Obama makes it worse AGAIN!!

[layoutshooter]

The current resident of the White House intends to INCREASE the size of the bureaucracy at the Pentegon by 20,000 to help CUT the cost of weapons buying. What a PUTZ!!

There are two main reasons we pay too much for weapons and everything else we buy for the Defense Department: 1, The bureaucracy is way too BIG and there are far too many layers to work through and 2, Congress almost ALWAYS runs up the cost with PORK!!

Way to go Barry, just like a Dumb-O-Crat to run up the cost of doing business to save money!! Just look at two of the other "Putzes" that backed this bill, Carl (Marx) Levin a long time "hater" of the D.O.D and John (I have no idea if I am a Dumb-O-Crat or a Re-Bum-Li-Can) McCain. Neither one of these guys are know for cutting spending.

20,000 more people who most likely will have little or no experience to get through to buy a rifle. I wonder if they will hire anyone that even knows what end of the rifle the round comes out of? Naw, now you know why they don't want to seal the border. Layoutshooter




WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's Defense Department plans to create 20,000 new government jobs to help revise how it buys more than $100 billion of weapons each year, the [COLOR=#000000! important]Pentagon's[/COLOR] No. 2 official told Congress.
The Pentagon also plans to tie contract fees more closely to performance and make deals spanning two years, or more, only when "real, substantial" savings result to taxpayers, [COLOR=#000000! important]Deputy[COLOR=#000000! important] Defense[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000! important] Secretary[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000! important] William[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000! important] Lynn[/COLOR][/COLOR] told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
Lynn said the planned jobs growth would take place over the next five years. Included would be more than 9,000 positions at two Pentagon agencies that audit and manage contracts for everything from bullets, to bombs, to bread rolls.
The remaining 11,000 new hires would come from the conversion to federal civilian slots of jobs that had been outsourced to contractors.
"This unprecedented, five-year planned workforce initiative will result in a properly sized, well-trained, capable and ethical workforce," he said.
Lynn and Shay Assad, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, said bringing more work in-house would cost less than relying on contractors over the long run.
The current workforce is made up of 127,000 government employees and 52,000 contractors for a total of 179,000, said Chris Isleib, a Pentagon spokesman.
"We are going to 147,000 and 41,000 contractors for a new total integrated workforce of 188,000," he said in an emailed reply to Reuters.
Assad told Reuters after the hearing that the U.S. Army would seek to restructure its costliest arms program, the $159 billion Future [COLOR=#000000! important]Combat[COLOR=#000000! important] Systems[/COLOR][/COLOR], as part of the Pentagon drive to link contractors' profits more closely to their performance.
[COLOR=#000000! important]Boeing[COLOR=#000000! important] Co[/COLOR][/COLOR] is managing the Army modernization program, due to be reorganized soon, with Science Applications International Corp as its junior partner.
"Our commitment is to provide best value to our soldiers and the taxpayers and we are confident we can resolve any concerns raised," said Matthew Billingsley, a [COLOR=#000000! important]Boeing[COLOR=#000000! important] spokesman[/COLOR][/COLOR].
OVER-BUDGET AND BEHIND
Pentagon weapons-buying practices have been widely criticized for decades. The Government Accountability Office has found that cost overruns on the 97 largest arms acquisition programs now total almost $300 billion. The programs are an average of 22 months behind schedule, the congressional watchdog has found.
The Defense Department's top suppliers by value of prime contracts are [COLOR=#000000! important]Lockheed[COLOR=#000000! important] Martin[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000! important] Corp[/COLOR][/COLOR], Boeing, Northrop Grumman Corp, General Dynamics Corp, BAE Systems Plc and Raytheon Co.
Lynn welcomed bills moving through the House and Senate that would beef up contract oversight at the Pentagon -- a goal strongly pushed by Obama. In February, Obama called an over-budget White House helicopter fleet being built by Lockheed as an example of an [COLOR=#000000! important]acquisition[COLOR=#000000! important] process[/COLOR][/COLOR] "gone amok."
Among other changes, the Defense Department plans to explore greater use of fixed-price development contracts, Lynn said. Although this could boost development costs as arms makers price in more of a risk premium, it would make cost estimates more accurate and overruns less frequent, he said.
The Aerospace Industries Association, a trade and lobbying group that represents arms makers and others, said stable budgets would be essential to any meaningful reform.

