Pentagon awash in pink slips, preparing 800,000 civilian furloughs

Washington Times ^ | 20 Feb 13 | Kristina Wong

[SkyPilot]

The Defense Department on Wednesday officially notified Congress that it plans to begin furloughing its 800,000 civilian employees across the country if automatic spending cuts begin March 1, estimating the states would lose a total of $4.86 billion in workers’ wages this year.

According to Pentagon estimates, among the hardest-hit states would be Virginia, which would have about 88,000 affected workers and salary losses of $660.9 million; California, with 62,600 workers and $419.7 million in lost wages; and Maryland, with 45,700 workers and $359.3 million in lost earnings.

“This is not a Beltway phenomenon,” Jessica L. Wright, the acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told reporters at the Pentagon. “More than 80 percent of our civilians work outside of the D.C. metro area. They live and work in every state of the union.”

Under the furlough plan, civilian workers would be forced to take one day of unpaid leave each week for 22 weeks from late April through September, costing them about 20 percent of their pay during that time, Pentagon officials said.

In a written message, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told civilian workers that they “will be provided at least 30 days’ notice prior to executing a furlough and your benefits will be protected to the maximum extent possible.”

He added that the Pentagon “also will work to ensure that furloughs are executed in a consistent and appropriate manner.”

Mr. Panetta noted that the department has been funded by a continuing resolution that has limited spending to 2012 levels and said the effects of sequestration may be felt more intensely because of it.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

RE “Pentagon awash in pink slips”. Well that’s what happens when they allowed gays into the military.

Not that I have anything against pink slips. Or gays. It was just that the headline offered an opening I couldn’t resist going through.

“Going Where No Man Has Gone Before” as any Trekkie would do.

[magellan]

Since its post WWII peak, DoD Civilian Employment has declined 42%, while Active Duty Uniformed Employment has declined 59%. One is unionized, the other is not.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Social Security is not an Entitlement. It is a paid-into system. It is just that not enough people are working today to keep it solvent in the future.

It is law and until it is changed, we are stuck with it, but I also can eat because of it though I’m still working at 68, but only parttime because there isn’t enough money to fund me fulltime.

[xzins]

As pointed out too many times, there is more money being spent instead of less money being spent. In other words, this is NOT a cut. In fact, even after this reduction in the increase, there is STILL more money being spent.

What should departments do?

1. Honor any announced pay raises, since they are only 1%, and then

2. Freeze spending at last year’s level. Voila! Everything is fine, and there is no crisis.

Someone should ask, why are you cutting jobs when you could be freezing all non-pay spending?

[magellan]

"A large percentage of those DoD employees go on deployments and support the soldier in the fight."

Actually, it is a very small percentage. Part of the reason for the substantial increase in the civilian percentage of DoD employment end strength is the change of many non-deployable positions from Uniformed Active Duty to Civilian.

Yes, more DoD Civilians and Contractors deploy than used to, but the increase in DoD Civilian deployment percentage is much lower than the increase in DoD Uniformed Active Duty and Uniformed Reserve deployment percentage.

[redgolum]

On my phone, so I will comment in full later. I suspect the plan is to loose the defense vote and shoot for the 47% entitlement vote. You can’t have social security and a strong defense, there isn’t enough money. Trouble is there isn’t enough money for that either.

Or the more cynical view is that the GOP e is more afraid of the military than the seniors.

[redgolum]

On my phone, so I will comment in full later. I suspect the plan is to loose the defense vote and shoot for the 47% entitlement vote. You can’t have social security and a strong defense, there isn’t enough money. Trouble is there isn’t enough money for that either.

Or the more cynical view is that the GOP e is more afraid of the military than the seniors.

[SkyPilot]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. The ignorance of some of the Low Information FReepers on this thread and other places is truly stunning.

No worries. I served 21 years myself in the military, and what I am witnessing transpire today both shocks and horrifies me.

I think there are two factors at work here - ignorance of the real facts compounded by personal fear.

Many Freepers might be Conservatives, but that is a very broad term. Some are evangelical Christians, some are really Libertarians, some are fiscal Conservatives, some care about social issues, some are pro-Defense, and some are a combination.

The bottom line for many is they know spending is out of control, but they don't care, as long as "something" is done. Even if it guts Defense. Let me tell you something, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the House and Senate Armed Services Committees last week that this was going to be devastating to the US military, they were not joking.

Congress knows that 2/3rds of the budget is mandatory, and the Democrats and Obama will walk over broken glass before they see the "takers" accept less - even that is a minimal sacrifice.

So they went after the 1/3rd of discretionary spending, put the greatest burden on Defense, exempted military pay and much of the procurement funds cannot be touched this far into the fiscal year - so Operations and Maintenance will be gutted. Literally.

