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.

[Cyber Liberty]

Never gonna happen. It’s like expecting tapeworms to get tired of the taste of s***.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

...and this is bad news how? :)

Because it is cutting with an ax. It is not directed in the right places and it is insignificant to the total budget problem. It is a huge problem for individual DOD workers. I'm looking at a 20% reduction in my pay for a 7 month period.

That said, I think it is a bluff...or playing chicken.

[centurion316]

See my post #11 on another thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2989749/posts?page=11#11

Many military installations are in solid Red districts. This is going to hurt Conservatives, while the Detroit, LA, D.C. and Boston crowd are going to be dancing in the streets.

[hal ogen]

LOL.

[The_Reader_David]

Notice the bureaucratic impulse in play here: the presumption in the Pentagon is that budget cuts are (or can be forced to be) temporary, so there is no need to actually look for costs which can be cut, programs that can be eliminated, or efficiencies that can be introduced without harming military readiness. Instead, the furlough of civilian employees requires no hard decisions and creates a maximal pool of disaffected voters — all the furloughed DoD employees and their families — opposed to the sequestration cuts. (Cancel a program employing 40,000 and you create 40,000 families opposed to the cut, but furlough 800,000 employees for 20 days out the year and there are 800,000 families calling their Congressmen.)

[ExTxMarine]

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.

Because left-leaning, no-backbone, Boehner was trying to convince the ACTUAL conservatives that the BS 2% cuts were really "deep." He was trying to convince his own party, most of whom KNOWS he is almost as full of shit as Obama, that sequestration really was the cut-to-the-bone savings that most of us want to see!

One last thing, you keep saying that MOST of this is coming from the military and that is simply another BS LIE! The cuts are a 50/50 split THIS year, but if ALL of the sequestration actually occurs (which will NEVER happen), the military cuts would total only about 40% of the TOTALS cuts.

You have been blowing BS about the sequester cuts for a few weeks now. Here is a really good question: Do you want the Republicans to agree to TAX increases to limit these cuts? Because that is the ONLY way Obama and the Dems are going to agree to ANYTHING! So, quit blaming the Republicans about not wanting to fix these issues and problems! The Dems will NOT agree to limit these cuts unless Reps agree to tax increases, so it is 100% on the Dems for wanting to replace CUTS with TAX INCREASES, NOT the Reps!

[sauropod]

Not true. There is no promise that the civilians will be paid back pay.

There are quite a few younger employees, some with new children. Losing 1 day a week of pay is going to be a significant hardship for them.

[redgolum]

Out of curiosity, why is this viewed as the GOPs fault? Not being sarcastic.

[sanjuanbob]

Well said...misleading headline. I’ll take that furlough too.

[meyer]

"...The cuts when compared as a percentage to the entire budget may look small, but 2/3rd of the budget (entitlements) are EXEMPT from sequestration...."

Why are entitlements exempt? Who are the idiots that agreed to that? Entitlements is where the cutting needs to take place. Hack the freeloaders, not the earners.

[sauropod]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.

The ignorance of some of the Low Information FReepers on this thread and other places is truly stunning.

[Le Chien Rouge]

TO DOD Civilians along with other federal employees: BOO F__’in HOO!

In 2009 I took a 20% PERMANENT pay cut while my workload doubled just so the business I worked for could survive.

After 3 years and developing some new skills that were much more marketable, I found a much better paying, stable job.

Employment isn’t permanent, you may need to retrain yourself and NO ONE owns you a career!!

It’s called life and we folks in the private sector deal with situations like layoffs and paycuts EVERYDAY!!!

[Gene Eric]

>> Obama and the Democrats fooled the Republicans into signing off on the sequester, and now the military will suffer great harm.

I thought it was obvious to everyone that Defense was targeted to bear the brunt.

[Pan_Yan]

... among the hardest-hit states would be Virginia, which would have about 88,000 affected workers and salary losses of $660.9 million ...

$660.9 million divided by 88,000 is $7510? Maybe they need to explain the numbers a little better.

[COBOL2Java]

[wbarmy]

Just curious, how many IEDs did you hit on the way to your workplace? How many bullets or mortars got lobbed in your direction? How many Christmases, Easters, birthdays or major holidays did you miss from your family? How much blood have you spilled for your right to work and the time to learn new skills?

A large percentage of those DoD employees go on deployments and support the soldier in the fight. What do the employees of EPA, NEA, SSA, HUD, etc, etc, etc, support? Paperwork. I support flesh and blood and lives on the line.

[SkyPilot]

Out of curiosity, why is this viewed as the GOPs fault? Not being sarcastic.

No, that is a terrific question.

Obviously, when looking for villains in this, the Democrats are front and center. The idea for the Sequester came right out of the Obama White House (his OMB Director, Jack Lew).

Here is where the Republicans went off the tracks.

The not only agreed with the Sequester, they signed off on the formula that took the one agency that is Constitutional and represents the best of America (the military), and allowed it to bear the brunt of the cuts (it is 17% the budget and takes 50% of the cuts).

It gets better.

The Pentagon was already reeling from a $487 Billion cut that began in 2011. Those cuts are spread out over several years, but we are now 2 years into them. These were not "baseline budget" gimmick cuts either. The Army will have to cut 189,000 troops alone before sequestration - and that is just one small impact of what Obama and the Congress has allowed to happen.

These cuts go on for 10 years.

It gets even better.

During the "Fiscal Cliff" talks, the Republicans knew that they would have to raise taxes. But, that was all they concerned themselves with. The Sequester half of the Fiscal Cliff was "separated" from the deal, and even the Democrats were shocked that as midnight approached, it was they (not the Republicans) who addressed them.

This was the "old" Paul Ryan last May:

Military-Crippling Sequester Must Be Stopped

Here is the "new" Paul Ryan:

Paul Ryan insists Republicans are ready to let the sequester happen

Boehner and Cantor are the same - essentially "let it burn."

This is a new low even for the "Stupid Party."

They have chosen a path that:

1. Causes the loss of an estimated 2.1 million jobs and layoffs of hundreds of thousands

2. Harms the military and punished Constitutional national defense

3. Exempts the real cause of our explosion in debt - Entitlements

4. Hands Obama and the Democrats a political gift by allowing themselves (not the Republicans) to be seen as the defenders of the military

It is all incredibly shortsighted and wrong, but the GOP is determined to hold onto this rock as tightly as they can while they sink to the bottom of the lake.

The folks on this board who want to see it all happen are going to get their "wish." I read this morning that a GOP staffer said they will eventually agree to fund the government (read: Entitlements) ad infinitum come the end of March, but will again "separate" the Sequester from the talks and will ensure that they drastic cuts (which punish Defense the most) will happen.

Unfrickin believable.

[SkyPilot]

Sorry, the link to the article Paul Ryan co-wrote with Buck McKeon last May didn't post correctly. Here it is:

Military-Crippling Sequester Must Be Stopped

By the way, I love your tagline.

[Sarajevo]

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

Civilian support personnel in the war zone(s) are exempt.

[magellan]

As a percentage of the Active Duty force, at 54% today, the number of Civilian DoD employees has never been higher. If we went back to the DoD Civilian to Active Duty proportion of 35% in 1966, during the height of the Cold War and Vietnam, we could eliminate almost 271,000 DoD employees, or over 12% of the DoD rolls.

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.

In today's military, what is the correct percentage of Active Duty, Ready Reserve, DoD Civilians, and DoD Contractors? We must answer this question first, and from there size our military appropriately.