Why Are We Selling the Dept of Defense?

[The-Phoenix]

We are selling jobs within the Dept of Defense (that answered to the american people) to contractors (who answer to a CEO) in record numbers, is this really a good idea????? *I can understand this for what I call customer service related jobs (Social Security offices, etc) *but getting rid of people with years of experience in supporting our troops and replacing them with people who can only do what the contract allows them to do is ludicrious. *We are cutting Dept of Defense jobs in record numbers when we are about to go to war, is anyone running this train? *Is this another example of government agencies NOT talking to each other? *Somebody tell me if I missed something.

[Bob2351]

Please enlighten me. I am not aware of this issue or its ramifications. Would you be kind enough to point out some news articles concerning this issue?

[Terri]

Welcome The-Phoenix! We're glad to have you here at http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/gopusa.gif Drop by the Precinct thread to get acquainted!

Are you speaking of federal Civil Service jobs that are being contracted out to private industry? I have mixed feelings on this subject. I too will be waiting for any links you might provide.

[pRIMrose]

This is probably a really http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif question since I'm not at all up on this particular subject. However, hasn't the government (Dept. of Defense) along with other departments always contracted some things out to the private sector? http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif

[The-Phoenix]

OK, I can see you folks are gonna make me work a bit here http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I will dig up the links (making the rash assumption that I can find them again). Just for conversation, what I am disturbed about is that we have always hired some contrators to assist in project development (weapon systems, computer systems, etc). The practice of selling the routine , day-to-day jobs to contractors that began with Clinton is continuing on a grand scale, I can only assume that the real erason is that Dept of Defense (Civil Service) jobs do not allow hardly any kind of political involvement, they can be fired for even mentioning anything about contributing to a candidate. Contractors are not held to these rules and the CEOs of these companies CAN give back huge amounts of money from their contracts, sounds like a policy doomed to corruption. Let me know, I am really afraid that we are selling the govenment to political cronies and THAT is what the Civil Service was created to prevent. Those Dept of Defense employees might not all be the hard chargers we like to see BUT they work for us, never get confused that contractors work for a business that has making money as its prime motivation.

[Bob2351]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Yes The-Phoenix you will find that this group provokes hard work! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif They make me think things through all of the time and have changed my mind more than once. Now about this issue you have raised, how many jobs are we talking about and in what areas? I knew that the government routinely used independents, but had not heard that it was becoming widespread.

[The-Phoenix]

In no specific order, just some things I found

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0103/011503p1.htm

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1002/102202gc1.htm

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1202/122002p1.htm

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1202/120502p1.htm

[Charie]

Man, if you go from link to link you find out all sorts of things.

There is a 50-50 law which allows military depots to outsource half of their work. *There's a problem, though. *There has been such bad recordkeeping on this that the government isn't even sure if the services have been keeping to this percentage. *It's pretty much, $400 million here, $200 million there, and pretty soon you're talking about some real money.

The DoD wants to do away with the 50-50 law and be able to outsource what they want (did Clinton ever pay any attention to things Defensive?)

It does point up all the money that's frittered away and just plain "whereabouts unknown". http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif

Just one small area of this topic.

[pRIMrose]

Didn't BOR tackle the DOEducation awhile back because they had misplaced hundreds of millions of dollars and the auditors couldn't find it. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif Also another Department, I can't remember which one right now.

Evidently there is no one watching the store and even after it's been robbed no one does anything about it. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

The website CAGW and others can enlighten you till you http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/barf.gif It would seem that no government department is exempt from this egregious behavior. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/teeth2.gif

[The-Phoenix]

I just find it amazing that the government would want to get rid of good paying jobs and people who know how to do them, but if I really knew the truth it would most likely be money going from a contractor back into our elected representatives coffers. *Maybe I am the wierd one here, I would EXPECT our government to pay its employees better than most (not all) businesses, the problem comes with making sure you get your moneys worth since the Civil Service is the most "politically correct" workforce in the world I think. *We had a supervisor recently that had been assigned a problem that several people had already failed at, he referred to the situation as a "tar baby" and was disciplined for it, talk about over-sensitive. *(I think I have drifted way off my original post). *Save out defense jobs for government employees (there, that gets it back http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif *haha

[The-Phoenix]

My only comment on the below is this: running the Pentagon "like a business" means cutting corners on our troops, national defense is NOT a money making business, its survival and many times that means you do not always take a good business method, you take what is best for the troops and the national defense. *I am getting very worried about "businessmen" running the military.

