START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
The Pentagon Starts Pink Slip Process to 46,000 People
1 year ago

The Pentagon has started laying off the bulk of its 46,000 temporary work force, as automatic Defense Department budget cut-backs beckon in March.

In a BBC report, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said the Pentagon was concerned “we’re running out of time” and quick action is needed to meet the looming changes in their budget. Fiscal cliff concerns, and failing legislative budget agreements, have forced defense cuts of $50 billion.

Each branch of military service has until Feb. 1 to provide plans to reduce short-term spending, Mr. Carter said.

In addition to the temporary worker layoffs, cuts could come to the Pentagon’s civilian sector. Mr. Carter said one option was to cut one work day from each of the 800,000 civilian employees’ weekly work schedule. That could save $5 billion, he said.

1 year ago

This is likely to be the tip of the layoff iceberg that is going to affect the military suppliers especially those producing equipment and related materials, That will likely have an even bigger snowball effect in that there are subcontractors and those with other businesses in those areas where plants and other places have large labor forces working for those military suppliers. Of course that should be good for the economy if we follow Pelosi's "logic" about the economic "benefits" of unemployment compensation as a economic "multiplier".

1 year ago

Just heard this Diane.  So, how are we creating jobs here, Mr. Obama?  

John, you are so right and it has already started to affect them.  These can be vendors such as GE, Boeing, and all the others but more devastating than that is the small businesses that supply parts to the big corporations to go into those things they are manufacturing for the DOD; the company that supplies washers, nuts and bolts, screws, to a clothing, there are so many that we would not even think of and they will all be affected adversely.

I know that some of these smaller vendors are already feeling the pinch and a few such as Boeing are already laying off.  It just gets worse, doesn't it.  

1 year ago

John, you are correct.  This will affect this country from end to end.  And, Linda, small businesses (even small supliers) will get nailed.  After they've already been nailed by ObamaCare. 

 

46,000 temporary work force.  Do temporary work force people working for the Pentagon receive health care? 

 

Most people in the smaller world who have over 50 employees are laying off people to avoid ObamaCare, and are hiring temporary people to fill in because they don't have to provide health care. 

 

I hope the unemployment agencies have enough money to cover all the increased unemployment claims.  Those claims will filter down to the states.  So, even tho they think they will save 5 Billion - the unemployment numbers will go through the ceiling.

 

Obama - the job deleter!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

1 year ago

Linda: This is what has bothered me on this whole sequester idiocy where half came from defense (a specified Constitutional function) that ignores the economic effects from these type cuts. At the same time we have segments of the "progressives" pushing for "investments" in "green energy", education, infrastructure, support programs that have a high failure rate and a lot of waste with little or no "trickle down" economic effects and frequently negative results as well. At the same time the real effects of cuts in defense will result in increases in other spending for unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other support programs that eat some if not all of the savings with nothing to show for it in the end but more debt and more dependency. I blame both parties for this farce but am troubled with the GOP's lack of analysis of the economic effects of what they agreed to with this "deal". With defense spending in many areas you do generate ongoing economic activity as well as spin off activity for non defense and non government work. With "entitlements" you have just transfer of wealth with no additional benefits whatsoever. That's part of my problem with the GOP is lack of vision and lack of logical thinking in many cases as to what the effects of the policy or action will be. That's not to say that defense doesn't have waste but the real waste will never be touched because it serves a political or ideological objective of the administration and the Left like pushing women in combat and integration of gays. Not likely that we will see a decrease in Pentagon "research" like "did Christ die for Klingons" or an anti mainstream American screed course at West Point or more muslim "inclusion" initiatives.

1 year ago

This targets temporary workers and contractors first and then the furloughs kick in without pay.   There is waste at the Pentagon.    I believe there's a tremendous amount of waste in Obama's administration.   LOL

1 year ago

Diane -- Starting with Obama!

1 year ago

The republican plan is smaller government. What do people think that means??? It means exacly this. According to the republican party, private companies will hire the many who have no job. AND these were classified as "temporary", right? Well, the joke's on us. Private companies, some of whom are making record profits, are not hiring, they are taking the money and putting it in offshore accounts or foreign labor, or giving to politician's campaigns. BTW, there was waste in Bush's time- mainly two wars. No one even has any idea how much was really lost, as they took money out of so many pots. They even shipped millions of dollars (cash) which was never accounted for. It is easy to blame Obama, but this ball started rolling before his time. I do feel these people's pain. My family has gone from middle class to poor in two years, but we can't use our retirement because somebody wants to cut that!

