DoD Finds Some Spare Change
Well, it looks like DoD found some spare change under all those dayroom and lounge sofa cushions. According to published reports, DoD civilian employees will now only be furloughed for a total of 6 days this fiscal year vice the previously-announced 11.
Kudos to the SECDEF for making this happen. I don’t agree with some of his policies, but here IMO he did the right thing. His predecessor left him this mess, and to his credit he seems to have managed to minimize the damage.
Further: given the complex nature of the DoD budget and changing conditions worldwide, even managing to find this miniscule percentage of the overall DoD budget used here was no small feat. The $1.5 billion DoD managed to “find” and reprioritize – only $1 billion of which went to salaries – represents less than 0.3% of DoD’s base budget.
I will make two observations, however. First, the lack of planning by the previous DoD leadership contributed greatly to this mess. DoD leadership actively refused to plan for the possibility of sequestration because they thought it “would never happen” – and publicly said so.
Seems to me I’ve heard a quote that’s pertinent about that type of conduct: “When you fail to plan, you plan to fail.”
Second: that lack of planning severely hurt some folks, particularly lower-graded DoD civilian employees. Had appropriate planning been done starting in January, the furlough could have likely been spread over a much longer period (say, 6 months at 1 day per month) vice being imposed as 1 day per week. No change in net dollar savings – but losing 5% of income for 6 months is generally easier to handle than losing 20% of income for a month and a half.
Still: give credit where credit is due. Kudos, Mr. Secretary.
Now, could we ask you to talk to some of your 3- and 4-star generals about combat and its actual physical requirements – and about the necessity to have and use a spine sometimes?
Category: Defense cuts
Most of the folks I work with are happy about this, though a few have mixed feelings – they were enjoying having the Fridays off! Some folks will end up taking leave on a few of those days, as they’d already made plans. I’d been lucky enough to be able to pick up some extra reserve duty on most of those days; now I’ll probably revoke a couple of those orders and take military leave on a couple more. A good problem to have, regardless.
Your expectations are a little, Hondo. IMHO. Talk to the generals? They don’t go into combat any more. They read reports.
Ex-PH2: no, generals generally don’t go into battle personally any more.
However, at the 3- and 4-star level, they do make policy.
Sometimes it takes a backbone to tell Congress or the POTUS, “With all due respect, that idea is unworkable and stupid – no matter how ‘politically correct’ it is.”
It wasn’t that they failed to plan because they never thought it would happen; they failed to plan because the administration wanted to demonstrate to the Congress how painful sequester was about to be. By holding back the DoD from planning, the administration was trying to invoke visions of the Sword of Damocles hanging over every congressional district with ties to defense dollars. This, theoretically, would compel the Congress to act to avoid sequester. If the Congress knew where the cuts would fall prior to invoking sequester, the reasoning went, individual members would be more willing to say “Whew…MY district is safe; no skin off my nose if this thing goes through”.
Hondo – and the odds of your finding said general with the cojones to make that statement to Congress or POTUS? Given 5 years of this administration, EVERY three- or four-star general owes a promotion to this administration one way or the other, I am sure. Lottery tickets have better odds.
FrostyCWO: that may well be true. However, “We never thought it would really happen” (or words to that effect) was the stated reason given by either the SECDEF or the CSA when asked why nothing was being done to plan for the impact of sequestration. I’ll dig up the article if necessary – read it yesterday, but didn’t link to it above.
— break —
David: dunno. Frankly, I’d guess pretty good if we’re talking in a private session. I think I’ve worked with one or two in the past that now hold that rank who would do it. Publicly? Dunno.
I think the reason why they didn’t properly plan is that doing so would have meant that the reality of sequestration would have been made public prior to the elections.
More smoke and mirrors to come……..
GunzRunner: not had planning begun in Dec or Jan.
My understanding is that little (if anything whatsoever) was begun, planning-wise, until sequestration became fact in late March 2013. I also understand that that’s one of the reasons why DoD’s furloughs didn’t begin until July.
Hondo – re “publicly” – I decided to bet on something considerably more likely, and have the winning Powerball ticket in hand.
David: thanks for the reminder – I need to get my PB ticket for this weekend on the way home today.
To quote the little kid in Angels in the Outfield: “Hey, it could happen!”(smile)
@8 By the beginning of the calendar year we were already neck deep in enacting the pre-sequester budget cuts so I don’t think anybody in the MACOMs wanted to say they could realistically plan for more (even though we’ve figured out how to squeeze blood from rocks around here this summer). The furloughs were originally going to begin in May but they figured out how to kick that can down the road a couple times. Federal law also required giving the employees 30 days notice before they could be furloughed so that drove the start date as well.
TMB: agreed that it would have been difficult. It would not have been impossible.
Had even preliminary planning been started in January the notice of potential furlough actions could also have been issued then. Once preliminary estimates were complete (allow 60 days), furlough notices could have been issued in March. This would have allowed the impact to have been spread over 6 months, starting in early April, vice being jammed into what turned into a 3-month period.
Even assuming the original 11 day furlough, an April start would have allowed one furlough day per pay period vice two – a 10% reduction in pay during implementation vice 20%. Further, given the additional 2-3 months for effective implementation due to lack of planning, other O&M fund-conserving measures (e.g., reductions in travel, training, delaying moves, etc . . . . ) would have started earlier, been in effect longer, and would have also resulted in more savings. Had this effect been included in furlough planning, I doubt DoD would have needed the full 11 days of civilian furloughs it originally imposed.
Would it have been easy to plan for sequestration in Jan? No. It would have been the same “jump through the apex vent” drill that was done in late March and April. But it would have been done earlier, and would have mitigated the impact on DoD’s workforce significantly. It would also have very likely resulted in more net savings.
“If you’re failing to plan, you’re planning to fail.”
@12 Don’t get me wrong, they could have at least done some back of the envelope math and presented that to Congress rather than sit on their hands and hope. Now that sequester is here and likely to continue through FY14, the Chiefs are making weekly speeches about how this will affect us for the next 5-10 years. It’s funny how a little motivation all the sudden has them cranking out forecasts left and right.
Let me add, to “catch up” with the work that backed up during the furlough, our weapons system will now be required to work seven ten hour days. Came back after a furlough Friday and the turds had hung a bunch of brand new flat screens. DOD employess were used as a political pawn. fuckinturds….out.
So the 757 no longer flies Panetta to his walnut groves every weekend so he can clear his head and suddenly they find a billion+. Coincidence?