Whoa: Army slashes 8,700 jobs as budget cuts kick in

posted at 7:00 pm on December 9, 2011 by Tina Korbe

First, these aren’t the cuts triggered by the Super Committee failure. They’re cuts to meet funded targets established by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and President Obama’s budget. Still, this isn’t good news. If DOD has to eliminate 8,700 civilian jobs just to meet pre-Super-Committee cuts, what will the Department have to eliminate when the Super Committee cuts take effect?

More on this move from The Washington Post:

The Army said Thursday it is moving forward with plans announced in July to cut about 8,700 positions, using a mix of early retirement offers, buyouts and attrition to trim the jobs by the end of the fiscal year in late September. …

The cuts will come in 37 states at 70 different locations across eight commands and agencies with nearly 90 percent of the cuts taking place within the Installation Management Command, Army Materiel Command and the Training and Doctrine Command. Most of the cuts are likely to occur in Virginia and Texas, where most of the DOD’s civilian workers are located. …

The failure of the bipartisan debt supercommittee means the Pentagon budget could be cut by a total of $1 trillion over the next decade — what defense leaders warn is a “huge” cut that would amount to a 23 percent reduction in the defense budget, resulting in furloughs and layoffs of “many” civilians and a reduction in the size of the military. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has warned that the cuts could be “devastating” for the Pentagon, creating a “substantial risk” that the country’s defense needs might not be met.

As always, I marvel at the manifold, ridiculous ways in which this administration — and, yes, a cooperative Congress both pre-2010 and post-2010 — is willing to deepen the deficit at the same time that it refuses to ensure adequate defense funds. Sure, let’s cut waste in the Department of Defense — but, then, let’s reinvest in modernization.

Meantime, at the very least, if politicians aren’t going to really have the backs of our men and women in uniform, they could at least stop using gimmicky “war savings” to fund other deficit-deepening measures. Sometimes, it seems to me the only real cuts the government is capable of making are to defense. We’re through the looking glass …


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I still think it’s ridiculous that we’re cutting from the DOD. When a family is trying to stay within their monthly budget, they start at the bottom– stop eating out, things like that. They don’t start by not paying their bills! You start at the bottom and work your way up. The DOD is at the top for us. Even more ridiculous is the fact that Obummer has vowed to veto any attempts to stop the cuts from happening. As someone in the next generation, I’m totally disappointed in the direction we’re headed in.

-Bethany
http://nextgenerationvoters.com/

NextGenerationVoters on December 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM

To provide for the common defense…

rihar on December 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM

It’s a little short-sighted of people to say that since the across-the-board cuts don’t kick in until January, that there will be a political “fix” before then to stop that from happening. My pops runs an engineering firm that employs a couple thousand people, and their hiring decisions now are dictated by anticipated funding from defense contracts past January.

The super committee & Obama’s failure has consequences in status quo.

Reed on December 9, 2011 at 7:05 PM

What could go wrong?

Kensington on December 9, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Maybe we could stop leaking information about how many and the type of weapons we have… the media know where our ships are. How come?

We’re too open about many things, yet can’t see Obama’s grades.

HopeHeFails on December 9, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Dear God, help us……these people continue to scare the krap outta me. :( Clinton shut down soooooo many of our bases when he was “prez”. That was the beginning of the end.

sicoit on December 9, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Now who’s killing gov. jobs?

Speakup on December 9, 2011 at 7:07 PM

HopeHeFails on December 9, 2011 at 7:06 PM

ANOTHER of Clinton’s krap decisions back in 96/98? Giving the chicoms our info? Weeeellllllll, here we go again.

sicoit on December 9, 2011 at 7:08 PM

This isn’t a large number, and it’s over the next year or so. No need to panic yet. Just stay calm, October is months away.