1 year ago

Jayne: Private companies are in business to provide jobs put products and services. Demands for those products and services along with cost structures (that includes taxes and "mandates" like health whatever) and that determines work force levels that equates to hours and jobs. Demand falls or costs go up and hours or jobs decline. Be very careful on the "profits" end since multinational companies earn profits in areas other than the US and the decision to operate in those areas are multifaceted that includes location of raw materials, transportation costs, mandates from governments, taxes, environmental costs, skill levels of workforce, etc. As to defense industries, I really don't have a problem of mandating most defense contracts (those for sensitive items especially or regarding critical technology) be provided by US companies here or located in reliable allied countries. Too much comes from China that may be cheaper but presents security considerations that outweigh the cheaper costs.

I don't know your circumstances but your comment does display your ideology which appears left of center. Apparently you "missed" 9/11 that was planned and staged in part out of the AQ haven with their buddies the Taliban in Afghanistan. Apparently you also "missed" the failure of Saddam to abide by the first Gulf War ceasefire in many instances which meant that a state of war still existed with Iraq. Now could Bush2 have done a better job on both wars by not taking the "nation building route" that would have ended things faster and more effectively. to be sure. However, when talking war, let's also look at Bubba's Balkans adventure (still going on by the way) and his Somalia debacle (how's that going by the way?) or Dear Leader Obama's incoherent policy in Afghanistan and the whole islamic world especially now North Africa and Sub Sahara Africa that are both a hot bed of islamic militants (armed by Dear Leader's "Libyan policy").

BTW, Dear Leader and his crew of Demagogues seem to get a lot of that campaign money and some major names in business are locked at the hip with those Demagogues. King Barack the Worst has been on the throne now for four years and was part of the Demagogue controlled Legislative Branch for the last two years of Bush2's term so he is hardly blameless in the current situation. His past promises and ineffective actions place the blame for the problems now in his Court. If your family went from middle class to poor in the last four years (especially if it was 2009 and 2010) it was Dear Leader in the White House and his party in control of the really do-nothing Senate and they held both Houses from 2007-2010 so you may wonder if it wasn't the Demagogue Party's doings for your situation.

1 year ago

Jayne, you missed a lot of the facts here.  First, in order for smaller businesses to hire we need to lower taxes and relax a lot of the regulations on them that are cost prohibitive.  There are a fw others things such as more affordable power; but the major issue is to lower taxes and lift regulations.  That has not been done.  In fact, they are being hit with additional taxes in the form of manditory Obamacare.  This is a separate issue entirely from smaller government.  You are mixing two entirely different issues.

Further, due to the fact that we have no balanced budget, the sequestering will take place which means that there will be drastic cuts to the DOD; more than any other area of our government.  The result of this cut back in the budget to the DOD, they are having to cut back on the military strength; laying off Pentagon parttime employees, cutting back the number of enlisted men/women in the armed forces, cutting back on needed and necessary equpment and supplies, etc.  This is not a result of the smaller government, Jayne, this is hte result of the Democrats not sitting down and working out a balanced budget; the result of Obama's not presenting a budget, inspite of the efforts of the Republicans, no budet being submitted since 2009.  That has nothing to do with any previous President, it all rides on Obama's shoulders.

No one is blaming Obama, they are pointing out the facts, he failed to present a budget since 2009 and now we are in this position.  If he had worked with the Congress to do this, we would not be here.  He purposely stood in the way of this happening.

When the Republicans talk of smaller government, they are referring to combining agencies that are doing the same thing when there would be a need for only one to do that; they are talking about the government stepping out of some of the programs that should be in the hands of the State governments not the Federal government; this is a major part of what is meant by smaller government.  The amount of unnecessary expenses in these areas is astronomical.  Why are there at least 3 agencies overseeing the environment and regulations to protect it?  Isn't one agency enough?  So we have 3 times as many employees doing the job 1/3 of them should and could be doing.  Does this make sense to you? It is our tax money that is being wasted and a national debt that is skyrocketing; tripled since Obama took office and that is not on the head of the past administration(s), it is due to waste and poor judgement at his direction; money loaned to companies that are now bankrupt and will never pay it back among others.

And where you get the idea that the Republicans want to cut retirement benefits I don't know.  They have stated over and over that this is not their desire.  Repeal and rework the health care reform, yes, Obamacare is not going to do anyone any good and is only going to cost the taxpayers so much money; the quality of care is already suffering, trust me, I am on Medicare and I know this first hand.  My benefits have gone up as well and are to almost double next year.  This is not the previous administration, either, this is Obama 100%.

So, it is not the desire to "blame anyone" as that is an Obama policy, he is the one that plays that game.  What it is, Jayne, is getting Obama and his Administration to become accountable for the things that they have done that have hurt the economy and the people of this Country under their watch, just as the Democrats held Bush accountable for his mistakes which, by the way, he owned and did not "blame" anyone for making; something I sincerely wish Obama would do himself, accept accountability.  

Hope this helps to explain and correct your misconceptions; you were taking two different concepts and equating them; that is not the way it has is.

By the way, WELCOME to PD and it is good to have you there.  We are glad you are getting involved in discussions.

1 year ago

Jayne, I also want to welcome you to Political Derby.   And thanks for weighing in on this topic.    This is a discussion group and all points of view can be hashed out here.   We are all feeling the frustrations of our massive debt, how to face it, how to tackle it, as well as how we got into this mess in the first place.   

1 year ago

Jayne, I join Diane O in welcoming you. I joined not long ago and this is a group of very knowledgeable people with diverse views. I am really enjoying this.

With regards to the jobs these are part of the announcement Obama ordered to be witheld before the elections. Had all this come to light before he may not be in the White House today. So you see the power he has over the media and how they oblige him.

1 year ago

Margaret, you could not be more correct on that one.  There were other areas that he withheld or that were altered until after the election to make him look more electable.  I sure hope people are not that blind that if they had known some of what is now coming out they would have have second thoughts, at least, in electing him.

1 year ago

LOL, we are planning our "furlough" now.

1 year ago

Diane, will this affect your husband?  Just posted about the Tricare and cuts to military health care, too.  Nice life for those that serve and served; just amazing how he can do this to them.

1 year ago

Yes, it will!   Next thing they'll do is stop the military retirement pay.

1 year ago

And strip the stars off the generals.

1 year ago

This, you know, DIRECTLY IMPACTS OUR VETS...the ones that Michelle is taking care of, right?

1 year ago

Diane: There are quite a few political generals in the Pentagon that need their stars stripped including most of the Joint Chiefs from what I've seen lately. This "women" in combat" nonsense is the latest in the political decision pushed off as "enhanced readiness". Gays in the military was another. Some how we can find money for "gay spouse support", "sensitivity training" in those areas, and participation in various gay activities but have to cut TriCare benefits. Just waiting for the new "separate and not equal" combat arms training to enhance our "readiness".

Cuts like TriCare and defense in general is because King Barack the Worst detests the military and the majority him as well. That's why they made sure most couldn't vote in the last election. Somehow there is money for jets and tanks for an increasingly hostile Egypt and money in the State Department budget for "global warming" but not money for defense, vet benefits, or embassy security where really needed.

1 year ago

Cutting benefits may be his way of reducing volunteers in the military. He hates that. Watch him try to reinstate the draft. Then he can put as many or more likely fewer in. He's as sneaky as they come. Never know what his true objectives are but they are never good for the country.

1 year ago

Diane, that was one of the things that Rand Paul nailed Kerry about; giving equipment Egypt and the other enemies of Israel.  

Diane, my middle son is due to retire with is 20 in October and so this will affect him.  So sad that they young men and women give all those years and were given a promise and now Obama is pulling it out from under them.  I am so angry.  I think that we need to pull his lifetime pension and the secret service protection in 2016 and let him feel what it is like. 

Time to stop as I need to cool down.  I am so sorry for your husband as I know he is retired from the military and now a civilian contractor so he is getting it doubly.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Sandy, I know that this affects Pete, too.  So sorry to both of these me and the two of you.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  My brother is affected, too.  He spent 22 years in the Navy, as is a cousing who spent 35 years in the Navy.

1 year ago

Linda: There really should be NO PENSION OR BENEFITS for elected and politically appointed officials at the Federal level. Let states do what they want but nothing at all at the Federal level!!!! Most of these clowns are worth a mint anyway and many make a mint off their "service". Peanut Head, Bubba and wife, King Barack, Pelosi, Kerry, etc, and the Bushes as well have enough without our contributing more.

1 year ago

I would agree with that one John; they have a racket going really.

1 year ago

John, great point, but you forgot to add the Clinton gang. Both of them get a retirement and then are employed again - what a racket.

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.