Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1 Freeze possible on all promotions, recruiting, PCS moves 
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,238



    Failure by Congress to end budget sequestration could force the services in fiscal 2014 to freeze military promotions, suspend recruiting and halt all change-of-station moves, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned in letter Wednesday to leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Automatic budget cuts already are “severely damaging military readiness,” Hagel wrote to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), committee chairman, and Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican. Without relief, defense spending will take another $52 billion hit in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

    If Congress lets that happen, by continuing to refuse to compromise on a debt reduction deal, the Department of Defense will keep a civilian hiring freeze in place, continue to neglect facilities maintenance, deepen cuts to weapon programs and impose “an extremely severe package of military personnel actions including halting all accessions, ending all permanent change-of-station moves, stopping discretionary bonuses and freezing all promotions,” Hagel wrote to introduce a budget “contingency plan.”

    Levin and Inhofe had asked Hagel to describe how keeping sequestration in place would impact defense budgets and national security. They are worried that “many members of Congress and the American public still seem to have the view that sequestration is an effective way to cut government spending, and can be made workable simply by providing the Department with additional flexibility or making minor adjustments.”

    Hagel explained that any debt-reduction deal to remove sequestration still would require Congress to make hard choices as defense budgets fall, to be able to preserve readiness, modernize weapon systems and sustain combat power. The hard choices, Hagel wrote, must include temporary caps on military pay raises and higher Tricare fees on military retirees.

    Congress also must allow retirement of lower-priority weapons including older ships and aircraft, remove restrictions on the rate of drawdown for U.S. ground forces and support other cost-saving moves including a new round of base closings, Hagel wrote.

    If sequestration continues and Congress won’t support these cost-saving proposals in President Obama’s budget, U.S. combat capability will take an even deeper hit in 2014 and beyond, Hagel suggested.

    There are plenty of details in his plan to frighten legislators about deepening defense budget cuts. This Congress, however, has shown itself more immune than most to reasoned arguments and rational compromise.

    If sequestration continues into the new fiscal year, Hagel said, there will be “serious adverse effects” on the “readiness and technological superiority of our military” even if the Congress were to provide some special flexibility in how the $52 billion in cuts are administered.

    The department, Hagel said, “would seek to minimize cuts in the day-to-day operating costs most closely related to training and readiness.” It would keep in place a hiring freeze on civilian employees and continue to reduce facilities maintenance. That would mean more understaffing of units and offices, and some employees working in “substandard conditions.”

    DoD wants to avoid another civilian employee furlough. But in fiscal 2014, if sequester takes another bite, DoD would consider an involuntary reduction-in-force and deeper training cuts for defense civilian employees.

    Military personnel accounts were spared the brunt of sequestration in fiscal 2013. If, as expected, these accounts are not protected from new across-the-board cuts this fall, DoD predicts having to make draconian moves impacting promotions, change of station moves, recruiting and “discretionary” bonuses, presumably to include reenlistment bonuses to shape the military’s skill mix.

    Hagel had ordered a Strategic Choices and Management Review to develop options to try to accommodate sequestration without serious damage to military capabilities. The resulting options won’t do that, he said.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/us/freez...zKGb4.facebook
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,839
    You don't "sequester" military budgets during a war. Unless, of course, you want to siphon off more money to private contractors and destroy the American military.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    You don't "sequester" military budgets during a war. Unless, of course, you want to siphon off more money to private contractors and destroy the American military.
    War operations are actually ex-budget, though it's mostly fought with military and civilian government personnel who get paid (For the most part) from within the budget, and mostly with equipment that was bought on-budget. There's some legit questions as to whether weapons systems modernization (A lot of which is defense contractor welfare and more about jobs in Congressional districts than immediate combat needs, given the vast current technological gulf between our shit and theirs) is actually a short-term priority equal to personnel, but I wouldn't hold my breath for anyone with a commission or a political appointment to bring up a reality-check question like whether it couldn't be delayed a couple of years without destroying the Republic. "Readiness" is also one of those phrases that can mean anything in militarese, from critically important stuff like fuel and ammunition to keep units qualified for deployment, to nice-to-have community/family support, safety program, and lifestyle spending that is by no stretch of the imagination directly related to combat.

    But hey, Obama declared the War on Terror was over anyway, and he's probably just going to have us unass Afghanistan within a year anyway, while the US press proclaims him the greatest warrior-king since Alexander.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •