Sequestration News
Let’s take a brief look at how sequestration is being implemented:
- Sequestration cuts to Executive Office of the President Budget: $24,000,000 ($24 million)
- Number of civilian employees: approx 2,000
- Average cut per employee: $12,000
- Announced impact so far: cancellation of White House tours (will save approx $2,000,000 in overtime)
According to this article, the estimated travel cost for the recent POTUS trip to play golf with Tiger Woods would have covered the costs of White House tours for the rest of the year. But that’s OK – playing golf with a famous celebrity like Woods is obviously more important than letting the public see the taxpayer-owned White House where the POTUS lives rent-free.
In contrast:
- Sequestration cuts to Department of Defense Budget: $46,000,000,000 ($46 billion)
- Number of civilian employees: approx 800,000
- Average cut per employee: $57,500 (Military personnel were exempted from sequestration pay cuts by the POTUS.)
- Announced impact: up to 22 unpaid workdays off between now and 30 Sep for most DoD civilian employees
Yeah, that seems fair. It certainly looks like everyone’s doing their part, doesn’t it?
Category: Defense cuts
Don’t forget that we aren’t cutting any foreign aid or salary for the executive, legislative, or judicial branched!
I’m sure the ones who put the sequestration together would tell you that it is ENORMOUSLY fair.
Uh, Flagwaver . . . all Federal employees who don’t work for (1) Congress or (2) the Courts are executive branch personnel. That includes the vast majority of Federal civilian and military personnel.
And the sequestration includes the border patrol:
http://news.newsmax.com/?K6OvaYd76h0rLRNEvfkKtnuv23sfblIAK&http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/union-furloughs-border-patrols/2013/03/07/id/493747?s=al&promo_code=12B54-1
Ain’t it grand?
I keep saying to myself that a serious backlash is coming, and I don’t just mean angry voters, either.
Look below the surface. If you don’t watch the pot of pasta, it will boil over.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Bath House Barry took a 20 vehicle procession (and staff) to travel 6 blocks for dinner. Shock, ABC reported this.
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/07/obama-takes-20-car-motorcade-six-blocks-to-have-dinner/
It’s good to be king!
And don’t forget Army tuition assistance has tone away too.
Breaking: GoArmyEd just suspended all federal tuition assistance because of sequester.
http://www.foreign-and-domestic.blogspot.com/2013/03/sequester-politics-forces-vets-out-of.html
@7,8 I posted that in the Marine TA thread. I logged on to GoArmyEd today and saw that it is as of today. It was supposed to wait until 1700 but it is already suspended. If you are already enrolled you are good, but you can’t sign up for new classes.
I better hury up and use my GI bill before they take that too.
And my dumb ass is still trying for a GS job on the other side of the office.
Here’s a link to a pdf file that lists all sorts of military related scholarships and grants. I cannot say what the status is of each listing but for those of you in need of fall-back resources, this is probably a good place to start.
http://www.101arw.ang.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110803-008.pdf
Pretty thin stuff…..
(Troll alert…)
Joe, how’s this for thin? My company is trying to offer early retirement/buyouts to 20 percent of the workforce here because they’re “broke.”
Yet the federal government keeps adding layer upon layer of bureaucrats, seat-warmers, and other assorted six-figure salary who knows what the fuck they do.
Again, when is a cut not a cut? When it’s government spending, Joe.
NOW UNPLUG YOUR FUCKING METER.
@10 – Twist, normally I’d say hold off on using GI Bill, since every month of use for PT college takes away a month of benefits you could potentially use for FT enrollment later on. However, since this administration seems determined to take benefits away (like Tricare), using it while you still have it seems like a wise move.
After all this time, I still don’t understand what “sequestration” is, what it does, or how it functions.
All I know is what the Constitution says, and it says that Congress controls the purse strings.
So Congress, if they were honest and really wanted to, could immediately halt any and all expenditures.
The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment is unnecessary and would be useless, for dishonest Congressman would just find a way to circumvent it, just as they now do with everything else in the Constitution.
@17 – ‘if they were honest and really wanted to’ — They aren’t even willing to take a cut in their own paychecks, JRM.
The attitude is ‘good for thee but not for me’.
There is not, and never has been, any honor among thieves.
What sequisttration? Bo the dog gets his escort with Bath House Barry.
Hondo, $57,500 per employee?
What is the base salary of these 800,000 that they can take a 57k hit when most Americans don’t make 57k in a year….or are they just being released from employment and that represents their entire yearly salary?
or am I not understanding your graph? It’s been a long day it’s quite possible my brain is well fried at this point…
It’s nice to know the 3 calligraphers at the White house will keep their jobs making between 85-96k per year while mission critical spots are eliminated….
VOV: $57,500 is how much the DoD budget is being reduced per civilian employee subject to possible salary loss due to sequestration. It does not represent the average amount each civilian employee’s salary is being reduced.
The actual reduction depends on the employee’s salary. The highest salary at DoD is the SECDEF (Level I on the Executive Schedule), which is just under $200k ($199,700). That salary has remained the same since January 2010. Most DoD employees make nowhere close to than that.
The actual reduction on an annual basis works out to be (22/260) = approx 8.5%. However, since it appears it will be imposed by working (and being paid for) 32-hour workweeks for 22 weeks, during the period when hours are reduced it will be a 20% reduction in gross salary.
The DoD budget includes far more than civilian salaries – equipment purchases, military salaries, supplies, fuel, construction, travel, training, and a whole host of other things. Civilian salaries are far from the only thing at DoD that is being impacted by sequestration.
My purpose in providing the numbers was threefold. First, to show the magnitude of the cuts (and the disproportionate impact) on DoD vice the EOP. Second, to highlight the fact that the EOP still has not announced how it will handle over 90% of it’s sequester-driven budget reductions. And third, to highlight the fact that unlike DoD, the EOP hasn’t really felt any pain from sequestration. (People may have come to expect overtime based on history, but it’s paid only if/as needed. It’s not part of a job’s basic compensation, and should never be considered “guaranteed money”.)
@21 Thank you for the explanation, a max number is okay I just didn’t understand what the reference point was.
I did understand DoD was getting hammered as opposed to the WH dog walker, calligraphers, etc…who don’t seem to be having any reductions….
OT is never guaranteed in the private sector either, folks who rely on it when the work is heavy are often in trouble when the work is light….
@21 Also since the budget is being reduced 57,500 per civilian employee I would suspect the balance of that will have to be made up in reduction of material acquisitions as their salary reductions will not cover that entire amount yes?
VOV: as I understand it, pretty much anything that’s not (1) military pay/allowances, (2) direct warfare support, (3) irrevocably committed via contract, or (4) directly related to public health/safety is pretty much fair game for sequestration cuts. Travel and training reputedly have already taken a big hit. I’d guess the same is (or soon will be) true for fuel/supplies/spare parts not directly tied to warfighting. As discussed elsewhere at TAH, certain quality of life programs (e.g., tuition assistance) have already been severely cut back. I would not be surprised to see promotions slow down dramatically for the rest of this year, a civilian hiring freeze, and a dramatic cut or outright ban in new contracting actions. Contracts up for renewal/extension during the last 1/2 of this year could well be a prime target.
What IMO you probably won’t see are either contractor or outright civilian personnel reductions – this year, anyway. Contract termination costs and/or separation pay for those separated would probably make both of those so close to counterproductive from a financial point of view that neither would generally be likely to make financial or common sense. (Is it really a good idea to cancel a $10M contract if you’ll have to pay a total of $9M when you cancel and get around 1/2 the goods/services rather than pay $10M and get the full $10M in goods/services instead?)
If the situation persists into next year, however, I’d expect to see both of those “on the table” too – as well as other, longer-term cuts as well (force structure).
Disclaimer: I don’t run DoD or work in the DoD Comptroller’s office. The above are simply my observations based on what I’ve read/heard and observed.
I don’t normally comment here, only because I share the same sentiments most of you do and someone has usually already posted a comment that would be similar.
I do want to say that if you know of someone, or are currently using TA yourself, do reach out to your college’s foundation office for scholarship opportunities. I spent a good bit of my day today speaking with our foundation president about the current TA suspension and our institution is now looking for donors to support our current military service member students. They have also committed to providing as much assistance as they can in the interim to help to mitigate expenses.
