The Trump Presidency

[compforce]

These are all good points. I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD? Amongst discretionary spending, the DoD is the single largest part of the budget, taking up something like 55% of spending. President Trump campaigned on a platform of general non-interventionism, yet he wants to ramp up the size of the military, which makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems like the first place to make cuts would be to the biggest slice of the pie. I mean, I know the reason why he won't make cuts to the military - that idea is anathema to republicans, but it also makes very little policy sense.

If you ramp up the military (uniformed) you can reduce the reliance on contractors, which are inherently more expensive to maintain. It actually does cut costs to shift from a contractor model to an employment model when you have the dynamic that the employee can't quit.

I'd also like to point out that the "balanced budget" that you proposed in an earlier post would make the President's infrastructure plan much, much more difficult to accomplish, as borrowing would be curtailed.

Borrowing doesn't have to be cut back in a balanced budget, you just have to allocate income to make the payments.

 

[Salt USMC]

If you ramp up the military (uniformed) you can reduce the reliance on contractors, which are inherently more expensive to maintain. It actually does cut costs to shift from a contractor model to an employment model when you have the dynamic that the employee can't quit.

That's an interesting point. But I've heard on more than one occasion that contractors less expensive than uniformed personnel in some jobs because they aren't paid other entitlements that uniformed military typically get, such as BAH, BAS, insurance, etc.

 

[AWP]

These are all good points. I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD?

Good point, but where? SECAF James and GEN Welsh gutted the AF and all of your aircrew positions are sitting at 90% at the absolute best. I can't speak to the other branches, but cutting servicemembers poses huge issues. Contractors? Many of you know I'm a contractor and I'm onboard, but it isn't as simple as "cut x thousand contractors" because your uniformed members CANNOT pick up the slack. The AF in particular is so reliant upon contractors in certain career fields that the newly minted Airmen tech school produces, 3 Levels, are barely functional. Even a subpar contractor can outperform most E-3's and junior E-4's. With that said, contracting needs an overhaul and the blame is as much on the services as the companies themselves. That's a long post in itself, but tossing out a number against a unit (the historical model) is a bucket of fail.

Cut GS'? Good luck with that.

We can't grow servicemembers immediately, but contracting cuts tend to be immediately. That's a huge mistake. I'm all for cuts, but we need to go beyond emotion or a bottom line and step through the problem, the solutions, and those pros and cons. I do not believe for a second our organizations are capable of such thinking and discipline.

----

That's an interesting point. But I've heard on more than one occasion that contractors less expensive than uniformed personnel in some jobs because they aren't paid other entitlements that uniformed military typically get, such as BAH, BAS, insurance, etc.

I've had more than one contractor-hating officer tell me the numbers are solid, but contractors are still the wrong answer. The real problem is no one envisioned the model we see today where contractors are so long term and so prevalent. The study should be revisited to find that break point in cost vs. savings, but the initial data and projections a decade ago are in favor of contractors from a cost perspective.

 

[compforce]

That's an interesting point. But I've heard on more than one occasion that contractors less expensive than uniformed personnel in some jobs because they aren't paid other entitlements that uniformed military typically get, such as BAH, BAS, insurance, etc.

I've seen those numbers as well. The problem with them is that they only compare what the contractor is personally receiving. The cost to the government for that contractor is much much higher, typically 300% of what the contractor receives. So that comparison of the $100/hour contractor against a fully loaded E-6 is misleading. The entire perspective changes if you compare the $300/hour the general contractor (lockheed martin, et al) is receiving for that person.

I do agree with FreeAWP though. The services have lost the institutional knowledge to say simply cut contractors. My direct experience with the IT field tells me that it would take a decade to transition from the overly heavy IT contractor presence to the self-contained Signal Corps that I'd like to see in the Army. Unfortunately our government doesn't do very well when it comes to identifying long term cost/benefit analysis on issues like this.

 

[Marauder06]

@Salt USMC, I've been on this site for awhile, and I don't recognize your username. Please post an intro in the proper forum before posting again. #noob

I see what you did there.

 

[AWP]

Another item to consider, something @Marauder06 can attest to: contractors, particularly those overseas, give a commander a MASSIVE amount of continuity in certain jobs/ areas. Contractors are a good thing, but like anything in this world they need to be monitored and tweaked accordingly...and the contracting system doesn't allow for such changes.

Contractors a major force multiplier, but they've become a crutch.

 

[DA SWO]

These are all good points. I ask, then, why not make cuts starting in the DoD? Amongst discretionary spending, the DoD is the single largest part of the budget, taking up something like 55% of spending. President Trump campaigned on a platform of general non-interventionism, yet he wants to ramp up the size of the military, which makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems like the first place to make cuts would be to the biggest slice of the pie. I mean, I know the reason why he won't make cuts to the military - that idea is anathema to republicans, but it also makes very little policy sense.

Here's a little infographic for all of you that lays out discretionary (not mandatory) spending:
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png

I'd also like to point out that the "balanced budget" that you proposed in an earlier post would make the President's infrastructure plan much, much more difficult to accomplish, as borrowing would be curtailed.

