hey Government people

[2001FZ1]

Might be down to 14 days off:
News from The Associated Press

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The original thread title was, "Hey, government people..."

Are there actually government people repairing Navy ship parts in Indianapolis, who are in danger of getting furloughed?

Couple thousand government at Crane and a little more than that contractors who have for the most part said they will follow suit even though their contracts don't require it.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

And some of those "retired" are even sitting in the same desk. Double dipping is nice!
Some even tripple dip when they are "retired" military.

How do contractors save money again?

It's pretty simple really. Downsizing government positions requires a RIF (Reduction in Force) or lately through the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) procedures. They take a long time and are very costly - usually ending up costing even more than the "savings" of closing a base. However, as with private industry, if a cut back is necessary and the work is performed via contracts and contractors for labor, the contract is cut, labor and force goes away - no cost of closure. That's how you save money downsizing with contractors vice government employees.

"double dipping" is kind of a misnomer. The government person retires and leaves government service. That doesn't mean the work he was doing retires with him. The work - provided it is funded - must continue. If there is a hiring freeze (as has been for quite some time), the work is then shifted to a contract and the winning contract company hires someone to do the job. They may hire anyone they wish. The knowledge base and thus very short learning curve is with the person that just retired. It's a savings to the company that now owns that work and a savings to the government. When the work goes away now, one just does not renew the contract. Simple.

 

[bakeman]

Just to clarify again. I don't think a government employee and a welfare queen are morally equivelant when it comes to government spending. When income is less than expenditures, cuts must be made. The welfare queen is the $500 a month in cell phones and cable tv. The government employee is the 5000sf brick house. Our incomes allows for a double wide. The 5000sf house, cell phones, and cable tv have got to go.

5000sf house? are you serious? you obviously havent met to many people who are employed at crane. Dont get me wrong, we have good jobs. And dont get me wrong, i loathe most gov. employees, because they are lazy and worthless. However, you are taking this a bit to far. 99% of the gov. employed people on this base are GS employees. the highest level most can reach is GS12 step 10. Thats around $80,000 a year or so. (cant remember, im a contractor. i also dont make anywhere near that.) I work a gov. job, and i live in a 1300sf house that was built in the 50's. Its a nice home, Me and my dad remodeled it when i bought it. However, its nothing extravagant. I make about the same mony here that i did when i worked for Sony DADC in terre haute. The pay rates are prety well on par with private industry. Most guys that work at the coal mines around home make more money than i do with their overtime.

With that being said, there is alot of cuts that can and should be made in DOD spending. I see alot of waste here. And alot of jobs that are not neccisary. I see alot of money wasted on programs and projects that could be saved, or used for more important things. Just the number of people they employ, and the man hours they pay for to take care of all the BS red tape and paperwork and rediculous regulations on everything would save crane millions a year if they were fixed properly.

So trust me. Im with everyone that says the gov. needs to cut spending in all areas, including DOD spending. But this is not the right way to do it. Its just a political ploy.

rant over.

 

[hornadylnl]

5000sf house? are you serious? you obviously havent met to many people who are employed at crane. Dont get me wrong, we have good jobs. And dont get me wrong, i loathe most gov. employees, because they are lazy and worthless. However, you are taking this a bit to far. 99% of the gov. employed people on this base are GS employees. the highest level most can reach is GS12 step 10. Thats around $80,000 a year or so. (cant remember, im a contractor. i also dont make anywhere near that.) I work a gov. job, and i live in a 1300sf house that was built in the 50's. Its a nice home, Me and my dad remodeled it when i bought it. However, its nothing extravagant. I make about the same mony here that i did when i worked for Sony DADC in terre haute. The pay rates are prety well on par with private industry. Most guys that work at the coal mines around home make more money than i do with their overtime.

With that being said, there is alot of cuts that can and should be made in DOD spending. I see alot of waste here. And alot of jobs that are not neccisary. I see alot of money wasted on programs and projects that could be saved, or used for more important things. Just the number of people they employ, and the man hours they pay for to take care of all the BS red tape and paperwork and rediculous regulations on everything would save crane millions a year if they were fixed properly.

So trust me. Im with everyone that says the gov. needs to cut spending in all areas, including DOD spending. But this is not the right way to do it. Its just a political ploy.

rant over.

Where is the my point went right over your head smiley? I wasn't saying government employees own 5000sf houses. My point was that a home is much more important than cell phones and cable. But we as tax payers can't afford mansions (ie millions of government employees). All we can afford is a double wide. I think it's time government employees start looking the youth in the eyes and tell them the youth owe them a living. We're borrowing $1.5+ trillion a year. All of which will have to be repaid by future generations. Ours and the older generations certainly aren't going to pay it back.