Not sure what other institutions in my state are going to do, but I jumped right on this as soon as I got the news this morning. I am the schools federal TA liaison and my heart sank. I think on some level I knew it might happen, but I was really hoping it wouldn’t happen,at least not this fast. I just think that it’s another slap in the face to those who are least deserving of such.
Thanks!
Before folks get all upset at Obama, former member of the Communist New Party, anti-nuke/anti-US protestor, and professional agitator, Obama did not create the cuts to DoD.
That was done by former SecDef Panetta, and a crapload of uniformed officers, civil service, and contractors. None of the FOGO said shit back then, and neither did any of the senior enlisted advisors.
The road to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but it’s built by folks who don’t question because it’s ‘unprofessional.’
Hondo:
I have to differ with you with respect to your quote “…what IMO you probably won’t see are either contractor or outright civilian personnel reductions – this year, anyway…” at least on the contractor side.
Sorry to say that this is the first thing going on as DoD agencies try to adapt to sequestration, at least in the several DoN agencies I’m involved with. I’ve yet to see a services/staffing contract w/ DoD that has k’tor termination pay, which means that the Gov’t just tells the company “I no longer need x number of people” and that’s the end for those poor fellows. It’s happened numerous times in the last two weeks on several different contracts my company has with DoD.
The real burn here is so far, I haven’t seen any admission that they have to scale back the scope of work supported by the folks they just let go.
What frightens me about this is the long term accumulation of maintenance costs and schedule delays under reduced funding. Don’t remember the source of the quote, but to paraphrase: “the war next decade will be fought with the weapon system designed today.” Hope we’re not too late delivering.
Chris H: some contracts are indeed structured as “buy a body” and are flexible enough to allow immediate layoffs w/o penalty. However, it’s been my experience – admittedly not comprehensive – that most aren’t. Rather, they’re generally task order type contracts and/or have specific periods of performance. Severely reduce one of those in mid-stream and you’re typically looking at some form of termination costs – in essence, you’re renegotiating an existing contract.
From your comment, I’d guess you’ve dealt with shipyards and/or depot maintenance activity contracts. Those may well be the exception. Workload there is variable enough that those may routinely be written to allow fine-level granularity in adding/removing contractor augmentation – or perhaps in a “base force plus temp” fashion, where only the “base force” part is specified for the whole period and the “temp” part can be expanded/contracted on a short-term basis.
However, even there the government has to be careful. If the government orders cutbacks that that don’t allow the contractor to give 60 days notice, the company very likely has a legitimate claim for excess costs under the Federal law (name escapes me at present) that mandates large employers give 60 days notice to permanent employees in the event of layoffs and must continue pay to that point if they don’t.
Bottom line: with some relatively rare exceptions, I don’t think you’ll generally see large contractor or government civilian staff reductions this year. You’ll see some in cases such as you describe and/or when contracts/tasks expire and are not renewed (or are renewed at a reduced scope), but that’s normal when budgets are tight. However, if sequestration continues into next year “as-is”, I’m guessing we’ll see both major contract cutbacks and government civilian reductions next year.
We’re in general agreement about long term impact; I’ll judge the gov’t serious about this when they start letting go of the civilians. You are also right in that were the gov’t to canx a contract they’d pay a price, but simply reducing head count (by simply not incrementally adding money to the task order) doesn’t incur any penalties until they try to go under the contract floor (minimum award value).
My perspective may be different as most of my contracts are Performance Based, supporting SYSCOMs and TYCOMs on Engineering and Program Mgt vice shipyard or DLA/NAVSUP depot work. My particular contract TO hasn’t been hit with the headsman’s axe yet (we expect a 20% RIF) but others in the same agency have seen RIFs greater the 50% already.
Chris H: it appears whoever negotiated your agency’s contract did quite a good job of protecting the government’s interests. Many don’t do that well.
We’re in agreement here, I think. Sounds like your contract has been operating in that “grey zone” – e.g., above the “floor” and under a provision allowing your agency to add/remove bodies at will on short-notice without changing the terms of the contract provided upper limits aren’t exceeded. Many simply aren’t structured that way.
If sequestration cuts persist into next year, I’m relatively sure we’re going to see hiring freezes, contract cutbacks, and a damn good chance of civilian RIFs. The latter becomes particularly likely IMO if we start seeing major programs take major hits or get cancelled.