Army to Cut Brigades at 10 US Bases......

[Glen Contrarian]

I'm not worried.....You can note my location and that Democratic Bastion of Liberaldom. Wherein I doubt there is much you can show in comparison with that Democratic Utopia and their spending.

Ah - the Southern states are growing SO much faster than the blue states - but you know what? So are most third-world nations - but that doesn't mean that life is better in a third-world nation than it is in blue-state America, now does it?

Tell you what, MMC - I'm going to start a thread showing my references for all of the above in the "general political discussion" section in about a half hour, and consider yourself cordially invited. And there's a little something that you won't expect - the generally-higher standard of living in blue states is NOT due to liberal governance, and the generally-lower standard of living in red states is NOT due to conservative governance. I encourage you to tell me why that is on that thread, why a strong progressive like myself would say that.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I'm not worried.....You can note my location and that Democratic Bastion of Liberaldom. Wherein I doubt there is much you can show in comparison with that Democratic Utopia and their spending.

Article's up, MMC - come and see if you can figure the puzzle out! Remember - it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative governance.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-family-than-red-states-but-theres-twist.html

 

[apdst]

And each of those additional M1A1 tanks that Congress insisted that the Army buy even though the Army doesn't want and doesn't need them...they each cost more than that IRS convention.

Those M1's will save more American kids's lives on the battlefield than those IRS conventions, too. Which should take priority? Saving American soldiers on the battlefield, or showing the IRS cabal a good time?

 

[Oozlefinch]

We need to reduce the size and cost of government. This action is a start.

How about getting rid of the gigantic bloat in the DoD instead?

I am talking about all of those civilians that for decades now have been taking away the job of the Soldiers in the first place? The ones that cook our food, take care of our medical needs, type up our orders, handle our pay problems, and everything else from washing dishes to changing light bulbs?

If you ask me, that is much more wasteful then having a few more soldiers on the payroll. When you literally have 1 civilian working directly for the DoD (and that is not counting the contractors) for every 2 people in uniform, there is your biggest problem. Fire a big chunk of those overpaid unionized prim donnas, and I bet you would go a long ways in solving the problems.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Ah - the Southern states are growing SO much faster than the blue states - but you know what? So are most third-world nations - but that doesn't mean that life is better in a third-world nation than it is in blue-state America, now does it?

Tell you what, let me give it to you from my experience, first hand.

In 2003, I left California, where I was making $24 an hour and living in a slum. $800 a month to rent a room, $5 a gallon for gas, over $100 a month for insurance, $225 a month for parking, etc, etc, etc. I was making a damned good wage, and was barely keeping my head above water.

I moved to Alabama, and within 2 weeks had a job paying $12 an hour. And I lived twice as well on half as much. Instead of living in a rented room in a ghetto, I lived in either nice trailers, or at the end half of a duplex, with an average rent of around $300 a month. Gas was cheaper the moment I crossed into Arizona, and got cheaper the further East I went. My insurance dropped to around $35 a month. Yea, the cost of living was a lot less, which meant my income went a lot farther.

Then in 2008 I moved to Texas, not much different in cost and expenses. Did ok, had a really nice house for around $1,000.

Then last year had to move back to California again. Cost of housing is insane, insurance jumps back up, listen to "average gas price" on news reports, and wish it was anywhere close to that in California. With both my wife and myself working full time jobs, we still can't live as well as we did in Alabama or Texas with just myself working.

If that is what you think is great about living in a Blue State, give me a Red State any day of the week!

And it is a good thing I stopped taking public transit last month, because 2 of our local mass transit systems are both going out on strike on Monday. In California it is so easy to predict when there will be a strike, it happens every 3-5 years when their contract comes up for renewal. I jokingly told my CO last week that maybe we should do the same thing, and have the military go on strike demanding a 25% pay raise and free medical.

For some reason, he did not find it all that funny. :mrgreen:

 

[fmw]

How about getting rid of the gigantic bloat in the DoD instead?