 

[Johnny C]

So do away with the government employees.

Now who supports the military?
Sure we could downside and pay contractors, but they would end up costing as much or more than the government workers.

Either way, we are taxed to pay for the work, and it goes back into the economy. With contractors, the workers are paid less and the companies profit.

Again I ask...who will do the work?
Unless you get rid of the work the gov. employees are doing, you will pay more to have contractors do it!

Read that twice and maybe you will understand it.

 

[Johnny C]

BTW

We need to get out of 2 wars, close half or more of the overseas bases and cut the military budget in half for a start. I work for the DOD and I still think this. I would be willing to give up my gov job if they actually tried to balance the budget.

Cut half the handout programs too, and thats most of the programs

 

[hornadylnl]

So do away with the government employees.

Now who supports the military?
Sure we could downside and pay contractors, but they would end up costing as much or more than the government workers.

Either way, we are taxed to pay for the work, and it goes back into the economy. With contractors, the workers are paid less and the companies profit.

Again I ask...who will do the work?
Unless you get rid of the work the gov. employees are doing, you will pay more to have contractors do it!

Read that twice and maybe you will understand it.

How many government employees serve a constitutional purpose? If they don't, they need to go. It's amazing how many civilian government employees it takes to supervise privates doing all the work.

 

[2001FZ1]

How many government employees serve a constitutional purpose? If they don't, they need to go. It's amazing how many civilian government employees it takes to supervise privates doing all the work.

You have a tainted view of how the government works, especially in the DoD.

The number one job of the federal government is to protect the American people. With out the military and government employees supporting the military, this job would fail. Do you really want a private party protecting the US? As soon as N. Korea or Iran offers more money for their military tech, it would be sold to them. I prefer we have the best toys in the play ground.

 

[langb29]

You have a tainted view of how the government works, especially in the DoD.

The number one job of the federal government is to protect the American people. With out the military and government employees supporting the military, this job would fail. Do you really want a private party protecting the US? As soon as N. Korea or Iran offers more money for their military tech, it would be sold to them. I prefer we have the best toys in the play ground.

I agree with you, not all jobs can be done by contractors. For example, those who think the FAA can be privatized, I don't think they realize that FAA also coordinates military, commercial, and private aircraft all together in one airspace. Would commercial airlines control our military aircraft? What about foreign aircraft? Would they maintain the radar sites around our border as well, even if there is no profit gained for having them? If you think ticket prices are high now, just wait!

 

[hornadylnl]

You have a tainted view of how the government works, especially in the DoD.

The number one job of the federal government is to protect the American people. With out the military and government employees supporting the military, this job would fail. Do you really want a private party protecting the US? As soon as N. Korea or Iran offers more money for their military tech, it would be sold to them. I prefer we have the best toys in the play ground.

I dealt with several civilian employees while in the military. Looked more like a make work program than anything. Do we really need to pay Herman the German $30+ an hour to pop up targets at a range? Do we need civilian employees on military bases whose only purpose appeared to be giving those in uniform a hard time? The bureaucracy these guys enforced was ridiculous.

What percentage of government employees have the first damned thing to do with defense? We all love to complain about deficit spending. We're spending $1.5 + trillion above revenues with every single recipient of the $3.5+ trillion saying not my ****ing dollar. Borrow it from china and **** our children. I need my government job.

 

[2001FZ1]

I dealt with several civilian employees while in the military. Looked more like a make work program than anything. Do we really need to pay Herman the German $30+ an hour to pop up targets at a range? Do we need civilian employees on military bases whose only purpose appeared to be giving those in uniform a hard time? The bureaucracy these guys enforced was ridiculous.

What percentage of government employees have the first damned thing to do with defense? We all love to complain about deficit spending. We're spending $1.5 + trillion above revenues with every single recipient of the $3.5+ trillion saying not my ****ing dollar. Borrow it from china and **** our children. I need my government job.

So you saw an extremely low number of government people doing something they were probably over paid for and now we are all like this. hmmm...... sterotyping are we?

What percentage of government employees have the first damned thing to do with defense?
At the Navy/Army base in southern Indiana, its 95%. We have the Natural resources dept, secuirty for the base a couple other groups that are there to support the base or the civilians. most others are on programs that support the warfighter.

Please continue to talk out of your arse and show your ignorance.

 

[hornadylnl]

So you saw an extremely low number of government people doing something they were probably over paid for and now we are all like this. hmmm...... sterotyping are we?