Skandia Recluse on December 9, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I bet they’ll add 8700 jobs at the IRS.

portlandon on December 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM

While by no means am I in favor of cuts that would leave us vulnerable to attack, as a conservative I’ve got to say, what’s the big deal? This shrinks gov’t, it’s a rational action in the current economic climate to shrink gov’t. If we can’t afford it, and lord knows we can’t, why should we continue to pay for it? Now preferably I’d like to stop homeland security from paying for snow cone machines in Michigan (see last night’s colbert) first, but come on, are we as conservatives really going to say no cuts anytime any where so long as they are defense related?

schmitty on December 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Penta-gone

Truth Not Politics on December 9, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Obama only likes government jobs when they are UNION government jobs. The military troops don’t pay SEIU/AFG/AFL-CIO and their ilk. Protecting our shores just isn’t as important as contributing to DNC coffers I guess.

LarryinLA on December 9, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Thank goodness we don’t drug test welfare recipients, though.

rogerb on December 9, 2011 at 7:15 PM

The EPA is hiring over 200,000+ new regulators…

… just sayin’.

Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2011 at 7:16 PM

To provide for the common defense…

rihar on December 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM

The Dems prefer the Good and Welfare Clause

batterup on December 9, 2011 at 7:17 PM

The DoD is getting funded much more than it was under Bush, stop whining. At least Tina didn’t attempt to make the broken window argument that Jazz Shaw made.

Lord on December 9, 2011 at 7:18 PM

While it’s ridiculous that we are cutting into the military over, say, NPR, they frankly got as bloated and inefficient as any other govt. organization. Let them learn some lessons in efficiency too, it will be good for all of us.

smiley on December 9, 2011 at 7:22 PM

I’ve got to say, what’s the big deal? This shrinks gov’t, it’s a rational action in the current economic climate to shrink gov’t… but come on, are we as conservatives really going to say no cuts anytime any where so long as they are defense related?
 
schmitty on December 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM

 
Quick, besides the census and postal service/roads, name two other spendy things required by Constitution.

rogerb on December 9, 2011 at 7:22 PM

O/T,Breaking
============

Virginia Tech Shooter!
=======================

More: Police say man responsible for murder-suicide at Virginia Tech was enrolled part-time at Radford Univ. – via @vtnews
59 Mins.ago
Update
========

Virginia State Police http://www.vsp.virginia.gov
Media Release
**************
**************
Regional Media Contacts
Statewide Richmond Culpeper Appomattox Wytheville Chesapeake Salem/Roanoke Fairfax
(804)674-2789 (804)553-3494 (540)829-7713 (434)352-7128 (276)228-3131 (757)424-6827 (540)375-9598 (804)674-2789
Find VSP on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/VirginiaStatePolice
News Release No. 46
For Immediate Release: December 9, 2011
(more…..)

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2011/12/120911-unirel-vsp-suspectrelease.pdf
=====================

Just in: Police identify Virginia Tech gunman as a 22-year-old student at nearby school – @AP
1 Hr.ago
Update
=======

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Let’s see. Prepared for WWI? No. Prepared for WWII? No. Korea? No. Anyone in Washington ever read US history? We already know that Barry didn’t.

GarandFan on December 9, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Quick, besides the census and postal service/roads, name two other spendy things required by Constitution.

rogerb on December 9, 2011 at 7:22 PM

The Constitution required that those 8,700 Army jobs are needed to maintain an adequate national defense? News to me.

If you’re in favor in increased DoD spending because it’s somehow found in the Constitution, then I assume you are also in favor of increased postal service/roads spending because that’s also somehow found in the Constitution, right?

Lord on December 9, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Ugh,try this again,O/T,Virginia Tech Shooting!
==============================================

More: Police say man responsible for murder-suicide at Virginia Tech was enrolled part-time at Radford Univ. – via @vtnews
1 Hr.ago
Update
=======

Virginia State Police http://www.vsp.virginia.gov
Media Release

News Release No. 46
For Immediate Release: December 9, 2011
***************
***************

GUNMAN IDENTIFIED IN VIRGINIA TECH MURDER-SUICIDE
Radford City Police Link Auto Theft to Gunman
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BLACKSBURG, Va. – Virginia State Police have identified a Spotsylvania County man as the
subject responsible for the murder-suicide that occurred Thursday (Dec. 8, 2011) on the
Virginia Tech campus. Investigators have confirmed that Ross Truett Ashley, 22, of Partlow,
Va., took his own life approximately a half-hour after fatally shooting a Virginia Tech Police
Officer. Ashley also had a local residence in the 1000 block of East Main Street in Radford, Va.
(More…..)