I am talking about all of those civilians that for decades now have been taking away the job of the Soldiers in the first place? The ones that cook our food, take care of our medical needs, type up our orders, handle our pay problems, and everything else from washing dishes to changing light bulbs?

If you ask me, that is much more wasteful then having a few more soldiers on the payroll. When you literally have 1 civilian working directly for the DoD (and that is not counting the contractors) for every 2 people in uniform, there is your biggest problem. Fire a big chunk of those overpaid unionized prim donnas, and I bet you would go a long ways in solving the problems.

I'm all for it. I believe we could cut the federal government in half, miss nothing important along the way and have a better government when it is completed.

 

[ARealConservative]

We need to reduce the size and cost of government. This action is a start.

we definitively do. but that means we need to reduce our role. reducing man power without a change in policy just puts a burden on the troops.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Heya GM :2wave: .....Getting Spending Under Control? In what way would could you see this being done? How many are actual Soldiers and not National Guard and reserves should be considered into that equation don't ya think? Do you think there is a way to reign in spending that all know to be the cause of Cost to the Country? Why do those so called experts at economics state if we are not looking at Entitlements, then we are not looking at the real problem?

Also No I didn't spend the USSR into Oblivion, nor did I bring down the Evil Empire. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn express.....once. :lol: :2razz:

How far would $2.3 trillion go to funding social programs and "entitlements"? Did the Pentagon ever find that missing $2.3 trillion back in 01?

I believe an audit revealed that in total, $6.3 trillion is unaccounted for over ten years. Yet I agree, why cut the ground forces... cut the no-bid/cost-plus contractors instead.

 

[Oozlefinch]

we definitively do. but that means we need to reduce our role. reducing man power without a change in policy just puts a burden on the troops.

It actually does little to nothing, because we reduce the number of civilians in the DoD by a fraction of the amount that we reduce the number of troops.

If you cut troop strength by 25%, you might see a 10% reduction in the number of civilian employees on the payroll. I have long believed that the "change in policy" needs to be to get rid of a huge percentage of the civilians, and return those jobs back to the military where they belong.

Not a joke, I have been on posts where the barracks had maid service, and not a single person who worked in the chow hall was in uniform, it was 100% civilian. What kind of joke is that?

 

[Oozlefinch]

How far would $2.3 trillion go to funding social programs and "entitlements"? Did the Pentagon ever find that missing $2.3 trillion back in 01?

I believe an audit revealed that in total, $6.3 trillion is unaccounted for over ten years. Yet I agree, why cut the ground forces... cut the no-bid/cost-plus contractors instead.

That is actually not the problem, and the reason for the "no bid" should be obvious.

In almost every case, the reason for a "no bid" is because there is no other company that could provide the needed services. When you need an entire military base built within 90 days, going from an empty hilltop to a complete base with electrical service, water service, sewage, communications, and buildings... how many companies can provide that kind of service?

We can't even do it ourselves anymore, the "military axe" bit so deeply in the 1990's into the Engineering branches of our military that we don't have the equipment or experienced troops to do it ourselves, so that means we have to contract it out. And there are only 2 or 3 companies that can actually do something along that scale (20 times at once), and that is Haliburton. No matter what people think, they are the largest and most experienced engineering and construction company in the world.

Then there are times (like the previously mentioned bases) where you simply can't go through the bidding process. Why open up for 6 months of competitive bidding, and oversight of the bidding prices, when you need the damned FOB built now, and there is only one company that can do it anyways? In these cases, the bidding process would only cost more, not only in money but in lives lost.

This is very often the case, and I have seen it myself. An upgrade to a system is opened up for a bid, then 9 months later the exact same company ends up winning the bid, because the competitors expect the DoD to pay for all of the licensing and set-up fees of some other party. So after a year or more of games and delays, the original company ends up winning the contract all over again.