What percentage of government employees have the first damned thing to do with defense?
At the Navy/Army base in southern Indiana, its 95%. We have the Natural resources dept, secuirty for the base a couple other groups that are there to support the base or the civilians. most others are on programs that support the warfighter.

Please continue to talk out of your arse and show your ignorance.

I didn't ask how many federal employees are at your base. I asked how many federal employees have the first damned thing to do with defense. That means every single person paid by the US federal government throughout the world.

Not my dollar.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

How many government employees serve a constitutional purpose? If they don't, they need to go. It's amazing how many civilian government employees it takes to supervise privates doing all the work.

Dude, you sound like the guy who says "Who needs dairy farms, If I need milk, I just go to the store and get it".

 

[hornadylnl]

Dude, you sound like the guy who says "Who needs dairy farms, If I need milk, I just go to the store and get it".

Dude, you sound like the guy who says **** our children, keep borrowing from China. $1.5+ trillion in deficit spending. Every recipient of the $3.5+ trillion says not my dollar. If we can't cut spending then we deserve to burn just like Rome. **** it, I don't care any more.

 

[Twangbanger]

I agree with the "not my dollar" analysis. I know at least one person who rode the bus to Washington DC to participate in the Tea Party rally in 2009...while simultaneously receiving unemployment compensation for a job he left voluntarily, as part of a retirement "buyout" package (back before state law was changed to make those kinds of people ineligible for unemployment compensation, as a result of the state's fund being tapped out during the crisis).

I know of another defense employee - a fundamentalist Christian, no less - who was one of the first to line up for Obama's Cash for Clunkers program. Of course the taxpayer should subsidize my vehicle purchases - "you only live once, get all the gubmint money you can, if you don't, somebody else will just get it" (Apparently, being a cheapskate trumps small-government ideology, in some people's minds).

This really makes me wonder if the libertarian concept of limited government ever really had a chance among the American people. I'm beginning to think that what I used to mistake for solid, full-spectrum conservative thought among many people (including belief in small government in that classification), was really nothing more than people who simply didn't like gays/blacks/fill in the blanks, and were perfectly OK with the federal government ballooning to any size possible, as long as it didn't mess with their personal little apple cart.

So I like the Tea Party, "cut everything across the board" approach. I hear a lot of military-related folks here saying that doesn't make sense, and I somewhat agree with that analysis. But, it seems to be the only way cuts can actually be put in effect. When you try to do the "smart cuts" approach, and target them to non-essential areas, guess what? All those people line up and say, "My paycheck is essential!" (to me). Which is no doubt true...but misses the greater point here.

In Washington, the only "smart" cut - is a cut that doesn't get made. I've seen it again and again in defense contracting work. When cuts have to be made, they line up all the programs according to which are most "essential" - which actually means, which ones have the most political clout and jobs tied to them. The least influential ones get dropped - but the remaining ones get to live on, just as wastefully as they ever did. They don't get touched. Then, after power changes hands and new priorities prevail, full funding gets restored, spending comes back to previous levels...and the institutional waste is all still 100% there. Most often, it's the promising development projects that get cut, because they're still low-dollar, aren't "in production," and don't have a lot of jobs attached to them yet...while the Lockheed F-35s and C17s and V22 Ospreys will live on and on and on, whether they fill a need or not...just because they're "in production" and a lot of jobs are tied to them. That's what "essential" means to Congress...and the Pentagon knows it, which is why they rush things into production before the design is fully hashed out, so the program gets fully staffed-up on the contractor end, and politicians/contracting officers will be hesitant to TFC the program.

At least if you cut everything, everyone has to tighten the belt and look closely at what they spend on. Which is the whole point. I seriously doubt there is any part of government that cannot withstand a 5% cut and still perform its function just fine. There is at least that amount of pure waste in everything the government touches, you just have to find it. It's hidden in the interstitial crevices between work tasks, built-in by decades of bureaucratic thinking.


But as long as you make so-called "smart, targeted" cuts - cuts which let certain "essential" functions get away scot-free - that means many functions always escape that microscope of waste analysis. Which is why it has to be across-the-board, or nothing at all. That's the only way you get real change.

"Targeted" cuts mean no cuts at all, for most of the government. They just sit and wait to see which programs get "voted off the island" - then everybody else can breathe a sigh of relief...and go right back to doing everything just like they always did.

(And as an aside for the gov't. folks who don't like contractors...most of your bosses higher up in gov't. agencies WANT a certain amount of contractors working for them, so they'll have an automatic "firewall" of non-GS people they can lay off in the event their funding ever gets cut).