Washington Times: Defense budget casualties light on civilian side
The Washington Times reports that after an increase of about 61,000 DoD civilians during the Obama Administration, only about 1% are facing cuts in an age of slashing the number trigger-pullers and their armaments.
Some defense analysts say this was not supposed to happen.
In the summer of 2010, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced a series of cost-saving initiatives that included keeping civilian employees to that year’s number of 778,000. The services started issuing press releases on the number of civilian jobs they had erased.
Two years later, civilian employment has risen by 23,000 personnel.
“While the fighting force is coming down, the overhead continues to grow,” [Arnold Punaro, a retired Marine Corps Reserve major general ] said. “It was an adverse ratio to start with, and it’s getting worse. You want to put your money in the tip of the spear, not in the rear with the gear.”
So, I guess the only thing the Defense Department is tasked with defending is the unemployment rate. In the article, the Defense Department defends the increases because they’re improving acquisition and health care with civilians, they call it “InSource” – converting contractor jobs to civilian employees. But if there’s nothing to acquire and they’re slashing healthcare for veterans, why the increases in manpower to service those areas?
Looked at another way, the Pentagon’s 801,000 civilians exceed the combined size of the active-duty Navy and Air Force.
Congressional Republicans are proposing that the civilian workforce at DoD be cut by 10%, still a smaller cut than total force will suffer, but a much more realistic reduction. But, Leon Pannetta who makes $32,000 trips to his California home every weekend at the taxpayers’ expense is fighting to keep the civvies on the payroll;
The issue came to a head as Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta appeared, with Mr. Hale, before the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense.
“Frankly, I don’t think you should de-trigger sequester on the backs of our civilian workforce,” Mr. Panetta testified. “I mean, I realize that savings could be achieved there, but the civilian workforce does perform a very important role for us in terms of support.”
But, it’s fine to balance the budget on the backs of the veterans and on the back of our national security. Yeah, Panetta was a brilliant choice for the guy we need in charge of defending our country. I’m sure that the unions love him.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues, Veterans Issues
Every person I know who badge-flipped from contractor to civilian, when you google their names at Open Secrets, donated the max to Obama. Every person I knew in the business who I can find in Open Secrets as a McCain/Palin supporter–in ANY amount–has been laid off.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
By hiring civilians instead of contractors to do the jobs formerly done by active duty personnel (outsourced jobs), the government gains not only more control over the payroll but, more importantly to the current occupant of the White House, more employees for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other such unions.
Poohbah, yeah, coincidence like the location and contribution histories of the closed GM and Chrysler dealers when Baracka gave GM and Chrysler to the unions. I mean, when he screwed the bond holders. I mean, when he “saved GM and Chrysler”.
” . . . an age of slashing the number trigger-pullers and their armaments.”
” . . . THE FIGHTING FORCE is coming down, . . . ”
Like Stupid Europe, “our” Welfare State supporters feel GUILTY about FIGHTING .
Mr. Poohbah — I have a theory about College Degrees, and about hiring: it’s a commie conspiracy to promote commie comrades, and to shut out freedom loving men. That’s the theory.
Mr. Lilyea — Your biting irony humor suits the times, and counters the sickening hypocrisy all about us.
PROUD HONESTY and HONEST PRIDE surely are unpopular (intentional understatement) !!
This is a winning strategy if your can protect national security with a union grievance or civil service adjustment procedure.
There’s quite a few civilians at the MEPS in Atlanta whose departure would not only save money but also increase efficiency.
” . . .on the backs of our civilian workforce.”
And what about the MILITARY workforce??!! That’s supposed to be your f***n’ job as Sec of DEFENSE.
Stupid Statements like these make me want to bitch-slap the shit out of Panetta. I want to chew nails and spit tacks.
I wonder what will happen when recruiters will no longer be able to meet goals, because:
1- The libturds won’t join because they’re, well, libturds.
2- The high school graduate won’t join because the word has gotten around about how the military will screw him.
3- Everyone else will be a reject for one reason or another.