The problem is not the contractors themselves, it is the DoD. They for one are who decided to take the military off of the gates to our posts and hire civilian "DoD Police", or civilian contractors there, because some civilian bean counter thought it made more sense. These are the ones who decided that hiring civilians to clean the dishes and cook the food in the chow hall somehow made more sense. They are the ones who decided that the military can't be trusted to replace a light bulb, so you have Union Public Works employees driving around the base changing light bulbs.

That is the real problem, the "civilian creep" that has invaded the DoD.

The Army actually has an MOS, 92S, for people who are trained to handle Laundry. We have the personnel (not enough of them), the equipment, and the training to do so. So why on earth are we hiring civilians to do it? It is because some bean counter up in the Pentagon shook his abacus and showed some report that showed it was more efficient to hire civilians to do it for us.

If it was up to me, the first thing that would be considered prior to any kind of contract being made is if the military is able to do the job itself. Before one single penny is spent for civilians to do anything, is it a job the military can handle. And if not, then award the contract but immediately take the steps needed to ensure that in the future the military has the people and the equipment needed to do the job themselves.

But the DoD does not think that way. It has become a jobs program for civilians, not the upper management of the military of our country. And that is where the actual waste is.

 

[upsideguy]

How about we start with the Politicians? Depts of the Federal Government that are not needed. Then efficient handling of resources. Entitlements. All before reducing that which is needed to protect the interests, security, and the Sovereignty of the country.

Which this is not to say that sending the Guard back to their Normal status shouldn't be done. As the same with those in the Reserves.

Another angle is to look at who comes to our assistance when it concerns those other Countries.

The military accounts for more than 1/2 of discretionary government spending. You can not have serious cuts in government spending without serious cuts in the military. The idea of standing armies was never envisioned by a forefathers (a big reason we have the 2nd amendment) and they are rapidly becoming somewhat antiquated in 21st century warfare. This all seems quite rational.

 

[Wiseone]

I think if conservatives, Republicans, or anyone else who thinks these BCTs should stick around really don't want the Army to get rid of them, they should call for a tax increase to help pay for it.

O who am I kidding, like that'll happen. Reality is that everyone wants a free lunch, no one wants to pay taxes for the things they want, the only difference between Dems and Reps is that they can't decided what they want to eat.

 

[Occam's Razor]

That is actually not the problem, and the reason for the "no bid" should be obvious.

In almost every case, the reason for a "no bid" is because there is no other company that could provide the needed services. When you need an entire military base built within 90 days, going from an empty hilltop to a complete base with electrical service, water service, sewage, communications, and buildings... how many companies can provide that kind of service?

We can't even do it ourselves anymore, the "military axe" bit so deeply in the 1990's into the Engineering branches of our military that we don't have the equipment or experienced troops to do it ourselves, so that means we have to contract it out. And there are only 2 or 3 companies that can actually do something along that scale (20 times at once), and that is Haliburton. No matter what people think, they are the largest and most experienced engineering and construction company in the world.

Then there are times (like the previously mentioned bases) where you simply can't go through the bidding process. Why open up for 6 months of competitive bidding, and oversight of the bidding prices, when you need the damned FOB built now, and there is only one company that can do it anyways? In these cases, the bidding process would only cost more, not only in money but in lives lost.

This is very often the case, and I have seen it myself. An upgrade to a system is opened up for a bid, then 9 months later the exact same company ends up winning the bid, because the competitors expect the DoD to pay for all of the licensing and set-up fees of some other party. So after a year or more of games and delays, the original company ends up winning the contract all over again.

The problem is not the contractors themselves, it is the DoD. They for one are who decided to take the military off of the gates to our posts and hire civilian "DoD Police", or civilian contractors there, because some civilian bean counter thought it made more sense. These are the ones who decided that hiring civilians to clean the dishes and cook the food in the chow hall somehow made more sense. They are the ones who decided that the military can't be trusted to replace a light bulb, so you have Union Public Works employees driving around the base changing light bulbs.

That is the real problem, the "civilian creep" that has invaded the DoD.