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2011/12/120911-unirel-vsp-suspectrelease.pdf
=====================

http://www.breakingnews.com/

Just in: Police identify Virginia Tech gunman as a 22-year-old student at nearby school – @AP
1 Hr.ago
Update
======

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Didn’t we go through this with Carter?

sage0925 on December 9, 2011 at 7:33 PM

First line in the referenced article : these are cuts to the civilian workforce at DOD.

Installation Management Command, Army Materiel Command and the Training and Doctrine Command.

Knowing how Obama works these will be the competent administrators whose position will be eliminated and they will be replaced with Obama’s peeps.

Skandia Recluse on December 9, 2011 at 7:33 PM

It a start or is the tea party really dead and always just hatred of Obama with no care how big government is as long as the right side controls it….

Down size the government you have to start at the biggest place. More Admiral than ships almost more Generals than rifles. Close the EPA, Education and Energy but don’t you dare touch the DoD. Not one bureaucrat that is employed in the DoD should go. Yeah that will save us from debt and reduce the size of government. This is why Penatta is Sec Def. To cut as much as they can when no one is looking but it will be the evil GOP who want veterans benefits cut when people are looking.

Put up a sign under new management and do not know what this button does do don’t tempts us to push it. You will not like what happens to next.

tjexcite on December 9, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Meanwhile…………….at the DMZ!
====================================

Army’s plan to layoff Korean workers sparks protests
Dec 9 2011
**********

SEOUL – The U.S. military’s apparent plan to lay off more than 400 Koreans employed on American bases in South Korea prompted protests outside at least two installations Friday.

“We’re like gum – they chew us up and then spit us out,” said Kim Chu Il, president of the Uijeongbu branch office of the U.S. Forces Korea Korean Employees Union. “Overnight, they have decided to take away the jobs of people who have worked (for USFK) for the past 10 or 20 years.

“It seems the U.S.-South Korea alliance really doesn’t exist,” he said.

Attempts this week to get the U.S. military to explain the details of its plans to lay off Korean employees on South Korean bases were unsuccessful.
(More…..)
===============

http://www.stripes.com/news/army-s-plan-to-layoff-korean-workers-sparks-protests-1.162919

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Can someone explain exactly how these initial cuts are dangerous? I’m gad to see the cuts – we need to CUT SPENDING. This just goes to show you how the mainstream war mongering GOP is not interested in cutting spending. They want “LOW TAXES and MODERATELY HIGH SPENDING” which just encourages higher deficits. Not much better than Democrats. Same ole’ crap, different year.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 9, 2011 at 7:43 PM

So,it appears,Hopey has found a way!!
(sarc)

Maybe with all the savings,he can pour
the extra loot,into his National Civilian
Security Forces,er,his 1 Million Man Army!
(sarc)

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 7:44 PM

The only government jobs liberals don’t want to save.

Esthier on December 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Without knowing exactly what the cut jobs are, it’s hard to say what the impact is, but military cuts are almost never cuts of wast, just cuts of capability. The wast is always too protected by some congressman or other.

Count to 10 on December 9, 2011 at 7:54 PM

A few comments in no particular order.

Plans announced are seldom the reality. I suspect the Army, which is ripe for downsizing, made this gesture to prepare for the real downsizing wars. They will constantly reference this 8,700 “cut” in civilian personnel as why they should not have to contribute more when the real cuts are being discussed. The fact of the matter is that the Army and Marines were plussed up for combat operations. They are the targets of downsizing.

The Army is placing the bet (realistically) that suggesting that civil servants’ jobs are at risk will result in legislative action.
It will probaly work. Margins are tight in the 2012 election. No member of congress is going to vote for slashing jobs in the Army.