The use of fixed-priced arms-development contracts would not be appropriate "unless we have a program with fixed technologies, fixed requirements, and fixed budgets," Cord Sterling, a vice president of the association, said in an emailed reply to Reuters.
Opening floor debate on the Senate's version of an acquisition reform bill, [COLOR=#000000! important]Armed[COLOR=#000000! important] Services[/COLOR][/COLOR] Committee Chairman Carl Levin said it was aimed at putting major arms purchases "on a sound footing from the outset by addressing program shortcomings in the early phases of the acquisition process."
Senator John McCain, a Republican who sponsored the legislation with Levin and who has long faulted Pentagon arms-buying procedures, added: "We cannot afford to take care of our obligations in at least two wars and potential flash points all over the world and continue on the spending spree we are on."
Lynn said only about 20 percent to 25 percent of Pentagon spending would fall under the provisions of the House and Senate bills.
In response to a question from Representative John McHugh of New York, the House panel's top Republican, Lynn confirmed that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a memo dated April 30, had instructed the secretaries of the armed services and the joint chiefs of staff to brief him first on any significant shortfalls they might perceive in Obama's detailed fiscal 2010 budget, which goes to Congress on Thursday.
For more than a decade, the armed forces' chiefs have been encouraged by lawmakers to submit such wish lists of "unfunded requirements" to Congress for consideration.
"I think the secretary wants to make sure he is informed prior to the submission of the lists but the advice that the chiefs would give would be their own," Lynn said. (Reporting by Jim Wolf; additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Matthew Lewis, Tim Dobbyn)

 

[Turtle]

The current resident of the White House intends to INCREASE the size of the bureaucracy at the Pentegon by 20,000 to help CUT the cost of weapons buying. What a PUTZ!!

Not true. The jobs are already there, already being performed, it's just that a bunch of them are being performed by outside contractors, under the bid process, and now they'll be converted to federal civilian jobs that will cost less than if they remained as contractors.

The cost overruns is the biggest reason we pay too much for weapons. Defense contractors bid a dollar figure, knowing full well that's it's gonna cost more than that, and also knowing that Congress and the DoD will say, "Oh, that's OK, here's more money for ya."

If Congress started making these contractors eat the cost of their own overruns, the overruns would come to a grinding halt.

 

[layoutshooter]

In my experience CONGRESS was the main cause of MOST of the cost overruns. They almost always would add PORK or change specs etc halfway through a project. That is a sure way to run up costs. They would put in requirements for this contractor or that one depending on how much that contractor had donated to the congressmen or senator.

The process needs streamlined. We need to take 10,000 OUT of the system. Elected officials should provide oversight ONLY!! They need to be kept out of the real work of specking out these projects. Most of them have no idea in the world about these projects. Only how it will get the more votes or kick back money.

Layoutshooter

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Not true. The jobs are already there, already being performed, it's just that a bunch of them are being performed by outside contractors, under the bid process, and now they'll be converted to federal civilian jobs that will cost less than if they remained as contractors.

The cost overruns is the biggest reason we pay too much for weapons. Defense contractors bid a dollar figure, knowing full well that's it's gonna cost more than that, and also knowing that Congress and the DoD will say, "Oh, that's OK, here's more money for ya."

If Congress started making these contractors eat the cost of their own overruns, the overruns would come to a grinding halt.

I am with Turtle..article says and I quote

Lynn said the planned jobs growth would take place over the next five years. Included would be more than 9,000 positions at two Pentagon agencies that audit and manage contracts for everything from bullets, to bombs, to bread rolls.
The remaining 11,000 new hires would come from the conversion to federal civilian slots of jobs that had been outsourced to contractors.

so its only 9,000 jobs

 

[layoutshooter]

ONLY 9000? We need to be cutting 10,000 or more from the system. 9000 new GS5-7's that have no clue in the world what is going on. I remember the nightmare when we built that new system when I did this kind of junk. What a mess!! There were AT LEAST 30 layers to go through. What should have taken weeks to spec out took 2 years. The congress kept wanting to put in this or that to thank them for this or that. We were forced to write paper after paper to explain stuff to people who had no idea what they were doing. It makes no difference if it is only 9000 jobs. 1 more is too many. Layoutshooter

