Why do we always look for budget cuts in the least effective and most painful places?

2015-06-11T03:17:15-04:00

With the sequester serving as the catalyst to nonsensical budget cuts so negligent they just sew division in the force, it appears clear we have become ineffective at policing ourselves. Does anyone else see negligence in bold print when it comes to money saving "attempts"?

http://taskandpurpose.com/senates-proposed-housing-cuts-provide-lesson-not-save-money/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=hp-facebook&utm_campaign=culture

The Senate’s Proposed Housing Cuts Provide A Lesson In How Not To Save Money

A close examination of the numbers behind the proposed cut to basic allowance for housing shows junior enlisted and women would suffer the most.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 11 at 2015 3:27 AM

2015-06-11T03:27:55-04:00

The sequester has done a lot of damage.

This is what happens when congress cannot get its act together and they put their partisan political interests ahead of national security.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 11 at 2015 3:45 AM

2015-06-11T03:45:40-04:00

Does anyone else think it's funny that the first place the Senate looks to make spending cuts is in the Defense Budget but balk when it comes to reducing their own benefits?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 7:15 AM

2015-06-11T07:15:49-04:00

This is a raw deal for not just duel military couples and family members, it's a raw deal for the leadership.

Who do you think has to explain this kid's now "second class citizenship" to him/her? Answer: The Sergeant.

Who is going to find it more difficult to get the mission done when the talent pool is further reduced because of retention and recruiting issues? Again: The Sergeant.

I could go on, but anyone with a iota of common sense knows that messing with pay and benefits is a waste of time and causes more damage than good.

Has anyone here, besides me, ever heard of the Veterans Party of America? People want military and veterans to have their own party/voting bloc, well, there's a start.

Response by 2LT Scott Armstrong made Jun 11 at 2015 7:19 AM

2015-06-11T07:19:06-04:00

Quite simply I think policy makers look to inflict maximum pain in budget cuts so that they are avoided in the future. Feeding the beast is the institutional mindset of government. They have little or no incentive to be cost conscious.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 11 at 2015 8:29 AM

2015-06-11T08:29:39-04:00

Because its high visibility and gathers votes from half the population while pissing off the other half. No one would give a rats ass if they cut $10M from the save the striped rainforest owl budget or Turds as a new energy source project because no one's ever heard of them. And congress won't cut spending on local pork barrel projects because again, that's what gets them votes. Of course why they won't cut relief money to foreign countries or military support money to ally nations is also a mystery.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 8:50 AM

2015-06-11T08:50:50-04:00

A few years ago, my local school district put a new operating levy on the ballot for referendum. It had four parts, each gloriously touted in a glossy mailing that I would receive in the mail about once a week. One would reduce class size. Another, update technology in the classroom from blackboards to a computer based projected image. And so on. Sounds good. Cost: $820/ year per houshold.
On the other side of the brochure, dire consequences were predicted. Class sizes would increase. Heat would be turned down in the winter. After school activities slashed and coaches laid off. Band would be eliminated all together, as would AM Kindergarden. All this without a single dollar being cut from their normal revenue sources. Since they had already voted to increase spending on other things, the costs without a levy would have to come from the aforementioned programs. THIS got me to go to the School Board meeting.

So I did my homework on the ISD 11 budget, and came armed with information. I got up and pointed out the cost of producing and mailing their brochures (they had their own printing facilities to make these glossy, professional mailings, saving some costs) to the 100k-ish housholds in the district would pay for AM Kindergarden if they reduced their weekly mailings by one. A second fewer printing run would be able to pay for their coached and band teachers and have quite a pot left over. And so on.
A board member tried to tell me I was being overly simplistic and that my figure were wrong - which I rebutted citing my source as the official public record and minutes from previous meetings.
Mt point is that when faced with an outcome that elected officials didn't want, they deliberately avoided changing line items that were recently added (the legacy of the SB members) and chose the most offensive items to cut in order to purposely drum up support. At the end of the day, two of the levies were approved and two weren't, the SB "found" the money to do what they wanted anyway, and the levies were back on the ballot two years later repackaged to do some other critical upgrades "or else".

Note: The school levy votes were always in odd numbered years to avoid the high turn out elections when national elected positions are on the ballot. This was not an accident.