Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They just can't help themselves......

Why is Congress NOT LISTENING TO THE MILITARY! When the Military says, we don't need that or we don't need these bases, this should be a clue to Congress. What a sad day.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

If it's this hard to cut superfluous military bases, weapons systems and post offices, where can we make cuts?

Ibanez wrote:Why is Congress NOT LISTENING TO THE MILITARY! When the Military says, we don't need that or we don't need these bases, this should be a clue to Congress. What a sad day.

Because listening to the military would entail losing votes when the bases are closed or equipment is NOT ordered.

The bill calls for a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes and restricts the ability of the president to reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons under a 2010 treaty with Russia. It also preserves ships and aircraft that the Pentagon wanted to retire in a cost-cutting move.

Really? We need more than 1000 active warheads for what exactly? Seriously, wtf is wrong with Republicans?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Why is Congress NOT LISTENING TO THE MILITARY! When the Military says, we don't need that or we don't need these bases, this should be a clue to Congress. What a sad day.

Because listening to the military would entail losing votes when the bases are closed or equipment is NOT ordered.

Well, you don't need equipment for the missle system IF THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT! It is that fucking simple. I advise those need/requirement procurement decisions daily. It's done at the local level(USN).

BTW, the US Navy is making great strides in cost savings to the tax payer, AZ, you'd be proud.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Because listening to the military would entail losing votes when the bases are closed or equipment is NOT ordered.

Well, you don't need equipment for the missle system IF THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT! It is that fucking simple. I advise those need/requirement procurement decisions daily. It's done at the local level(USN).

BTW, the US Navy is making great strides in cost savings to the tax payer, AZ, you'd be proud.

Did they stop giving out free rubbers on subs?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Why is Congress NOT LISTENING TO THE MILITARY! When the Military says, we don't need that or we don't need these bases, this should be a clue to Congress. What a sad day.

Because listening to the military would entail losing votes when the bases are closed or equipment is NOT ordered.

Sad but true. Instead of leading by making tough decisions, they only worry about being reelected.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Well, you don't need equipment for the missle system IF THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT! It is that fucking simple. I advise those need/requirement procurement decisions daily. It's done at the local level(USN).

BTW, the US Navy is making great strides in cost savings to the tax payer, AZ, you'd be proud.

Did they stop giving out free rubbers on subs?

Yeah, there was no need, the subs were already full of seamen.

Seahawks08 wrote:

The bill calls for a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes and restricts the ability of the president to reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons under a 2010 treaty with Russia. It also preserves ships and aircraft that the Pentagon wanted to retire in a cost-cutting move.

Really? We need more than 1000 active warheads for what exactly? Seriously, wtf is wrong with Republicans?

Besides the American people, politicians also like to tell the military what's best for them.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Well, you don't need equipment for the missle system IF THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT! It is that fucking simple. I advise those need/requirement procurement decisions daily. It's done at the local level(USN).

BTW, the US Navy is making great strides in cost savings to the tax payer, AZ, you'd be proud.

Did they stop giving out free rubbers on subs?

No, the culutre of spending and funding is seeing an incredible shift towards fiscal conservativism. Many projects are having this occur to them

1) minimum of 5% cut to funding. So for example a project asks for $20,000,000. Your PMO doesn't get that $20M. They get between 90%-95%. So, we say you get 95%, $19M. Then your PMO directs your project (you might be the only one, or one of 5) you identify 5% savings. Now you are at $18,050,000. But, the PMO is going to withhold 10%(at a minimum). $16,245,000.
2)So, if you are the only project that recieves that line of money, your $20M budget just became $16.2M.
3) If you're my project that $20M is now $12M. (actual figures)

So, now you are underfunded by $8M. with $2-$3M in management reserve at the PMO. It appears this way, but they way contracts are being written, this cost savings is being realized. The old practice was to spend it all. Now, if you have $600 left over on a Task Order, that $600 goes back to the treasury as cost savings. The contractors are really having to plan better in the begining. If you estimate $60,000 to comple Task Order 123, when T.O 123 is done, you should have spent your money and have an acceptable deliverable. OR have an acceptable delivery with lsome money left over b/c you were able to avoid costs.



I can only speak for the Navy and some USMC project, but the Blank Check culture is quickly eroding. At least from my position and view on Charleston, Norfolk and San Diego.

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Did they stop giving out free rubbers on subs?

No, the culutre of spending and funding is seeing an incredible shift towards fiscal conservativism. Many projects are having this occur to them

1) minimum of 5% cut to funding. So for example a project asks for $20,000,000. Your PMO doesn't get that $20M. They get between 90%-95%. So, we say you get 95%, $19M. Then your PMO directs your project (you might be the only one, or one of 5) you identify 5% savings. Now you are at $18,050,000. But, the PMO is going to withhold 10%(at a minimum). $16,245,000.
2)So, if you are the only project that recieves that line of money, your $20M budget just became $16.2M.
3) If you're my project that $20M is now $12M. (actual figures)

So, now you are underfunded by $8M. with $2-$3M in management reserve at the PMO. It appears this way, but they way contracts are being written, this cost savings is being realized. The old practice was to spend it all. Now, if you have $600 left over on a Task Order, that $600 goes back to the treasury as cost savings. The contractors are really having to plan better in the begining. If you estimate $60,000 to comple Task Order 123, when T.O 123 is done, you should have spent your money and have an acceptable deliverable. OR have an acceptable delivery with lsome money left over b/c you were able to avoid costs.