Below taken from my GOPUSA Newletter:

"Sen. Ensign praised the Secretary's efforts in operational matters and expressed support for his proposed reforms. Sen. Chambliss echoed his colleague's sentiments and added, "For the first time in my eight years in Congress, we are now running the Pentagon with a business-like approach."

Sen. Graham discussed the Secretary's "ambitious plan for restructuring" that involved civilian personnel management and base closures. A supplemental request for $10 billion that failed to pass Congress was termed "probably legitimate" by Graham, but was not the subject of the meeting.

Questions about base closures were addressed by Sen. Ensign who said, "There's about 20 percent of the bases, probably, domestically, that need to be closed." He indicated that such a move would "cause a lot of political heartburn." "

[Terri]

It's hard to know what is right when something has grown to the proportions of the DOD.

I would like to see it run in a business like way when it comes to paying small fortunes for common items and we all know that has happened.

I see nothing wrong with transferring jobs to the private sector when it's not mission critical areas.

However, it often doesn't get the desired result. When something is so huge, it's really hard to have effective oversight.

[The-Phoenix]

The problem here is that each year they magically decide that they actually had a few more jobs NOT mission critical (the term is inherently governmental), so when they have sold all the jobs that they said last year were not "inherently governmental" they just decide they suddenly have more jobs that fit into that catagory. *Watch your money people, its going to folks that don't answer to you, only to the bottom line. *If they are in to make money, seems to me they can be bought by the highest bidder, not a good situation to me. *I wish to make the obvious statement that I am NOT undecided here:) * I think our politicians on both sides of the aisle are selling these jobs and getting campaign funds in return (at best). *We are selling our troops safety as I see it.

[The-Phoenix]

Well just a note, I was told that the people that dropped the grenades in the 101st tents in Kuwait were local contractors we had hired. *We used to bring our own support personel before we decided it was too expensive, guess a few lives are cheap price to pay. *Somebody got money off of that savings and probably will donate to their local politician. *Again I still belive all government jobs should work for the government so they answer to the people and have GOOD security investigations done. *We are still selling the Dept of Defense, a few lives must be cheap it seems.

The Phoenix

[Terri]

Phoenix, early reports are that these were translators. I think it's pretty common to sign on locals to translate as we probably can't possibly have enough translators on the DoD payroll for a war.

Of course, this story may change but that is what Fox is reporting right now.

[Der Alte]

There was a very good article several months back that explained that the SOD, Rumsfeld had a survey conducted over a period of two years to pin point areas where the taxpayers money could be put to better use. Part of the results indicated that there were a number of jobs that would be far cheaper to contract out and would not affect the efficiency of the department. No military positions would be contracted out, only jobs held by Civil Servants that could not justify their existance. If you had been around them as long as I was, you would understand his position. To many come to work, drink coffee with their feet up on the desk, take long lunches and go home early - and draw big paychecks and fat retirements - all for doing very little during their career.

[Drewman626]

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.
- Milton Friedman


One thing you have to remember is that the DoD has had decades to ramp-up the "frivolous" spending and "cushy" jobs for FOB's and such. Many jobs have been "created" for friends and donors that are nothing more than paid vacations.

One thing this Administration promised was to get rid of these things.

Now, I have no referrence that this is what's happening... but I wouldn't be suprised.

[The-Phoenix]

Well when I sift thought the usual "lazy govenment employees" crap, I wish to share a bit of my experience. *I have been working for the DoD for 30+ years since I left the Army and I can tell you that I never had a job where I could come in late, take long lunch, etc ad nausem. *This might be true in some places but in all my assignments we support the troops, we worked many hard hours for free during Desert Storm and the logistics was good. *Compare that to the mainly contract support you have now, we can't even get enough uniforms to our troops. *I won't be working much longer but I can tell you that getting rid of many thousands of employees that knew their job and selling them to contractors who only work to please some CEO is not an improvement. *Additionally, 90% of the time its a lie to say they are cheaper, the WORKERS get a smaller check and less benefits but the company we hire gets a ton. *Good example is a 40K a year job we tried to contract out was going to cost us 93K. *The only savings is that if we ran out of money we just fired them, glad to see the govenment has such an interest in their employees. If you believe the figures the government puts out to support their moves you are naive "Figures don't lie, but liars do indeed figure" *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif