Talk Politics

Comment

Comment by Mike Stark on October 29, 2010 at 12:07pm

The real teaparty???

Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.

"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on October 27, 2010 at 9:19pm

$3 billion is being spent on this mid-year election and ALL I hear is "he's a bum", "she's a bum", "he's not worth a crap", and "she's not worth a crap". Wouldn't it be nice if any of them cared more about trying to do something positive for America instead of only trying to beat the other candidate? I'm turned off by the whole freakin' mess of them.......

Comment by greg delany on October 26, 2010 at 3:10pm

ctyankee,
I totally agree with you. I worked at Embassies overseas and I build Government buildings here in the States. I saw first hand how the DOS throws money away in Embassies and at US forest service buildings.
Where is it written in our constitution that any Government facility has to have excersize rooms and sports facilities for it's employees?
I have to pay for my own gym membership so why should Government people get it for free? I also have to use my own car for work. Why should Government people get a car supplied and maintained for free?
While I was in Moscow, I ventured out into the Russian community and found Olympic sports venues that had professional trainers that were for hire for $1 PER DAY. I rode a bike in the Olympic velodrome with a coach and rented a bike 5 nights a week for a dollar a day per person. I swam in the Olympic pool and used there facilities with a coach, for a dollar a day. The US Embassy in Moscow has a small sport complex. One indoor basketball gym, Two raquetball courts, One 6 lane indoor pool, Weight room with 40 Nautalis pieces of equipment and free weights gallore. 6 Bowling lanes, Video/ DVD center, barber shop. Then they had to hire people to live there to maintain this equipment and run the operations. All this could be done in the city on the local market and paid for by the DOS personel without making taxpayer pick up the tab.
Each department in every Government agency must spend the money they recieve in their yearly budget to recieve the same budget the following year. So when I got to Moscow in 1989 the Embassy was having a silent auction to sell of the autos that were deemed unusable. So I put in a bid for a 1987 Chevy Suburban with 17,000 miles on it. It had a full snow plow setup and since the Embassy hired a local Russian company to plow the road in front of the Embassy , the Suburban became unusable. So since I had $500 in my bank account to spare, I put in a $500 bid. No one else bid on the car so at the end of the day they gave me the car. In the glove box I found the sticker for the cost of the car. $35,000 plus the shipping from US to USSR.
This is just one of the many things that I saw and some of them much worse than that. If you don't believe we can cut our Government budget it is because you are enjoying the benefits it is giving you. The rest of our country has no idea, or they would have cut things ages ago. I think ALL Government employee should have to pay for thing like the private sector does. Pay for health care, 401 K with no pention. No free entertainment and sport facilities.
We should get rid of Embassies if you ask me, they only piss money away and party with the upper crust in the countries they are in.
My two cents worth.

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on October 26, 2010 at 1:50pm

"As for the DoD taking cuts... While there are mercenaries that could do some of the work, there are no private companies that I know of that are or could outsource the military to; ergo no budget cuts."

Maybe see what is on the way from Nay Timnes:

Civilians on deck

Navy ponders ‘hybrid crews’ for amphibs, but questions loom over savings, manning duties



By Philip Ewing

pewing@militarytimes.com

Fleet officials are studying how civil-service mariners could take the place of sailors aboard the Navy’s amphibious ships in as soon as the next five years, in what would be the biggest change to the surface force in the history of the modern Navy.

According to sources familiar with the study, Adm. John Harvey, head of Fleet Forces Command, asked Military Sealift Command planners in July for a range of pos­sibilities of bringing together civil­ian mariners and the Gator Navy, from fielding “hybrid crews” aboard a few ships to manning some amphibs completely with civilians. Manning a ship with a small number of highly experienced pro­fessional mariners would cost less than active-duty sailors, the think­ing goes; they would keep equip­ment in better shape and make sure it lasted longer, and they would free up sailors to take jobs on the cruisers and destroyers that have been suffering from the effects of lean manning.