80% of our Brigade Combat Teams will not be trained for combat. Ships will be taken out of service (it may take 10 months to get some of them back in commission IF there is future money!) Research and Development will be a shadow of what it was. TRICARE for military, veterans, and their families will be in big, big trouble financially.

When I was on active duty and overseas, I had a eye injury while on duty (I was a pilot). I nearly lost sight in one eye. The medical staff that took care of me were DoD civilian nurses and doctors.

These are the kinds of people who will be furloughed - and it makes me sick.

What kind of society have we become where the Food Stamp crowd has all they need and more, and Americans who serve and sacrifice are left out in the cold?

For many here, their own fears rule the roost. They are unemployed or under employed. They fear their Social Security or other entitlements will be affected if Sequestration is avoided, so they join the cheers to keep the cuts in place. Or, they have been hurt financially, and they want to see others hurt. For many others, I think they are just plain sick and tired of getting raped on taxes and see any cuts (even bad ones) as welcome news.

I don't know if we are in the last days or not, but these words from Christ ring true to me for today:

"Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold."
Matthew 24:12

We are a sick, evil society. This is not Ronald Reagan's American anymore. He would NEVER have allowed this to happen to the military. Our current crop of Republican leaders will.

[CharlesWayneCT]

You do realize that Byron’s message is that the sequester is NOT bad, and he doesn’t understand why Boehner is saying it WOULD BE.

In other words, Boehner agrees with your position, and Byron is calling that position nuts.

But nice of you to provide his article here.

[wbarmy]

True, while they are there. They do come back though. And their “peers” in the other agencies are not hurting at all.

[SkyPilot]

BOO F__’in HOO!

I don't delight in your misfortune Le Chien Rouge. In fact, I pray that you and others escape more of it. But perhaps you should not delight in the misfortune of others.

What is being meted out by Washington DC these days by both parties is simply immoral. They are rewarding the guilty, while punishing the noble.

Many federal workers facing furloughs are veterans

"If the federal government is forced to furlough civilian employees in the event of sequestration, the burden will fall heavily on a population that Congress and the White House have vowed to support: veterans. More than two out of five of the approximately 800,000 Department of Defense employees facing furloughs are veterans, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Wednesday. “Forty-four percent of them are veterans,” Carter told the House Armed Services Committee during a hearing on the potential effect of sequestration on the military. ”Very soon we’re going to have to furlough the great majority of them.”

And, many of those veterans are disable. Many were maimed, mentally and physically, sacrificing more for this nation than the vast majority ever have, or will.

[onyx]

Please Contribute to Free Republic Tonight!

[B4Ranch]

>>For many here, their own fears rule the roost.<<

I am willing to let you take my SSI if you would be willing to shut down all the military bases that we have in foreign countries that are no longer true allies.

I can’t think of a war that has been fought efficiently during my lifetime. We should have brought our troops home from Germany after the wall came down. And South Korea after the war ended. Viet Nam was a waste of time, money and lives along with Iraq and Afghanistan.

We need to stop trying to be the world’s policeman. Hell, we can’t even protect American women in America but we demand the right to protect every other race. Show me we can protect our own borders and maybe I’ll let you protect somebody elses too.

[wrcase]

Sky Pilot,

I am not taking any delight in your misfortune. I don’t want to see anyone lose their job or take a pay cut. However did you take anyone to task on this website when millions of Americans in the private sector were being laid-off or had their pay cut? Many FReepers were taking delight in their misfortune. Many of those millions were also veterans. I hate to see medical or training staff having to take a 20% cut, but honestly, do you believe that the military will be destroyed if the thousands of clerks in the Pentagon have to stay home one day a week?

[devolve]

.
.

Is this microphone on? Really?

Govt employees already make more than private business employees -

And Govt employees get Cadillac pensions

Tough Tinsel to govt employees

Sell the USPS to UPS and Fed-Ex - to hell with those union thieves and thugs

“Skeeter” needs to be permanently “grounded” in any way possible

.
.

[SkyPilot]

Boehner agrees with your position

York's article (listed in full below) is stating the obvious: Boehner does not know whether to tie his shoes or wind his watch - because he is trying to play both sides of the fence and is losing on all counts.

Boehner should have never, ever agreed to this "deal" to begin with. He should have had the courage to shut the government down back in 2011. Gingrich had that courage, and the budget actually had a surplus in the immediate years afterwards.

Boehner was deathly afraid of people getting delays of the Social Security checks, media stories of school buses full of children denied access to a monument or park, and a hostile media deriding Republicans the year before an election.

Boehner should have walked away and allowed taxes to go up on most Americans rather than have struck a deal where Obama raised taxes in January but did not agree to replace the military cuts. He then could have acted in the new Congress to lower tax rates after the Congressional self imposed deadline, but I imagine that would have greatly endangered his quest to be re-elected Speaker. On top of this, he and Obama were within $200 Billion on a "Grand Bargain" to solve spending and taxes for the next several years, but it was Boehner who abandoned the negotiations the week before Christmas and pursed his failed "Plan B" that could not even win support from his own House Republicans.