DoD took the brunt of sequestration, and why isn't welfare a discretionary item? No one should be entitled to anything..

 

[ThunderHorse]

And now we run into the POTUS staff still using their RNC email system: Trump White House senior staff have private RNC email accounts

 

[Etype]

And now we run into the POTUS staff still using their RNC email system: Trump White House senior staff have private RNC email accounts

It’s not clear whether or how Trump staffers are using the RNC email addresses. If they are using them...

That is quote from the article, but I noticed you put your own personal spin on it by saying they are still using these accounts.

There is nothing that says they are using them, or using them for official business.

I bet half of them also have a private, paid email account- this fact also means nothing on its own.

 

[Ranger Psych]

And now we run into the POTUS staff still using their RNC email system: Trump White House senior staff have private RNC email accounts

And you have a .dod email plus gmail plus hotmail plus aol plus grindr account. Not much issue is used of it, nor should it be, unless accounts are used for transfer of information that's outside of that mediums classification.

Which is where the primary issue was with HRC. Tertiary of it being wiping the server when there's federal mandates for office archival for public record.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I read it, I'm just bringing the news.

 

[Marauder06]

Another item to consider, something @Marauder06 can attest to: contractors, particularly those overseas, give a commander a MASSIVE amount of continuity in certain jobs/ areas. Contractors are a good thing, but like anything in this world they need to be monitored and tweaked accordingly...and the contracting system doesn't allow for such changes.

Contractors a major force multiplier, but they've become a crutch.

Ref. contractors (and we might need to make this a separate thread):

I don't have the data in front of me, but I distinctly remember doing some "back of the napkin" analysis on the relative cost of employing contractors vs. troops for certain functions during my last deployment to Afghanistan. We had a LOT of contractors working for us downrange, doing a lot of highly technical and very sensitive work. And we paid those guys a LOT of money. In many cases, for each contractor we paid their company well over what I (senior guy) made, and in some cases it might have been twice as much. I found that interesting. But, instead making a meme about it or whatever, I did some actual analysis.

This is what I recall: contractors are worth it in the long run.

With contractors, I get a fully-trained individual that I can plug-and-play as necessary. They tended to come with deep experience (often gained during military service), maturity, and life/coping skills. They showed up at the unit already pre-screened; we screened them again, then the ones we wanted we trained, integrated, and sent forward. When they were done with their mission, or when I got tired of their s#!t (it happened), I sent them home. No rehab transfers, no Congressional, no "but you're ruining their careers!" Next thing smoking...

There were also monetary benefits: no months-to-years-long trainup. No pensions. No evals, no awards, no career development. Did I mention "no pension?" No long-term health care costs. "Thank you for your service" and when I'm done with you, a plane ticket home.

My unscientific study, which involved costs of training, retraining, and post-Army benefits expenses of Soldiers compared to contractors, led me to believe that in the long term contractors are worth the money *IF* you can't get enough solid Soldiers to do the job.

I liked having contractors, I thought they were value added and an important part of the team.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

DoD took the brunt of sequestration, and why isn't welfare a discretionary item? No one should be entitled to anything..

Yepp...

 

[reed11b]

The "gag order" applies to press releases and official media sites.

I'm sure you're inferring that the, "largest employer of veterans," is the federal government, and I'm sure this argument ties back in to your assumed personal afront because you were applying for a VA police job.

If you had done a bit more research, you'd see that the freeze doesn't apply to public safety of national defense hires.

Your research has been incredible weak since your 'Jeff Sessions on-the-record racist comments' posts.

Getting a bit personal aren't ya hero?
Reed

 

[Etype]

Getting a bit personal aren't ya hero?
Reed

I wouldn't call it personal, just specific.

 

[reed11b]

I wouldn't call it personal, just specific.

Well, "the tone" came across as pretty pointed. I would like to think we all respect each other on this site, even if our political ideologies differ.
Reed

 

[Marauder06]

Tone can be hard to convey via the Internet. I like to think we can all be respectful of each other, even in disagreement.

If we can't we have plenty of staff standing by to take your order...

 

[nobodythank you]

Tone can be hard to convey via the Internet. I like to think we can all be respectful of each other, even in disagreement.

If we can't we have plenty of staff standing by to take your order...

Two all beef patties, cheese, lettuce, tomato on two sesame seed buns. Hold the special sauce. :-"

 

[Marauder06]

Two all beef patties, cheese, lettuce, tomato on two sesame seed buns. Hold the special sauce. :-"

No problem. Front lean and rest and stand by. Someone will be by to assist you. Right after the voter fraud investigation.

I promise.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Two all beef patties, cheese, lettuce, tomato on two sesame seed buns. Hold the special sauce. :-"

You want fries with that?

I didn't see it in here, but John Kerry's special gift to the Palestinians has been frozen while it is reviewed by State: Trump reviewing Obama’s payment to Palestinians