But hybrid crews on amphibs would also translate to huge cuts in major engineering ratings; a fleet perhaps less ready to fight and take damage; and many new questions about the kinds of mis­sions the Gator Navy could accept. The Navy might give up most of its own enginemen and machinist’s mates, forcing thousands of sailors to get out of the service or move to different ratings. An MSC-hybrid amphib fleet would take the bulk of the main diesel engines and all non-nuclear steam plants outside the purview of the Navy’s engi­neering ratings, leaving gas tur­bine and nuclear engineers as the lion’s share of the active-duty engi­neering force.

Planners with Military Sealift Fleet Support Command, in Nor­folk, Va., hope to brief their initial studies to Harvey in early October; they would then likely make their way up into the senior Navy and Defense Department leadership in the Pentagon.

Navy officials would not discuss the amphib studies because they weren’t yet complete. They stressed there is no plan yet to replace sailors with civilians.

“We’re in the data-collection phase of looking into the feasibility of using MSC crew members on amphibious ships,” said Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for Fleet Forces Command. Navy officials declined to comment on the reasons Harvey had asked for the study.

A spokeswoman for Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said he supports this “discussion” between Fleet Forces and MSC, but that “it would be premature to comment on the fea­sibility of this specific proposal now while it is still in the early stages of development.” A spokes­woman for Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the proposal has not yet reached his level.

MSC’s commander, Rear Adm. Mark Buzby, was the only top­ranking official to address the study publicly. In the September issue of MSC’s official Sealift mag­azine, he wrote this in his “com­mander’s perspective” column: “The Washington and Norfolk staffs are working on a study to answer a Fleet Forces Command tasker to look into the details of using MSC CIVMARS as part of a hybrid crew to man certain Navy amphibious ships, much as we do with command ships and subma­rine tenders,” he wrote. “This is not a done deal by any means, but, if adopted, there would be huge impli­cations and opportunities for MSC across the board. I think it says a lot about the trust that the Navy lead­ership has developed in your ability to deliver capability that this course of action is even being considered.”

Hybrid crews

Few of the options said to be addressed in the MSC-Gator Navy studies would be totally new: For years, the Navy has transferred ships — including its Supply-class fast combat support ships — to MSC, and fielded hybrid civilian­sailor crews aboard former war­ships, including the amphibious command ships Mount Whitney and Coronado and the submarine tenders Emory S. Land and Frank Cable.

Never, however, has the Navy transferred as many sailors off a traditional combat warship as MSC has been asked to consider. According to two sources familiar with the studies, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly, dis­cussions began with the idea of replacing at least the amphibs’ engineering and deck departments with mariners, and also have included the idea of at least replac­ing their supply departments.

Planners also have looked into turning the 12 dock landing ships of the Whidbey Island-Harpers Ferry class completely over to MSC, one source said.

The Navy has struggled to keep the diesel engines aboard its amphibious ships in good order, and as its older steam-powered ships retire, it needs ever-fewer steam-specialist machinist’s mates to run their main engines.

At the same time, top comman­ders including Roughead and Harvey have said they want to “buy back” billets that were delet­ed aboard cruisers and destroyers over the past decade as a part of “optimal manning” concepts, which were criticized by the inde­pendent fleet review panel that Harvey convened last year. Mov­ing sea billets from amphibs to cruisers and destroyers, with civilians filling the gap, could solve those problems.

“I think it’s a great idea,” said retired Capt. Gordon Van Hook, a top Washington director for Maer­sk Line Ltd., which handles many MSC transport and special-mis­sion assignments.

“I think there’s probably some good expertise resident in the CIVMARS who operate with MSC, and they could probably help them out over the long run. It’s well­known that it’s been a problem for the Navy for years, operating [amphibious] ships, especially the engineering plants. For whatever reason, the Navy has difficulty maintaining the kind of long-term expertise that you need to keep those types of ships up, so to me, it seems like an ideal solution to get CIVMARS in there.” So, how would it work?

MSC’s deputy special mission program director, Jim Beliveau, who led the transfers of Coronado and Mount Whitney from the Navy to the auxiliary fleet, would not dis­cuss potential future involvement with amphibs. But he did describe the way the process has worked in the past. Civilian mariners enjoy specific union protections when it comes to living conditions, which means the first order of business was for MSC to make sure the accommodations were up to snuff.