Being part of a brigade staff has opened my eyes to exactly how many civilians are truly employed by the Army. I mean, I’ve dealt with ones working in transportation, finance, and elsewhere, but here it seems that our (uniformed staff) ability to do our jobs is completely dependent on civilians. We forward stuff to Division civilians, who on occasion screw the pooch (though quite honestly, we have some extremely competent and dedicated civilians) and point the finger back down. Many (not all) are retired military, but it is much easier for the Division to point the finger at us lowly brigade guys.
I soemtimes wonder how much more this retired officer or senior NCO is making to do a job that could likely be handled by a PFC in an admin MOS. Moreso, I wonder how a division needs such an immense staff when we at the brigade level employ only one that I know of.
@7
What about all the liberals who lined up to enlist after teh repeal of DADT? I thought that, and Bush being in the White House, were the only things stopping them from signing up.
I’ve found a strong correlation between prior service IN the military and good DoD civilian service TO the military.
Biggest problem DoD civilians I’ve worked with in and out of uniform were, in general, the ones who never served themselves. They are also the ones that tend to have the greatest feeling of entitlement.
And, yeah, I’m one of those DoD civilians/retired military, so it’s a completely self-serving statement. BTW, those of us in supervisory positions don’t get representation from the union. We are, in fact, the first-line enemy of the union.
Wait a minute! Are you telling me that they are cutting the budget on the back of the military, but not on the back of the civilian workforce? Reducing numbers of federal workers would be outrageous!
Imagine that.
Panetta is doing exactly what he was hired to do – as was covered on TAH back during his nomination.
I always wondered why we were giving jobs to civilians to run our chow halls (In Pendleton, you can’t have a meal in the chow hall unless you can order in Spanish) instead of those that we gave the Food Service MOS too.
Also, we have so many civilians, paid and trained to guard our gates…instead of MP’s and Infantry guys. Makes sense that we should use our own before outsourcing.
I was just recently at EMV in Twentynine Palms, and when I would go to have breakfast, I noticed there were six civilians on each line, serving food. And behind them were three Lance Corporals (E-3) with their arms crossed supervising. Should have been six Lance Corporals per line serving, and a Corporal or Sergeant behind them supervising.
I am a DoD civilian, I won’t tell you what program I work on…because there is a high degree of chance some of you I know personally or have crossed paths with….but let me just say that the vehicle I directly help design/build and upgrade is THE best MBT in the world, and I have had “dealings” with that baby tank sister of ours. I switched uniforms….green suit to a business suit….and the last couple years I have been thinking about leaving but I still feel like there is more I can do for the soldier. Call me stupid. There are so many things wrong with the civilian workforce I scarce know where to begin. The union has supervisors terrified of even enforcing the smallest rules (like coming to work on time). I can also tell you stories that would curdle your blood…. what the hell. Remeber the mentor program for GOs? Well….senior civilians have a similiar program, and it is under the wire. I watch as SESs retire then the next day come back as consultants paid the same salary (or more) and still pulling pensions. I don’t know if that contract exists right now but I do know it was around last year. I watched as a program was canceled by the Army and then its entire staff moved over to my higher command’s office. that office literally tripled in size within a week! A WEEK! Now we have layers of bureacracy/oversight, and managers that we didn’t have last year. They have more people then we do!! One third/two thirds rule my ass. I was determined that if you just performed the paperwork process to start a new program it would take something like 6 years before you even bent metal…..and that is just the government paperwork/approval process. Sometimes I wonder how the hell we made it to the moon…..but notice how the President stopped that idea. Maybe it was too hard for him? The civilian workforce IS depleted. Don’t think it isn’t. We have far too few people to monitor contracts and make sure we are both… Read more »
To No. 14 Steadfast&Loyal :
Thank you for the VERY IMPORTANT exposé !!
TopGoz (@2): Federal civilian hiring doesn’t have as much an effect as you might think in terms of generating union membership. Just over 1/4 of Federal employees are union members (approx 28%). Less than 1/3 of the Federal workforce is even represented by a union (approx 31%).
The percentage of union membership is a higher in state/local government. But even in the total government sector (all Federal/state/local government employees combined), union membership is barely more than 1/3 of the workforce (36%).
Yeah, the percentage of union membership in government much higher than in the private sector. But it’s still not even close to being a “given”. Roughly 2/3 of all US government employees are not union members. And among Federal employees, nearly 3/4 aren’t.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/01/federal_worker_union_membershi.html