 

[OntarioVanMan]

ONLY 9000? We need to be cutting 10,000 or more from the system. 9000 new GS5-7's that have no clue in the world what is going on. I remember the nightmare when we built that new system when I did this kind of junk. What a mess!! There were AT LEAST 30 layers to go through. What should have taken weeks to spec out took 2 years. The congress kept wanting to put in this or that to thank them for this or that. We were forced to write paper after paper to explain stuff to people who had no idea what they were doing. It makes no difference if it is only 9000 jobs. 1 more is too many. Layoutshooter

at a g5 level not much better then the welfare rate...just shifting the money...*L*

 

[layoutshooter]

*SIGH* You are right about that. Nothing like increasing the size of government to insure higher taxes and gross ineffinency!! The halmark of the Dumb-O-Crats!! LOL!! Layoutshooter

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Privatizing a government service does not make it more efficient...a contractor has to make a profit and just how do they do that....streamlining? cutting corners...

A government service is not to make money but to supply a service to the people...

Take DOT as a sample....since privatization the roads in the winter are a mess....the plows are slow to respond the salters no where to be seen until the roads are terrible...they have to make money....make a profit...they get skimpy on the salt. Ohhh but its saving the taxpayers money...yeah right....

 

[Desperado]

playing three card poker one night got bsing with a fellow player his job bid man for construction co gov contracts his words bid a gov contract below cost when they add the extras sock it to them

 

[greg334]

Turtle,
You are partially right, the conversion will reduce the up front cost but then you have upkeep now to contend with as government employees, which in the long run causes two things, more costs and an inflexible workforce.

With the contracting out of the positions, the government doesn't pay the benefits package directly, but can reduce the workforce without a separation package consideration or the need to follow the Defense Workforce Reduction Act (or what ever it is called now).

The other thing to consider too is the problem of converting them to employees, these contracting firms have in their contract a buyout agreement which means that the government has to pay for that contractor, maybe something like 10k. So for instances if LC3 had 300 contractors up for conversion, then they - LC3 may get a easy $3m for just being there.

Oh one other thing is if the congress approves a carry over of seniority, it has happened before where some contractors were on the job for 10 years and as part of the conversion they got 10 years seniority as a government employee.

I honestly think that this is to benefit a few people in Obama's administration who have their hands in the cookie jar.

 

[Turtle]

Hey, all I did was read the article.

 

[greg334]

Yea I know but I used your name as a jumping off point for a long boring post - sorry.....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

He's a turtle...got a hard shell ///he can take it

 

[Turtle]

Did you know that turtles are a good source of salmonella?

 

[greg334]

Not to change the subject but it ties into the salmonella turtle.

You know it is really tiring to deal with elderly people who actually believe some doctors regardless what they say, these people are soaking them for their Medicare money.

The other day we told my Mother-in-law that we will take her out to dinner this weekend, some excuse to spend money.

She calls my wife up today and tells her she may have the flu, the pig flu and out outing is canceled. She complained about being tired and her legs bother her and so on. Then she tells my wife that her doctor said she got the pig flu when she went to the Mexican restaurant and eat a small botana. The doctor said that because they have Mexicans there, it is clear to her that they are spreading the flu around. Her friend, who eat with her that day at that restaurant is trying to get herself admitted to the hospital because the same doctor thinks her case is too serious to go untreated outside of a hospital because she had a small botana and a taco.

 

[layoutshooter]

I never ran the place, I just did my job to the very best of my ability. As should everyone in everything that they do. Any less is de-frauding your employer. I had a very good carrier, got to do many different things and work at levels that I only dreamed about working when I was in school. I did not get there by luck, I got there by working my butt off and making sure that I was in a position to do as much as I could get my self into. I just did all I could to insure that I was in the "thick" of it at all times. If you are going to to it "GO for the Gold"!!!! Most people don't put that kind of effort out and then wonder why they did not get to play as much as those who did. That's life!!! I talked with an "insider" friend today, I am happy to report that things are now more screwed up than they ever were in what he called the "Old Days" He said it is worse than when we had to sign for a box of pencils!! Lots of new "Bean Counters" who 'taint got a clue and many more on the way. Layoutshooter