Happy Nomad on December 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Well,

“The Army currently employs 343,815 civilians counting foreign nationals, according to service spokesmen,”

from: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0811/080511cc1.htm

means a reduction in workforce of .025% if my math is correct…

Put me in the camp of “I don’t see a big problem here”….

Tim Zank on December 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Whoa! At this rate the US could be below 30% of global military spending by 2111.

DarkCurrent on December 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM

The military has bureaucractic overload just like every other department of government. Of course, trust Panetta to fire all the people who are doing the work and keep the deadwood.

MAC1000 on December 9, 2011 at 8:03 PM

refuses to ensure adequate defense funds

Qualify that one. What are adequate defense funds? What is the proper role of our national defense spending? YOu don’t just get to throw that out there unjustified.

ernesto on December 9, 2011 at 8:04 PM

To provide for the common defense…

rihar on December 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM

The Dems prefer the Good and Welfare Clause

batterup on December 9, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Well the soldiers will be on unemployment for 99 weeks, I heard that helps the economy.

Conservative4Ever on December 9, 2011 at 8:07 PM

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Good one! That deserves a +1 ding…dig…dingaling thingy

Skandia Recluse on December 9, 2011 at 8:10 PM

To provide for the common defense…

rihar on December 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM

^ This !

ReagansRight on December 9, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Can someone explain exactly how these initial cuts are dangerous? I’m gad to see the cuts – we need to CUT SPENDING. This just goes to show you how the mainstream war mongering GOP is not interested in cutting spending. They want “LOW TAXES and MODERATELY HIGH SPENDING” which just encourages higher deficits. Not much better than Democrats. Same ole’ crap, different year.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 9, 2011 at 7:43 PM

As a fiscal conservative, I’m with you in sentiment, if not in exact wording. Why is DoD such a sacred cow that we can’t cut back? If conservatives are serious about spending cuts it has to happen throughout the entire government and it should hurt a little for everyone as well.

Let’s be realistic and let other nations in the world start providing for their own defense instead of making you and me foot the bill.

luckedout26 on December 9, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Good start. We need to cut more government jobs. Now time to get rid or at least cut the department of education, energy, homeland security, FDA, EPA. Defense department should NOT be spared.

nazo311 on December 9, 2011 at 8:23 PM

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 7:41 PM
=================

Good one! That deserves a +1 ding…dig…dingaling thingy

Skandia Recluse on December 9, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Skandia Recluse:It appears,er,looks like,Obama is doing creative
cuts,for his Social Justice Crusade!:)

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Bring all our soilders home from places that pose no threat to us. We dont need to nation build. We dont need fully staffed military bases on other countries soils where we operate outside of their own laws. Think about how much money (and jobs) that would save us here at home.

Politricks on December 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Bring all our soilders home from places that pose no threat to us. We dont need to nation build. We dont need fully staffed military bases on other countries soils where we operate outside of their own laws. Think about how much money (and jobs) that would save us here at home.

Politricks on December 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Yes savings up to the point when we get another terrorist attack on our soil. Not sure if you see the big picture.

Conservative4Ever on December 9, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Some weapons too important to lose in DOD cuts
Published: December 6, 2011
*****************************

It’s cloudy and almost dark when your cockpit display shows the president has given final approval for the carefully planned strike on the rogue mobile missile launchers. They told you before you catapulted from the aircraft carrier deck in your F-35C that the weather would suck. Can your bombs still hit the target precisely enough to knock it out, without causing collateral damage?

Fast forward to that cloudy night mission. Aren’t you glad the SDB II did not get delayed back during the budget battles of 2012?

Advanced weaponry can cut down on American casualties and save lives.
(More………..)
====================

http://www.stripes.com/some-weapons-too-important-to-lose-in-dod-cuts-1.162610

canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 8:48 PM

My brother in law, a chief petty officer who has served in the US Navy as an aircraft mechanic for fourteen years was just told that he would be laid off in six months, conveniently right after his fourth tour of duty at sea. He was intending to stay in the military right on through to retirement. Despite being a superb mechanic, the Navy is getting rid of him to avoid paying a pension. This is how the Obama Administration treats our soldiers. I expect this from a private corporation, not from our government toward men and women who have put their LIVES at stake in order to defend us. So much for cuts…

eyesights on December 9, 2011 at 8:52 PM

My objection is not to cutting DoD, but with starting there.The Leviathan government is too large in general, but there are much fatter and more tempting targets than the DoD.

tngmv on December 9, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Most of the cuts are likely to occur in Virginia and Texas, where most of the DOD’s civilian workers are located.