So here we are, and the Republicans still don't have the White House or the Senate. Taxes went up (including payroll taxes), and the spending cuts are upon us.

And what is the GOP response?

"We are not interested."

That is one hell of a massive political bluff, politically stupidity, or conservative malpractice vis a vis the US military and our economy.

___________________________________________________________________

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner describes the upcoming sequester as a policy “that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more.”

Which leads to the question: Why would Republicans support a measure that threatens national security and thousands of jobs? Boehner and the GOP are determined to allow the $1.2 trillion sequester go into effect unless President Obama and Democrats agree to replacement cuts, of an equal amount, that target entitlement spending. If that doesn’t happen — and it seems entirely unlikely — the sequester goes into effect, with the GOP’s blessing.

In addition, Boehner calls the cuts “deep,” when most conservatives emphasize that for the next year they amount to about $85 billion out of a $3,600 billion budget. Which leads to another question: Why would Boehner adopt the Democratic description of the cuts as “deep” when they would touch such a relatively small part of federal spending?

The effect of Boehner’s argument is to make Obama seem reasonable in comparison. After all, the president certainly agrees with Boehner that the sequester cuts threaten national security and jobs. The difference is that Obama wants to avoid them. At the same time, Boehner is contributing to Republican confusion on the question of whether the cuts are in fact “deep” or whether they are relatively minor. Could the GOP message on the sequester be any more self-defeating? Boehner could argue that the sequester cuts are necessary as a first — and somewhat modest — step toward controlling the deficits that threaten the economy. Instead, he describes them as a threat to national security and jobs that he nevertheless supports. It’s not an argument that is likely to persuade millions of Americans. Wednesday morning, when Boehner’s op-ed appeared, I sent questions along these lines to Boehner’s office. Spokesman Michael Steel replied, “We support replacing the indiscriminate cuts in the sequester with smarter cuts and reforms (of an equal amount). That’s what we did with the sequester replacement bills written by Chairman Ryan that we passed last year.” Another spokesman, Brendan Buck, added that “it is not the amount of the cuts…it’s where they fall — disproportionately on accounts important to our national security.” None of which addresses the Republican problem on the sequester. If the problem is one of substance — that is, if GOP leaders truly believe the cuts threaten national security but are nevertheless supporting them — then Republicans have put themselves into an untenable situation. If, as is more likely, the problem is one of message — that is, if Republicans believe the cuts are not only manageable without threatening national security but are also desirable as a first step toward controlling spending — then the Boehner article is sending all the wrong signals.

[sauropod]

Hey Dumbass -

Compare apples to apples.

clerical and admin help - gvt people do make more.

technical people - scientists and engineers- get paid much less.

“Cadillac pensions”? Maybe at one time (CSRS). Not now (FERS).

Buy an effing clue!

[sauropod]

Based on these numbers alone, the increase in DoD contractors (which is not included in the above numbers), and the modern difference in the Federal Civilian workforce of today versus 1966, and the difference in the Federal Civilian DoD workforce and the Active Duty, and the reduction in DoD weapons systems acquisition projects, I have to believe we can sustain significant reductions in the DoD civilian work force and maintain a necessary level of defense readiness.

You are obviously clueless with respect to the much more complex combat environment today vs 1966, and have no idea what it takes to actually field and develop a major weapons system.

Can some cuts be made? Yes.

Can they be made to the level you are advocating? No.

[devolve]

.

Starve those who chose/choose to work for Skeeter

They bought into the Ponzi Scum

Eat your apple and scroll down

.

[USAFJeeper]

I am retired military. Tell me I didn’t earn that. While the rest of you set down roots, bought homes, I moved. I am now in the 7th year of a 25 year mortgage (paying extra so it goes down). I tell you this so you will know that as a DoD civilian who is a program manager for a very active and major weapon system, sorry, I don’t advertise what to protect self and family.

I make decent money, no lie there. But from now until September I am looking at losing 20% of my gross pay. What does this do to me? Well, my health insurance costs have gone up, Thanks Obama. I have 2 kids in college, trying to pay cash for it all so they are not saddled with debt. Not only does it lower my salary, but it lowers the amount invested in my 401K. FERS retirement is a joke, it will be enough to buy cheap beer. SS? Gone. This affects my accrual of sick leave and planned leave.

So, when you knock all those damn government employees, a lot are vets like myself starting a second career, hard working, conservatives. Because of Obamas sequestration, it hurts us. It doesn’t hurt the libs in New York and California. So think before you paint us all as leaches on the ass of society. Thanks.