled Programs

Navy to Lay Off 3,000 Sailors

Army slashing 8,700 jobs as budget cuts begin

Air Force announces 9,000 civilian job cuts

We have no money

When people say that, I ask them: "If we have "no money" should we be cutting Social Security and Medicare - NOW?"

I never get a straight answer. It is always full of "Well, yeah, sure, but that isn't the point....."

It is the point. Both parties are trying to cut spending on 1/3 of the budget while leaving 2/3rds of the budget "exempt" that is growing astronomically.

17 posted on 02/03/2013 9:04:43 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
other than social security

Why?

18 posted on 02/03/2013 9:06:03 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
"other than social security" Why?

We have a moral obligation to keep our word on social security retirement (not necessarily for the in many cases frivolous social security disability claims, but for all retirement claims). There is no obligation to continue purchasing weapons the military didn't ask for, not even if they are made in a district with a Congresscritter on the right committee. In the long term, social security spending should be cut, by continuing to raise the retirement age on those more than a decade from retirement with full benefits (a category that includes me), but immediate cuts would not be ethical, not for those already retired and not for those expecting to retire in the next few years.

19 posted on 02/03/2013 9:11:07 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
$46 Billion Worth of Cancelled Programs

Right, things like the second engine for the joint strike fighter. If we can't cut crap like that then we will never cut anything. Nevertheless, defense spending is still increasing, only the projections are decreasing.

20 posted on 02/03/2013 9:30:17 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I agree. Being 50 and prudent I expect nothing from SS other than a few debased dollars. I would gladly give up all the money I have put in, plus pay taxes to support current retirees, and in exchange I would only want to turn my IRA savings into Roth without any tax bite.


21 posted on 02/03/2013 9:36:54 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Yep, though there might be a little wiggle room because of devalued dollars. From $731 billion in 2007 to $903 billion in 2012.

I have not looked at the details to see if some budget items previously excluded are now included, but overall it’s clear: Any real reduction in defense-related expenditures is miniscule if it exists at all.

The dispute might be over the change from actual military preparedness to social experimentation.


22 posted on 02/03/2013 9:46:37 AM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Right, things like the second engine for the joint strike fighter. If we can't cut crap like that....

I sent you but one link of many. There have been many defense modernization programs canceled. You can do your own research. You were wrong about these not being real cuts. Just admit it.

You can also Google how many industry, defense, DoD, and related jobs have been lost due to recent cuts, and how many more are projected. Moreover, those jobs have a 2nd and 3rd tier affect on state and local economies as well.

The "fat" has already been cut from Defense. Right now, the Navy and Air Force are cutting maintenance in anticipation of our enlightened US Govt not passing a budget (the military is on a Continuing Resolution from 2 years ago - making your entire chart that you posted moot). You chart also doesn't show the sequestration and the other cuts.

This one shows the actual defense decreases without Sequestration!

This isn't a "Baseline" budget (yes, I do know what that is) spin that DoD is presenting. It is not alarmist. It is a real crisis and this nation better do something about it or we may pay a terrible price.

Because Sequestration was delayed, the 1 March cuts will force that year's cuts between March and September (end of the fiscal year). Sequestration is a meat ax anyway, giving no latitude towards the DoD on how to implement the cuts. Worse still, Obama wanted to avoid the political fall out of "cutting troops" during an election year, so in July he said service strength cannot be touched. The Army will tell you that they could stand to cut some active duty uniformed troops now, but they cannot. The Air Force tried to cut uniformed Guard and Reservists, and Congressmen in their states and districts had a conniption fit and stopped it. So now, the DoD can only cut Operations and Maintenance - perhaps by 35% in only a few months.

This is a REAL problem for the US military. We are about to gut the force to absolutely dangerous levels. Do you understand?

Dempsey: Sequestration Will Gut the Military

Something has to be done about our spending. I am no fool, and I get that.

The problem is, the real causes of our spending are not being addressed by Obama or the Congress.

I am retired military, so I receive a small pension. My pension increases are tied to the CPI COLA that Social Security recipients receive. During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, I said I would be more than willing to see my pension increases decreased if it was part of an overall plan to reform all Entitlement spending.

SS recipients went nuts at the talk of a COLA decrease. Harry Reid burned the offer (that even Obama was warm to) in his Senate office fireplace.

We are NEVER go to get anywhere on this problem unless we tackle Entitlement spending. Throwing the nation's military on the cutting altar (again) will not solve this problem.

So why are we pursuing a course of action that every serious strategist believes is putting us on the wrong road? Because too many folks have concluded that we cannot afford our current military commitments. As a percentage of GDP, however, the military budget is set to fall to its lowest point since before World War II, and well under half of what we maintained throughout the Cold War. It is not the military budget that is bankrupting the nation. Rather, it is runaway entitlement spending that is set to wreck the nation’s economic future. On the way to doing that, it appears set to first undermine the nation’s ability to secure its vital interests. If Congress and the administration cannot get our economic house in order soon, then we must prepare ourselves for America’s continued retreat. It is only a matter of time before a potential enemy calculates that we have weakened ourselves to the point that it can roll the dice. If you think staying prepared for war is expensive, try getting caught up in one when unprepared. The chart you presented

23 posted on 02/03/2013 10:34:04 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
You were wrong about these not being real cuts

No net cut.