Texas must be punished for its relative economic strength and generally positive job numbers. Again.

aero on December 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Yes savings up to the point when we get another terrorist attack on our soil. Not sure if you see the big picture.

Conservative4Ever on December 9, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Having all those bases in countries that pose no threat didn’t stop 9/11 or the first WTC bombing, so I’m not sure you see the big picture. We’re broke.

You can’t seriously believe that maintaining military bases in the UK, Germany, Japan, Spain and Italy are stopping terrorists???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

luckedout26 on December 9, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Skandia Recluse: Ah, good point! That means we have plenty of time to make dang sure that the number of gubmint jobs cut by the first Tuesday in November 2012 will not be 8,700, but 8701. (Actually, 8,702 if Biden counted for anything.)

Horace on December 9, 2011 at 9:17 PM

The sooner we can get people off the military rolls and onto the welfare rolls, the better.
/Dem politician.

esnap on December 9, 2011 at 9:31 PM

self-inflicted wound. Our nation is now going to gut its defenses because of an excess of marxist-socialist politically indoctrinated doubleplusungood crapthink.

rayra on December 9, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Part and parcel of Obama’s duty to manage the decline of the United States. The light of the Last Great Hope is dying out. Prepare for it.

tom daschle concerned on December 9, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Just home after a thirteen hour day.
Ask, what is our national strategy?
What force do we need to meet it?

crash72 on December 9, 2011 at 9:59 PM

“We’re like gum – they chew us up and then spit us out,” said Kim Chu Il, [yes, that's his real name] president of the Uijeongbu branch office of the U.S. Forces Korea Korean Employees Union. “Overnight, they have decided to take away the jobs of people who have worked (for USFK) for the past 10 or 20 years.

“It seems the U.S.-South Korea alliance really doesn’t exist,” he said.
canopfor on December 9, 2011 at 7:41 PM

So did this piece of Korean gum get his education from an American university, or do all union employees everywhere feel this superior sense of entitlement?

Dude got a paycheck from the union dues of the people getting paychecks for at least a decade from the US Military. How long is he entitled to his free ride at American taxpayers’ expense?

(Please don’t preach to me about the cost savings attained by using foreign nationals. I understand it. But the sense of entitlement is ridiculous. If we pulled out of Korea the country would unify within months–the wrong way.)

rwenger43 on December 9, 2011 at 10:14 PM

This will not amount to any savings, as miniscule as this one particular move is. The money will just be spent somewhere else by Obama.

If we are going to get our spending under control, everything is going to have to take a hit.

Besides, GW Bush did almost the same thing in 1992 right after Desert Storm, except it was career minded active duty members who were targeted for separation. And that’s going to happen again, it’s already started in the Air Force.

Hog Wild on December 9, 2011 at 10:29 PM

In what sense do people think there are not 8,700 people working for the DoD who are not worth what they cost?

Aquateen Hungerforce on December 9, 2011 at 11:01 PM

In what sense do people think there are not 8,700 people working for the DoD who are not worth what they cost?

Aquateen Hungerforce on December 9, 2011 at 11:01 PM

I can think of two easily.

The “Family Service Center”, that once they get their claws into a family, continue to justify their employment by twisting that family into knots when all they asked for was maritial counsel since they were young and arguing too much. What the active duty service member got, was reports back to his chain of command about what a poor Marine he was, when I knew he was a solid Marine.

Base EPA personnel. Who came to my workspace to run a “sniffer” test to determine the amount of airborne asbestos when changing the brakes on a Light Armored Vehicle. Their report came back with a bunch of new procedures about how we had to handle materials associated with that brake job due to all the “airborne asbestos” (I’ll spare you the details, but it made the job take 3 times longer than before). When I sent a email to my unit EPA representaive, disputing the report, since LAV brakes had no asbestos in them at all, I set off a fire storm that ended with me having to speak to the unit’s logistic’s officer and explain why I would send out such an email…. that was so factual.

Hog Wild on December 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM

One wonders what the conservative opponents of this move thought they were getting when they asked for government to shrink?

libfreeordie on December 9, 2011 at 11:37 PM

so what?

the military has to be cut too along with everything else.

you can’t expect to hold the military sacred and immune to cuts. it is literally the only thing conservatives have to negotiate with.

there is a LOT of bloat and fat in our military that can be cut. we do not need to spend more than the rest of the world combined.

if and when china becomes a problem, we can ramp up military spending to deal with it.

the super committee ‘cuts’ would still result in a military budget that increased every year. there is no ACTUAL cut whatsoever, just a decline in growth.

kaltes on December 9, 2011 at 11:59 PM

sage0925 on December 9, 2011 at 7:33 PM

If you Google “Carter Defense Cuts”, you will find some lefty opinions that President Carter was actually a wild spending hawk. He actually started the hostility to the Soviets which President Reagan continued in a more lame manner. That is what they claim..they usually miss supplying any figures.

IlikedAUH2O on December 10, 2011 at 12:00 AM

8,700/1,130,000

Oh my god, the Army is losing .7% of their manpower, the end is nigh! Oh wait, these are (excessively) highly paid “civilian” jobs, that lack ANY component of risk? Well in that case…

Daikokuco on December 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Meantime, at the very least, if politicians aren’t going to really have the backs of our men and women in uniform

This is a defamatory, and silly, thing to say if all it amounts to is this -

The Army said Thursday it is moving forward with plans announced in July to cut about 8,700 positions, using a mix of early retirement offers, buyouts and attrition to trim the jobs by the end of the fiscal year in late September. …

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 10, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Oh my god, the Army is losing .7% of their manpower, the end is nigh! Oh wait, these are (excessively) highly paid “civilian” jobs, that lack ANY component of risk? Well in that case…

Daikokuco on December 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Probably a bunch of janitors and really non-essential jobs I’d say. Who knows. The military is prone to waste like every federal department, but I’d say that the military is the most organized and honest.

Gatekeeper on December 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM

8,700/1,130,000

Oh my god, the Army is losing .7% of their manpower, the end is nigh! Oh wait, these are (excessively) highly paid “civilian” jobs, that lack ANY component of risk? Well in that case…

Daikokuco on December 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Bingo! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Somebody save us! Hotgas is going all red faced hysterical over a trifle.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM

I’d say that the military is the most organized and honest.

Gatekeeper on December 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Oh, you are so innocent. A charming quality, but very naive.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM

A friend of a friend works as a civilian employee for your US DoD. He’s a pretty smart guy, but he works maybe 1 hour a day, the rest of the 7 hours he reads news online and other F-all things, and gets paid a pretty coin for this.

Every huge bureaucracy, including the Defense establishment, has fat that wouldn’t hurt to trim. It’s really silly to characterize the cutting of 8,700 office workers as a big deal. Recently there was an interview with Mike Mullen, the former top general of the US military, and he said he’s in charge of 2,200,000 people. What tha heck is 8,700 out of 2.2 million? That’s something like 0.39% of the workforce.

Stop hyperventilating and calm down. You’re all for smaller, leaner government and against big bureaucracies, right? So you should like this.

AlexB on December 10, 2011 at 1:05 AM

In what sense do people think there are not 8,700 people working for the DoD who are not worth what they cost?

Aquateen Hungerforce on December 9, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Somewhere over the rainbow way up high
There’s a land that I heard of once in a lullaby
The piles of paper of the bureaucrats so piled high in the DC sky
Are also on the backs of yet unborn children who will be by and by
Bureaucrats shaking their heads, saying, “I don’t even know what I do”
What they’re really saying is, “I…I love taxpayer money too”

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 10, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Well the Air Force can start by firing all the hundreds of civilian fitness monitors they hired to give PT tests. Go back to a crazy idea of actually having units give the tests themselves. If anyone goes to any military base, stateside or overseas, you will see how half of the civilian jobs are not mission essential and the military used to function just fine without them. Cuts to new equipment, R&D, and training budgets are what is going to hurt the military, not the firing of some civilians who get paid twice as much as the junior enlisted guy next to him doing the same job.

Jutt518 on December 10, 2011 at 3:20 AM

In business our objective is to fill, or create jobs that benefit our growth and contribute to our bottom line, otherwise we’re cooked.
Cut ALL government jobs (including military). Too many government jobs are displays of inefficiency, redundancy and add substantially to our tax burden. Remember we’re not just paying their salaries, we’re paying for their retirement.

“If it moves they tax it.
If it keeps moving they regulate it.
If it stops moving they subsidize it.” RR

kregg on December 10, 2011 at 7:17 AM

are we as conservatives really going to say no cuts anytime any where so long as they are defense related?

ENOUGH WITH THE SACRED COW BS. The military is currently the ONLY thing getting cut, Capice? It is always the first and the last thing to get cut, and it is currently the ONLY thing that BOTH parties agree to cut. When I start seeing cuts to OTHER programs as well, then I will agree with you!

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 7:48 AM

I think most people would be willing to accept cuts in civilian personnel with in the Military if it was applied across the entire Federal Gov’t.
But the thing is, its always the DoD that gets cut. Everything else is sacred…

Bruce Dickinson on December 10, 2011 at 8:19 AM

This isn’t even the beginning. Sometime after Sept 11, 2001 the military bases in the United States replaced soldiers who were guarding the entrances to the bases with contracted civilian guards. I learned from a friend that theses civilian guards are being replaced by soldiers again – as a cost cutting measure.

These civil service cuts are the mere tip of the ice berg – one estimate I read suggests cuts to the civilian DoD workforce of up to 45%.

jackal40 on December 10, 2011 at 8:36 AM

The Constitution required that those 8,700 Army jobs are needed to maintain an adequate national defense? News to me.
 
If you’re in favor in increased DoD spending because it’s somehow found in the Constitution, then I assume you are also in favor of increased postal service/roads spending because that’s also somehow found in the Constitution, right?
 
Lord on December 9, 2011 at 7:28 PM

 
Straw men. I’m saying that the things that AREN’T mentioned specifically in the Constitution should be under the knife before those that are.
 
Will these 8700 affect much? Probably not, but that’s not the point. The point is the trap. See above.
 
Here’s a start- There are over 2 million (with an “M”) federal civilian employees, and an untold number of contractors. Watch closely here:
 
If you’re not required to come in on snow days you’re moved to part time, no benefits.
 
Ta-dah.

rogerb on December 10, 2011 at 8:48 AM

I think they should start the cuts with the Air Force personnel who decided it would be a good idea to dump service members’ cremains in a land fill dump.

Kissmygrits on December 10, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Does this mean that soldiers will have to serve KP duty again?
Now that would eliminate a lot of civilian jobs.
Been there, done that.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 10, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Let’s see. Prepared for WWI? No. Prepared for WWII? No. Korea? No. Anyone in Washington ever read US history? We already know that Barry didn’t.

GarandFan on December 9, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Barry was too busy reading Soviet history and boning up on his Alinsky.

skeneogden on December 10, 2011 at 11:17 AM

The military budget (and everything else) needs to be cut more than this. It has become bloated over the past 10 years, and increased even more under Obama.

Defense budgets:
2003: $400 billion (During Iraq & Afghan War invasions)
2010: $680 billion

That’s a 59% increase in 7 years. And Republicans are complaining about cutting 8,700 civilian positions through attrition? This country is so screwed.

AngusMc on December 10, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Finally a step (a very small step) in the right direction. The DoD has thousands of GS employees who don’t do anything for the warfighter. They could probably cut their civilian work force in half and no one would notice.

Mahna Mahna on December 10, 2011 at 1:56 PM