The Army actually has an MOS, 92S, for people who are trained to handle Laundry. We have the personnel (not enough of them), the equipment, and the training to do so. So why on earth are we hiring civilians to do it? It is because some bean counter up in the Pentagon shook his abacus and showed some report that showed it was more efficient to hire civilians to do it for us.

If it was up to me, the first thing that would be considered prior to any kind of contract being made is if the military is able to do the job itself. Before one single penny is spent for civilians to do anything, is it a job the military can handle. And if not, then award the contract but immediately take the steps needed to ensure that in the future the military has the people and the equipment needed to do the job themselves.

But the DoD does not think that way. It has become a jobs program for civilians, not the upper management of the military of our country. And that is where the actual waste is.

I completely agree, our military, with exception to hardware, should be self sufficient. In the past, soldiers were your source for labor, engineering, infrastructure, etc.

As for Halliburton being the only choice? I find that very hard to believe. The biggest, perhaps.

 

[fmw]

we definitively do. but that means we need to reduce our role. reducing man power without a change in policy just puts a burden on the troops.

Of course. We have troops in 125 countries. We should only have troops guarding and protecting our embassies. The rest should come home and we should stop policing the planet. No argument at all. If we want to hire out our military, then we should charge cost plus a profit for the service.

 

[the_recruit]

It is because some bean counter up in the Pentagon shook his abacus and showed some report that showed it was more efficient to hire civilians to do it for us.

And what if it is?

You don't have the numbers available to make that judgement. All you have is a guess based on what...intuition? Virtually every company in the world farms out at least some form of work because it's cheaper than doing it themselves. Hell, the entire modern economy is predicated on that very concept - the overwhelming benefits of specialization.

 

[Oozlefinch]

And what if it is?

You don't have the numbers available to make that judgement. All you have is a guess based on what...intuition? Virtually every company in the world farms out at least some form of work because it's cheaper than doing it themselves. Hell, the entire modern economy is predicated on that very concept - the overwhelming benefits of specialization.

How about experience? Having spent now over 15 years in uniform. Having seen the insane things that happen in the military, like being unable to change light bulbs because that is a civilian job?

During the Clinton Administration, the DoD released several reports that supported the large troop cuts of his first 4 years, explaining how they could cut the number of troops by turning over many aspects over to civilian contractors and civilian employees. That is the time that we first saw "Central Issuing Facilities" (CIF) take over the issuing of all military equipment to our troops, thereby reducing the number of "Supply Sergeants". And civilians taking over many of the operations in the kitchen, reducing the number of "Mess Sergeants" needed. And it went all throughout the system, from civilian gate guards to now civilians taking over many of the Administration needs of the military. Even the recreation facilities like the gym, theatre and other facilities are now entirely civilian run and operated.

This is not "intuition", this is experience. I first entered the military during the first Reagan Administration. And back then, other then at maybe the exchange, you rarely saw a civilian. You might have a civilian as a Manager of a facility (as a long-term continuity), but most of the actual work was done by people in uniform. Now, it is getting to be the opposite. When I left my last unit, every single out-processing brief was done by a civilian. The transportation of household goods was all done by civilians. Even preparing my orders and checks was entirely by civilians.

It has simply shifted the jobs from military to civilians, at normally a lot more pay. And what are these "specializations"?

Washing dishes? Cutting grass? Changing light bulbs? Issuing basic equipment like helmets and backpacks? Cooking our food? Handling our pay? Guarding our gates? Sorry, most of these are really not all that "special", and we had been doing those jobs just fine for over 200 years.

And most of those jobs were handled by "One Termers", people who were doing their 3-4 years then going home. Now, you get civilians doing them for 20+ years, making more money then the Privates they replaced, and then collection much higher pensions then most in the military will ever see.

Yes, most companies farm out things they can't do. But these things the military used to do for itself. And it is getting worse all the time. And if you think I am joking about light bulbs, I am not. We can't even buy light bulbs anymore, we have to call Public Works to schedule a "Union Electrician" to come out and do it for us. Most bases have from 2-10 civilian employees that are paid to do nothing but replace light bulbs.