“While a ship was in the Navy, operated by the Navy, the sailors in port had either base housing or housing ashore, but our mariners don’t have that,” Beliveau said. “They live 24-7-365 on the ship, that’s their home.” With Coronado and Mount Whit­ney, which were designed for sailors, MSC had to modify some of the living areas to create more space for their mariners, although those ships don’t have the compar­atively palatial appointments of oil­ers or dry cargo and ammunition ships, Beliveau said.

Still, there’s much more room for everyone: As a Navy ship, Mount Whitney had a crew of about 600 sailors, according to MSC; when it got its “hybrid” crew, that went to about 325: 170 active-duty Navy people and 155 mariners. The Navy crew and the CIVMARS go through the same mess lines and eat the same chow, Beliveau said, and their relationship “is darn good.” Mount Whitney, Emory S. Land and Frank Cable retain a U.S. Navy commanding officer, and the official prefix “USS,” but almost everything but the military mis­sions of the ships are performed by mariners. As with MSC’s hospital ships, which carry Navy medical teams, the CO tells the MSC crew where the ship needs to be and when, and the mariners plot the course, steer the ship and run the engines to get there.

Uncharted waters

For as much as the Navy and MSC have cooperated on operating or transferring ships, there are many novel implications for the prospect of hybrid crews on amphibs. With fewer crew mem­bers and an MSC-style engineer­ing philosophy based on more automatic equipment and steady­state watchstanding — for exam­ple, no general quarters — the ships likely would sacrifice much of what set them apart as war­ships.

Jan van Tol, a retired captain whose career included command of three ships, including a tour as CO of the amphibious assault ship Essex, raised several other ques­tions about moving all or part of the Gator Navy to MSC.

■ Would it really save money? “Over the long term, presumably the Navy will save in post-active-duty personnel costs, [but] in the short term, civilian labor can be quite expensive,” he said. “CIVMAR contracts, like those used for CIVMAR-manned USNS tankers, stipulate normal working hours for nonwatch tasks during day­time, with holiday or nighttime hours involving overtime rates. Since Navy warships need to be able to operate at all hours of the day and night, obviously their crews need to practice that rou­tinely, which could run up some pretty good bills.”

■ What happens if the ships need to fight? Would mariners’ contracts enable them to get off ships in case of a conflict, or would they be bound to stay with the crew — if so, against what penalty? If the Navy brought in active-duty replace­ments, it could set the ship’s train­ing and unit cohesion back to zero.

■ How will critical jobs be divided between mariners and sailors? Would they serve together on damage con­trol teams? How, generally, would a ship with a hybrid-crew respond in the event of battle damage? “If there were only a small number of military crew and only they were allowed to be on [damage control] teams, then the answer would like­ly be, ‘Yes, limited manpower could result in suboptimal DC capabili­ty,’ ” said van Tol, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “But that really depends on task allocation for the military and CIVMARS, respectively.” There are moral and legal ques­tions, too. One source pointed out that international law does not permit civilian mariners to use weapons at sea, except in self­defense — that’s why most mer­chant shippers have not armed their crews against potential attacks by pirates. But does that include its aircraft or amphibious vehicles? If a Marine AH-1 Cobra took off from a mariner-crewed amphibious assault ship and attacked targets on land, would the U.S. technically be in violation of international law? Or would everything be fine in combat so long as a mariner wasn’t the one physically pushing the button, say, to launch a missile?

But Van Hook, of Maersk, framed the future of the amphibious force in a much different way: Many Navy and Marine Corps planners privately concede that the U.S. will probably never again do a contest­ed amphibious invasion, and, even if it did, the amphibs wouldn’t come near anything like combat. So­called “anti-access” and “area denial” strategies, in which an enemy can use cheap coastal anti­ship missiles to force an invasion fleet to stand many miles out to sea, mean that it doesn’t matter what kind of ships Marines ride to battle, or who crews them, because they won’t be in the fight.

The Marine Corps has spent decades developing vehicles such as the MV-22 Osprey and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for exactly this reason — Marines need to cover long distances quick­ly because Navy amphibs will be so far away from danger.