You can also Google how many industry, defense, DoD, and related jobs have been lost due to recent cuts

Still net hiring in the DC area.

The "fat" has already been cut from Defense.

Not a chance. Some fat has been cut from the fattest defense contractors but there is plenty left. Lots of fat was added on the civilian defense employee side and smaller contractors.

This is a REAL problem for the US military. We are about to gut the force to absolutely dangerous levels. Do you understand?

First you say there are no cuts in the forces, only O&M, then you claim cuts in forces?

I am retired military, so I receive a small pension. My pension increases are tied to the CPI COLA that Social Security recipients receive. During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, I said I would be more than willing to see my pension increases decreased if it was part of an overall plan to reform all Entitlement spending.

That's good. I don't even want to cut your pension or any other retiree's pensions. What I would like to do is phase out SS and privatize future military pensions the same way. Let people save and invest in the economy rather than have the government promise what they will never be able to pay.

Since my employer depends on defense dollars more than any other source, it is not going to be pretty. My own project is only partly funded due to anticipated cuts. I may very well lose my job, but I have good contacts and can probably squeeze in somewhere else for now. But having been around a couple other companies as part of my job I know where there is fat and I know how much there is (a lot). I also know some essential stuff will get cut before some of the fat, but that's the way it goes. We either cut or we don't and if we don't cut then we lose the economy and country in the long run.

24 posted on 02/03/2013 10:57:53 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: palmer; bert
Get used to it. I know I am, my defense job will be toast before too long

My defense position went away a year ago after 33 years of exeplary service (according to them) with the same company, Northrop Grumman. My wife finds out this week if her DOD contractor/employer is going out of business. So, to me, BERT, sequestration IS bad. And it IS NOT the only way to get spending cuts as you claim.

25 posted on 02/03/2013 5:39:40 PM PST by subterfuge (CBS NBC ABC FOX AP-- all no different than Pravda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Sorry, but that’s going to happen. It’s nice to think that defense should not be cut, but it’s not true, defense needs to be cut and that means job losses. The main question is whether other non-defense cuts will be as large and unfortunately defense is taking a bigger hit, mainly because we lost the election. Another question is how to cut. An easy answer is by actually cutting, not agreeing to cut later depending on a committee or other political process. The politicians are always going to put pork back in or keep it from getting cut. But with across the board cuts like we are faced with, that can’t happen.


26 posted on 02/03/2013 6:02:29 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

I regret your job is gone and that your wife may soon be in similar circumstances

I am curious however about your job. Was Sequestration to blame or was the program ended for some other reason?

At 55, I ceased operations for my company, closed it down, let my people go. I began another job that has now grown to the point there is more than I want to do. I have worked at the new part time work for 17 years. It is fun.

Among your assets is a minor skill that can be sold, perhaps as an independent contractor that can be both rewarding and even fun.


27 posted on 02/04/2013 4:43:24 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bert

Sequestration didn’t “cause” our company’s layoffs, but they didn’t help as the military began holding back from granting contracts a year into Obama’s first term.

Northrop, at the division I worked at, was mismanaged and I said for years our products were propping up the horrible management “team.” Contracts were drying up, they knew it, but still refused to pursue any of the smaller contract opportunities. If a given program wasn’t going to generate $ 50 million in two or three years they wanted no part of it.

And corporate Northrop is infested with political correctness and affirmative action hires. They made no secret of desiring more minorities and women as leaders, to a fault, literally. My division had a “support club” for all minorities, women and GLBT. The GLBT club had SEVEN members, but the grapevine said there were “secret members.” It was a big joke at the time, but in the end, the joke was on me.


28 posted on 02/06/2013 1:51:22 PM PST by subterfuge (CBS NBC ABC FOX AP-- all no different than Pravda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bert

Sequestration didn’t “cause” our company’s layoffs, but they didn’t help as the military began holding back from granting contracts a year into Obama’s first term.

Northrop, at the division I worked at, was mismanaged and I said for years our products were propping up the horrible management “team.” Contracts were drying up, they knew it, but still refused to pursue any of the smaller contract opportunities. If a given program wasn’t going to generate $ 50 million in two or three years they wanted no part of it.

And corporate Northrop is infested with political correctness and affirmative action hires. They made no secret of desiring more minorities and women as leaders, to a fault, literally. My division had a “support club” for all minorities, women and GLBT. The GLBT club had SEVEN members, but the grapevine said there were “secret members.” It was a big joke at the time, but in the end, the joke was on me.


29 posted on 02/06/2013 1:53:35 PM PST by subterfuge (CBS NBC ABC FOX AP-- all no different than Pravda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Wars should have a surtax to pay for them.


30 posted on 02/06/2013 1:59:04 PM PST by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson