Gates announcing major military cuts on CNN.

[Swede]

RIght now.

[no limit]

1. I reced this. But I'm curious how major?

[Swede]

2. The proof will be in the pudding.

But they are claiming billions to be saved.

[no limit]

14. Billions doesn't seem like very much. How many billions?

[YOY]

3. Wonder if they effect the MIC or the enlisted man harder.

Hope for the former...expect the latter.

[Arkana]

4. How major?

[gratuitous]

5. They're now buying paper clips in bulk instead of individually

Savings realized will be dozens of dollars every year!

[tridim]

7. Billions.

[jpak]

9. how many billions?

:shrug:

[tridim]

16. I was just reading the headline from CNN.

[Arkana]

19. Billions and billions?

</carlsagan>

[jpak]

6. The GOP will fight this tooth and nail - deficit chicken hawks

yup

[valerief]

8. Do major cuts mean no more supplementals or real cuts? nt

[Blue Owl]

10. So long as they're not replacing these military cuts with private contractors

at 3x the cost.

[valerief]

11. Ah, that's most likely the plan! nt

[hootinholler]

13. That seems to be the opposite of the plan...

He was talking about reducing glut at the top in in-housing a lot of what the intel contractors are doing. Talking about reducing contractors.

I found it encouraging in a good first steps kind of way, but, the proof is in the pudding.

-Hoot

[qazplm]

23. one tiny example

in my field, military law.

Legal Assistance attorneys are attorneys who help Soldiers with things like leases, wills, powers of attorneys, contracts, marriages, divorces (limited help), dealing with business disputes, lemon laws, stuff like that.

There was a movement at the first half of the decade to replace those military attorneys with civilian attorneys, with the idea being that would free up those attorneys to do other work more operationally orientated (military criminal law, operational law, advisers to commanders, stuff like that). But as time has gone on, it hasn't really happened, I think because of the expense involved in paying all of those civilian attorneys to come in.

Because of the need for bodies on the front lines in Iraq, I think we saw a movement towards "freeing up" positions by sticking contractors/civilians wherever we could fit them. Now I think the need is dissipating and the costs are more prohibitive.

[enlightenment]

15. With the business world 'advising' the Pentagon, who knows.

The plan Gates will outline is similar to one suggested last month by the Defense Business Board, a panel of company executives who advise the Pentagon. The board said Gates should cut the number of civilian employees by at least 15 percent. The panel also identified Joint Forces Command as contributing to much of the contractor bloat because it had more contractors than government employees on its payroll.

*emphasis is mine

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqcXuKannTX_7n023YQ9kAYbeF5gD9HG54U80

Of course they aren't talking about the mercenaries they hire - these are just the civilian employees who toil behind the desks.

[jpak]

21. They plan to reduce contractors by 10% apparently....

n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. It won't be the easiest and most obvious cuts, unfortunately

I.e. ending two useless and completely unnecessary occupations.

[valerief]

17. No, that's a gravy train for too many VIPs. nt

[qazplm]

24. well we will end one of them by2011

those 50K troops are only supposed to stay until then.

[unblock]

18. will they convert the savings to cash and ship them on palettes to iraq?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x144033

[Scuba]

20. When your annual budget is $1 Trillion it'll need to be hundreds of billions to be 'major' cuts.

edited for accuracy

[eppur_se_muova]

22. $100 million would be 0.01 % -- hundreds of BILLIONS would be "major". nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. There is no real cut just not a big increase`

NY times article


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8909798