“There’s a whole segment of the Navy that doesn’t believe these ships can go in harm’s way any­more, that they’re inappropriate with the anti-access weapons that plenty of countries have now,” Van Hook said. “Maybe it’s better to acknowledge that, to move them further offshore, and have differ­ent operating concepts.” □

Comment by ctyankee on October 26, 2010 at 1:44pm

It occurred to me that serving in the military is as much a responsibility as a right as an obligation as an opportunity, and other things too.

Let's say the military was *forced* to cut 25% from its budget. IMHO the *best* way to accomplish that would be to have the lowest performing 25% of the force cut! --GASP-- yes I would advocate the cutting of the military budget with the same zeal as I'm preparing to argue the cutting of the **ENTIRE** federal budget.

So the FBI, the CIA, DEA, INS, HHS, State Dept, and all the others have the same responsibility to take a haircut as the **USELESS** agencies do.

Not I will argue that the useless agencies get cut first, get cut deepest, and get cut *permanently*, but eventually, we will only survive as a nation with a lot less government.

People *can* be counted on to do what they *must* do to survive. But generation after generation we've learned and been taught dependence on government; in direct contrast to the Declaration of Independence under which we were established as a nation, and the Constitution that placed limits on government!

One Week from today. One week from today we send the message of our lifetimes. One week from today we unshackle our children and our grandchildren from the abomination that is "Washington DC".

Comment by ctyankee on October 26, 2010 at 1:31pm

Guys, we need to get the government out of *EVERYTHING* that has a private sector equivalent!

Regardless of whether it's a big program or a small program; if there is a private sector that performs a comparable service, then the government should *NOT* be doing it.

Example:

The Post Office. FedEx & UPS could easily whip the USPS. Ben Franklin started a great service, but it's has now reached the end of its useful life.

Bureau of Land Management. Greenpeace and their wacky tree-hugging followers could go out into the wilderness and monitor desert lizards, and spotted owls on a voluntary basis instead of paying some gumming flunky to do the same task...

OSHA, USDA, DoE(ducation), DoE(nergy), HUD, FCC, DoC(ommerce), DEA, INS, ICE, TSA, and the rest of the alphabet soup that once was composed of regular people and was legislated into "Federal Service"... These were mistakes, and it's time to undo the errors!

Take the TSA... Airlines used to screen packages & luggage but they had an exemption from civil & criminal penalty when they messed up. The result, low-grade security performed by the lowest grade of worker. We still have the lowest grade of worker doing the task, but with even less finesse than it used to have. Israel uses 'professionals' that look for behaviors that signal the need for screening. They don't blindly screen old ladies & crippled kids.

As for the DoD taking cuts... While there are mercenaries that could do some of the work, there are no private companies that I know of that are or could outsource the military to; ergo no budget cuts.

Like it or not the DoJ & the FBI, are probably exempt from cuts too, unless we were to outsource that to Interpol -- not a private agency, so that accomplishes nothing.

it's way past time for individuals to approach their Congressmen and say: "Enough! -- Your job is to represent, not to hand out favors. Every thing the government does for one it does at the expense of the many. That is wrong prima facie and it has to stop."

--In Liberty

Comment by Mike Stark on October 26, 2010 at 12:36pm

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe I said that Dixie Chicking Juan Williams was wrong, but not unconstitutional. Since the first amendment applies to the government suppressing speech, I see no reason to change my opinion. NPR is not a government agency, it is funded almost entirely by corporate grants and member pledges. They have the same rights as any employer to set terms of employment. NPR corporate sponsors members also have the right to withhold pledges, if they are displeased enough with this action.

Or does economic liberty only apply when it's the Dixie Chicks ox being gored?

Comment by Rex on October 26, 2010 at 11:09am

" so it's not a constitutional issue" No violation of freedom of speech
here. Nothing to see so just move along.

Comment by Rex on October 26, 2010 at 11:03am

Comment by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on October 26, 2010 at 8:47am

those cuts will hit the Navy HARD.....bet they'll target half the fleet and you'll see a number of carriers docked regardless of the law mandating 11 active carriers.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 46
• 47
• 48
• 49
• 50
• …
• 113
• Next ›
• Page