But yea, I guess that is a real specialization, and not just anybody can do it. We often joke that it takes 2 Union Electricians to change a light bulb: 1 to do the work, the other to document it, ensure it was done properly, and supervise the work.

 

[PirateMk1]

I completely agree, our military, with exception to hardware, should be self sufficient. In the past, soldiers were your source for labor, engineering, infrastructure, etc.

As for Halliburton being the only choice? I find that very hard to believe. The biggest, perhaps.

At the time they were hired they were the ONLY one able to do what needed doing IN THE TIME FRAME REQUIRED, in fact the contract for Iraq was an extension of the contract for Bosnia, Logcap 2 I believe, its been a while since I was intimate with the details of the contracts. It was a time thing was why Kellogg Brown and Root / Halliburton got the contract. DynCorp and a few others got pieces latter on after the initial hostilities were over.

 

[the_recruit]

How about experience?

Anecdotal experience? No thanks.

Having spent now over 15 years in uniform. Having seen the insane things that happen in the military, like being unable to change light bulbs because that is a civilian job?

During the Clinton Administration, the DoD released several reports that supported the large troop cuts of his first 4 years, explaining how they could cut the number of troops by turning over many aspects over to civilian contractors and civilian employees. That is the time that we first saw "Central Issuing Facilities" (CIF) take over the issuing of all military equipment to our troops, thereby reducing the number of "Supply Sergeants". And civilians taking over many of the operations in the kitchen, reducing the number of "Mess Sergeants" needed. And it went all throughout the system, from civilian gate guards to now civilians taking over many of the Administration needs of the military. Even the recreation facilities like the gym, theatre and other facilities are now entirely civilian run and operated.

This is not "intuition", this is experience. I first entered the military during the first Reagan Administration. And back then, other then at maybe the exchange, you rarely saw a civilian. You might have a civilian as a Manager of a facility (as a long-term continuity), but most of the actual work was done by people in uniform. Now, it is getting to be the opposite. When I left my last unit, every single out-processing brief was done by a civilian. The transportation of household goods was all done by civilians. Even preparing my orders and checks was entirely by civilians.

No one is contesting the claim that more services are now being performed by civilians than in the past...

It has simply shifted the jobs from military to civilians, at normally a lot more pay.

This is the crux of the issue. You seem to think the military contracting out certain services is more expensive. The "bean counters" who actually have numbers on this kind of thing seem to disagree with you. I'm curious what data you have that allows you to contest that. And keep in mind that labor wages are only one of many costs that go into doing a job.

And what are these "specializations"?

Washing dishes? Cutting grass? Changing light bulbs? Issuing basic equipment like helmets and backpacks? Cooking our food? Handling our pay? Guarding our gates? Sorry, most of these are really not all that "special", and we had been doing those jobs just fine for over 200 years.

The question isn't whether the military can do these things. It's whether it's more expensive for the military to do it or to pay someone else to do it.

Yes, most companies farm out things they can't do.

No - companies farm out things if it's cheaper for someone else to do it than to do it themselves. Why shouldn't the military as well?

But these things the military used to do for itself. And it is getting worse all the time. And if you think I am joking about light bulbs, I am not. We can't even buy light bulbs anymore, we have to call Public Works to schedule a "Union Electrician" to come out and do it for us. Most bases have from 2-10 civilian employees that are paid to do nothing but replace light bulbs.

First of all, to be honest, I think you're just dramatizing here. I highly doubt their only job, literally, is to "replace light bulbs". I'm sure the union electricians on base have more to do than that.

Second of all, I'm not making the claim that every job in the military should be contracted to civilians. Only the jobs in which it makes financial sense to do so. There are probably lots of jobs in which it may not be cheaper to farm it out - maybe changing light bulbs is one of those. But it doesn't follow from that that no jobs are cheaper to farm out.

 

[Occam's Razor]

At the time they were hired they were the ONLY one able to do what needed doing IN THE TIME FRAME REQUIRED, in fact the contract for Iraq was an extension of the contract for Bosnia, Logcap 2 I believe, its been a while since I was intimate with the details of the contracts. It was a time thing was why Kellogg Brown and Root / Halliburton got the contract. DynCorp and a few others got pieces latter on after the initial hostilities were over.

Again, I understand, however, the time issue opens the door to issues like pre-emptive war, rush to war, etc.

Does it bother you at all that the only organization capable of building US military bases on short notice is a private multi-national? When the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor the urgency was about the same, yet our army, a shell of it's former self after WWI, was able to establish bases wherever and whenever they needed. Of course, they didn't have burger kings and starbucks..

My issue here is, cross train our troops. If we're going to spend half a trillion dollars a year on defense, part of that capability should be building and maintaining their own bases/posts. Also, releasing 80k troops into a struggling labor market is counterproductive on so many levels.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Anecdotal experience? No thanks.

Second of all, I'm not making the claim that every job in the military should be contracted to civilians. Only the jobs in which it makes financial sense to do so. There are probably lots of jobs in which it may not be cheaper to farm it out - maybe changing light bulbs is one of those. But it doesn't follow from that that no jobs are cheaper to farm out.

So first hand experience is "anecdotal". Nice way to simply dismiss anything you do not like.

And yes, that was their only job, I am not joking or exaggerating anything. Fort Bliss had 6 full time Electricians, where their only job was to replace light bulbs, and 4 others when they fell to far behind. Most Public Works departments on a base like Bliss have several hundred individuals, plus contractors and tons of foremen and other such padding.

And when I was told of this, I thought at first it was a joke. Myself and one other went to the "Base Store" (where we get things like pens, printer paper, and other consumables), and one of the things on the list was "light bulbs", but standard and tubes. But when we got back to where they were, there was a sign posted saying that we had to call Public Works and arrange for one of their people to come out and do it.

And no joke, that is exactly how it was. For my last year and a half at Fort Bliss, it was the same thing. Bulb burns out, call a number, they will be out in 1-3 days and replace it. And it is the same thing at my current base, it is not our job to replace light bulbs (we can't even buy them unless it is out of our own pocket), we have to call in an "expert".

But very nice that you dismiss out of hand everything I said. Tell me, how do we save money when we paid the privates who washed dishes for a month nothing over their monthly salary, yet we pay the civilians $10 an hour and up? And how much do you think Northrup charges to have a couple of score civilians to sign out and in the equipment? Because the number of people that work in Supply in 2013 in a Battalion is about the same number of people that did the job in 1985. So where exactly is the savings?

Heck, are you even aware that the military is not even in charge of their own barracks or base housing anymore? Once again, it is entirely handled by contractors.

Fort Bliss Family Housing | Balfour Beatty Communities
Housing and Facilities Management

Until 2008, the unit's First Sergeant was responsible for the barracks. Issuing rooms and keys, and ensuring they are clean and maintained. And they did a pretty good job, and could shift people around as needed. Now, there is a staff of civilians that do the same thing. But it takes 2-4 days to get a room, and you must be checked out of the room 3 days prior to your leaving post.

Which has added in yet another expense, since you can't just kick somebody out of their room with no place to go. So now most soldiers spend their last 2-3 nights in a hotel, paid for at government expense.

Am sure you are gonna blow this off as well, and ignore it as "anecdotal". But some things just can't be made up.

 

[the_recruit]

So first hand experience is "anecdotal". Nice way to simply dismiss anything you do not like.

Yes. Personal experiences are anecdotes. Attempting to extrapolate big picture trends from anecdotes is a logical error. Cry all you want, but I will not make that mistake.

It's funny to hear you complain about me "dismissing" your anecdote, when you completely ignore the points I make and instead of addressing my points one by one you just dive into another series of rambling anecdotes - as if that's some sort of argument against mine. :roll:

And yes, that was their only job, I am not joking or exaggerating anything. Fort Bliss had 6 full time Electricians, where their only job was to replace light bulbs, and 4 others when they fell to far behind.