I can only speak for the Navy and some USMC project, but the Blank Check culture is quickly eroding. At least from my position and view on Charleston, Norfolk and San Diego.

At the end of the day, the sky wont fall, because those companies that sell hammers to the military at fifty bucks a pop (500% over cost) will simply sell them for 45. There are a lot of fat cats benefitting from military spending who could easily absorb a 10 percent revenue reduction and still maintain their cutting edge R&D programs.


Also Sodomy

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
No, the culutre of spending and funding is seeing an incredible shift towards fiscal conservativism. Many projects are having this occur to them

1) minimum of 5% cut to funding. So for example a project asks for $20,000,000. Your PMO doesn't get that $20M. They get between 90%-95%. So, we say you get 95%, $19M. Then your PMO directs your project (you might be the only one, or one of 5) you identify 5% savings. Now you are at $18,050,000. But, the PMO is going to withhold 10%(at a minimum). $16,245,000.
2)So, if you are the only project that recieves that line of money, your $20M budget just became $16.2M.
3) If you're my project that $20M is now $12M. (actual figures)

So, now you are underfunded by $8M. with $2-$3M in management reserve at the PMO. It appears this way, but they way contracts are being written, this cost savings is being realized. The old practice was to spend it all. Now, if you have $600 left over on a Task Order, that $600 goes back to the treasury as cost savings. The contractors are really having to plan better in the begining. If you estimate $60,000 to comple Task Order 123, when T.O 123 is done, you should have spent your money and have an acceptable deliverable. OR have an acceptable delivery with lsome money left over b/c you were able to avoid costs.



I can only speak for the Navy and some USMC project, but the Blank Check culture is quickly eroding. At least from my position and view on Charleston, Norfolk and San Diego.

At the end of the day, the sky wont fall, because those companies that sell hammers to the military at fifty bucks a pop (500% over cost) will simply sell them for 45. There are a lot of fat cats benefitting from military spending who could easily absorb a 10 percent revenue reduction and still maintain their cutting edge R&D programs.


Also Sodomy

Yeah, you will always have that. HOWEVER, with the changes coming in contracting(Fixed price or Cost fixed. no incentive fees) and procurement it will be difficult to buy the $400 hammer.


We rejected $50,000 worth of Coleman chairs because the company paid $50 for them and charged the gov't $500 per chair. These changes are occuring and it won't be overnight. It's happening and in the past 2 years, the "the taxpayer" is comimg up alot more in meetings.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
No, the culutre of spending and funding is seeing an incredible shift towards fiscal conservativism. Many projects are having this occur to them

1) minimum of 5% cut to funding. So for example a project asks for $20,000,000. Your PMO doesn't get that $20M. They get between 90%-95%. So, we say you get 95%, $19M. Then your PMO directs your project (you might be the only one, or one of 5) you identify 5% savings. Now you are at $18,050,000. But, the PMO is going to withhold 10%(at a minimum). $16,245,000.
2)So, if you are the only project that recieves that line of money, your $20M budget just became $16.2M.
3) If you're my project that $20M is now $12M. (actual figures)

So, now you are underfunded by $8M. with $2-$3M in management reserve at the PMO. It appears this way, but they way contracts are being written, this cost savings is being realized. The old practice was to spend it all. Now, if you have $600 left over on a Task Order, that $600 goes back to the treasury as cost savings. The contractors are really having to plan better in the begining. If you estimate $60,000 to comple Task Order 123, when T.O 123 is done, you should have spent your money and have an acceptable deliverable. OR have an acceptable delivery with lsome money left over b/c you were able to avoid costs.



I can only speak for the Navy and some USMC project, but the Blank Check culture is quickly eroding. At least from my position and view on Charleston, Norfolk and San Diego.

At the end of the day, the sky wont fall, because those companies that sell hammers to the military at fifty bucks a pop (500% over cost) will simply sell them for 45. There are a lot of fat cats benefitting from military spending who could easily absorb a 10 percent revenue reduction and still maintain their cutting edge R&D programs.


Also Sodomy

Yeah, you will always have that. HOWEVER, with the changes coming in contracting(Fixed price or Cost fixed. no incentive fees) and procurement it will be difficult to buy the $400 hammer.


We rejected $50,000 worth of Coleman chairs because the company paid $50 for them and charged the gov't $500 per chair. These changes are occuring and it won't be overnight. It's happening and in the past 2 years, the "the taxpayer" is comimg up alot more in meetings.