I already told you - I do not believe this. Simply repeating it doesn't make me believe it anymore. Perhaps you can provide....hmmm I dunno....evidence to support your claim. Maybe you can produce a job listing that shows their only responsibility is changing light bulbs. Who takes care of other electrical issues on base if not the electricians?

And when I was told of this, I thought at first it was a joke. Myself and one other went to the "Base Store" (where we get things like pens, printer paper, and other consumables), and one of the things on the list was "light bulbs", but standard and tubes. But when we got back to where they were, there was a sign posted saying that we had to call Public Works and arrange for one of their people to come out and do it.

And no joke, that is exactly how it was. For my last year and a half at Fort Bliss, it was the same thing. Bulb burns out, call a number, they will be out in 1-3 days and replace it. And it is the same thing at my current base, it is not our job to replace light bulbs (we can't even buy them unless it is out of our own pocket), we have to call in an "expert".

No one is contesting the claim that there is a civilian employee who changes the light bulbs...so I don't know why you feel the need to keep insisting it's true.

But very nice that you dismiss out of hand everything I said. Tell me, how do we save money when we paid the privates who washed dishes for a month nothing over their monthly salary, yet we pay the civilians $10 an hour and up? And how much do you think Northrup charges to have a couple of score civilians to sign out and in the equipment? Because the number of people that work in Supply in 2013 in a Battalion is about the same number of people that did the job in 1985. So where exactly is the savings?

Did you even read my post? I am not going to sit here and argue that EVERY job is cheaper when contracted out. Some jobs are not cheaper. But some are. That's what you don't seem to understand. You're cherry picking the petty jobs that seem ridiculous to you and ignoring the contracted services - such as engineering - where the savings are probably more apparent.

Heck, are you even aware that the military is not even in charge of their own barracks or base housing anymore? Once again, it is entirely handled by contractors.

Until 2008, the unit's First Sergeant was responsible for the barracks. Issuing rooms and keys, and ensuring they are clean and maintained. And they did a pretty good job, and could shift people around as needed. Now, there is a staff of civilians that do the same thing. But it takes 2-4 days to get a room, and you must be checked out of the room 3 days prior to your leaving post.

Which has added in yet another expense, since you can't just kick somebody out of their room with no place to go. So now most soldiers spend their last 2-3 nights in a hotel, paid for at government expense.

How many times do I need to repeat this? No one is contesting the claim that certain services are being contracted to civilians. So why do you think you need to keep providing examples of it?

Am sure you are gonna blow this off as well, and ignore it as "anecdotal". But some things just can't be made up.

I will continue to reject lousy arguments - whether you like it or not.

 

[PirateMk1]

Again, I understand, however, the time issue opens the door to issues like pre-emptive war, rush to war, etc.

Does it bother you at all that the only organization capable of building US military bases on short notice is a private multi-national? When the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor the urgency was about the same, yet our army, a shell of it's former self after WWI, was able to establish bases wherever and whenever they needed. Of course, they didn't have burger kings and starbucks..

My issue here is, cross train our troops. If we're going to spend half a trillion dollars a year on defense, part of that capability should be building and maintaining their own bases/posts. Also, releasing 80k troops into a struggling labor market is counterproductive on so many levels.

I don't necessarily disagree, however KBR which I was a part of, did something which freed up the military forces that would have otherwise been taken up by logistics so they could be used where they were better suited. It allowed the military to be a much larger presence for the given manpower then it would have been otherwise. That has plusses and minuses.

 

[notquiteright]

I don't necessarily disagree, however KBR which I was a part of, did something which freed up the military forces that would have otherwise been taken up by logistics so they could be used where they were better suited. It allowed the military to be a much larger presence for the given manpower then it would have been otherwise. That has plusses and minuses.

When I was re-assigned to Germany back in the FRG days I saw the manning chart in S-1, the Bn CO was a real 'manager'. Anyway the list of detached men was long indeed. SD'd to everything from V corps HQ to gate guard. It was quite a drain on men available for training and manning the old 113's if the balloon went up.

My processing in and out of units was done by SP5/6's- not one termers. My TA50 was issued by NCO's with a couple of private worker-bees actually handing me my gear. The Mess hall had civilian KP workers. Civilians maintained our buildings. Each Line Bn had a civilian clerk to help with paperwork, no idea about Bde or higher. do know my wife worked as a civilian in a Corps supply depot. She did paperwork for the depot.

The 'logic' behind this was simple, though I was never quite sure it was actual- Man power drain fro the primary job the soldier was trained to do, cooks and clerks far from the primary mission of the army working 20 years and then retiring drawing pay for 3 to 4 decades. In some jobs, like medical, the military spends rather large sums training soldiers who then leave for the civilian job market, the thought is skip the cost of training and just pay for the service.

Where the balancing point comes is the private contractor getting a rather impressive lump sum upfront vs the long term cost if soldiers did the work and then retired to draw the half pay plus 'disability'. how many men can you pull from a rifle squad before training suffers and when those soldiers return for the real deal...do they help or endanger the squad because they are clueless.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

When I was re-assigned to Germany back in the FRG days I saw the manning chart in S-1, the Bn CO was a real 'manager'. Anyway the list of detached men was long indeed. SD'd to everything from V corps HQ to gate guard. It was quite a drain on men available for training and manning the old 113's if the balloon went up.

My processing in and out of units was done by SP5/6's- not one termers. My TA50 was issued by NCO's with a couple of private worker-bees actually handing me my gear. The Mess hall had civilian KP workers. Civilians maintained our buildings. Each Line Bn had a civilian clerk to help with paperwork, no idea about Bde or higher. do know my wife worked as a civilian in a Corps supply depot. She did paperwork for the depot.

The 'logic' behind this was simple, though I was never quite sure it was actual- Man power drain fro the primary job the soldier was trained to do, cooks and clerks far from the primary mission of the army working 20 years and then retiring drawing pay for 3 to 4 decades. In some jobs, like medical, the military spends rather large sums training soldiers who then leave for the civilian job market, the thought is skip the cost of training and just pay for the service.

Where the balancing point comes is the private contractor getting a rather impressive lump sum upfront vs the long term cost if soldiers did the work and then retired to draw the half pay plus 'disability'. how many men can you pull from a rifle squad before training suffers and when those soldiers return for the real deal...do they help or endanger the squad because they are clueless.

I've normally been against civilians taking military jobs, but you make a very good argument.

 

[APACHERAT]

Hm. I know that red states generally (but not always) have:

- lower average incomes
- lower average levels of education
- higher homicide rates
- higher divorce rates
- higher teen pregnancy rates
- lower rates of health insurance, and
- lower life expectancies

And you know what? NONE of the above are because of conservative governance or the lack thereof. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why I said that.

And speaking of California, if you'll check, now that they've got a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in California, they've finally balanced the budget. It wasn't painless, but now that they were able to deep-six that hideous Prop. 13 that did so much damage to their economy over almost 30 years, they're finally on the way to real economic recovery.

And if you really want to speak about New York, go look up any of the above stats and compare them to your Southern states, then get back to me.

Since you want to use California as an example, I did look up the states. Your claims don't pan out. -> Educational Attainment - The 2012 Statistical Abstract - U.S. Census Bureau

Come on, what did you expect when over 50 % of the adult worforce in Los Angeles Couintyh are classified as being functional illiterates.

Lower average incomes ?
You might want to look at what disposable income is left after paying rent/home mortgages, utilities, taxes, food, etc. Not much if you live in California or New York.

And those high teen pregnancies ? Obama's America.

Those high homicides rates, again you will find them to be in Obama's America.

California balanced the budget ? Guess how they did it ?

You left out which states have the largest percentage of people who are dependent on government free stuff.

But the biggest factor you left out is the most important factor of them all, which states have the most individual freedoms ? -> Freedom in the 50 States 2013 | Overall Freedom | Mercatus Center