Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/11/2016 12:18:25 PM

Many of us wondered what it would take for the Dems to turn on Hillary. Now we know. A stream of Dems are coming to the fore proclaiming Hillary unfit, tainted, crooked and likely to be indicted and not healthy enough to hold office. What was the straw that broke the camels back? It was reported that Trump was considering re-appointing Hillary to be SoS.

/sarcasm OFF

I don't know anything more about Tiller son than what I've seen in the last 24 hours but I like what I am hearing. I am in favor of business folks in government if for no other reason than it keeps a politician out. Finally someone seems to making picks based on qualifications instead of who's "turn"  it is. I am dead set against Petraeus because it would put a major block against being able to prosecute Hillary. Dems would be screaming how can you prosecute her when the current SoS did the same thing. Of course the circumstances are totally different but that wouldn't matter. I tend to think he is unqualified simply because of his transgression with classified info. He should never be allowed access to classified info again IMHO. I realize he holds a ton of classified information in his memories alone but that is not the same same as current info although some I'm sure still has national security implications. It is just that the optics would be terrible after the Hillary fiasco.

Romney needs to go to the Veterans Administration and straighten out that mess.  That is his Forte. It is how he made his fortune. That swamp needs to be drained and the alligators skinned and made into belts to whip the rest of them into shape. Fire the entire top rung of the ladder and let them sue in court. We could find out what judges and juries think of how our veterans are treated.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/11/2016 1:59:37 PM

I am thrilled to see all the panic in the hearts of bureaucrats when civilian business people are mentioned for appointments to key leadership jobs.  Bureaucrats have only two priorities  in life, doing as little work as possible, and keeping their job.  Nothing puts the fear of God in them more than having a boss that is results oriented, as are business managers.  Love it!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Wix
Date:	12/11/2016 4:41:23 PM

I strongly disagree about your assessment of goverment worker.  Yes, there are some bad one and some good ones.  But in my 32 years, I found many more good ones than bad ones, at least in DoD. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Lifer
Date:	12/11/2016 4:44:18 PM

Totally agree with you on Petraeus.    But,while we have no way of knowing,  I will bet you he still has at least a

Secret clearance.  I don't know how they could justify a Top Secret for him. 

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/11/2016 5:45:16 PM

wonder how much DEPT heads are spending before TRUMP takes office ? too bad he cant put a FREEZE on spending NOW

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Hound
Date:	12/11/2016 5:54:09 PM

I understand your defense of the defense dept., but that is only one small cog in the wheel.  To learn how things are accomplished in minimum time and at minimum expense, all bureaucrats should have to intern in private industry before being allowed to make any decision in government.  Broad statement, but that's the based on long term observation--and no experience thank goodness.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Hound
Date:	12/12/2016 12:12:41 PM

I'm not sure with its budget, Defense is a small cog in the wheel.  :-)

I don't know about now, but at the time I went to work in the government, the vast majority of people that went to work there, did so because they wanted to make a difference for their country.  Maybe it is different, because you know if you don't do your job, soldiers, sailors and airmen might die.  Also because you don't get to go around saying "can't", "no", "not my job".  Now I would be the last person to say that Defense is perfect and everyone that works there is high minded and dedicated. I had some senior employees that had to be "encouraged" to take their retirement, because they were dead wood.

My experience with SS and VA has been terrible and it always makes me angry because that is why so many people take a dim view of government employees - the lack of committment.  These are the people that perhaps take the job to sit around and do nothing.  I'm sure they are in other departments too, and that's why those agencies and departements may be on the cutting block.  Yes, some of them get overly passionate with their regulations, but please don't discount Congress's role there too.  One letter from a constituate and the next thing you know, you are directed to write regulations and set up "oversight" jobs.  In my view, Congress does more harm than good and that is why I am passionately in favor of term limits.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 12:38:51 PM

Actually, probably not a lot.  Some sort of budget was passed to keep organizations afloat, but I doubt there were any new allocations.  Now if I had multi-year dollars (that didn't have to be spent in one year), I might be tempted to get stuff on contract in a hurry, but that would be for stuff already in development, production or allocated to a program.  Trump is going to have a hard time with Congress when it comes to cutting budgets - because all those dollars mean jobs in a Congressman's district and if that goes away, it's hard to get re-elected.  Take Joint Strike Fighter - jobs in 45 states and in 6 foreign countries.  No way they were ever going to cancel that program.  The more slash the dollars from the program, the more expensive it becomes, because you extend the production schedule, which is expensive or you reduce the number of units and that costs more money too, in the long run. 

And while I am on the subject I have three other myths I need to address.  One is that not passing a budget and issuing a CRA means that the government cannot do anything more than keep spending levels the same as the previous year (so you can end up working under CRA for years), but it doesn't take into account inflation, but your operations and maintenence costs continue to rise.  So you are not saving any money. 

When you hear about government employees getting a raise from Congress, Congress does not allocate additional dollars to cover it. So agencies and departments have to find the money - less training, holding jobs open longer, not making planned computer buys, you get the picture.  I know people find that hard to believe, but it is the truth. 

Thirdly, hiring freezes do not save money.  It looks good to the taxpayers, but really, all you are doing is decreasing the cost of operations and maintenance, and increasing the cost of aquisition dollars.  There is work that has to be done.  When you don't have enough civilians to do the job, thanks to the Clinton Gore Reinventing Government, you hire contractors.  The idea behind this was that you can let contractors go when they are no longer needed and save the government money.  But the truth is, instead of paying for civilian benefits, you are now paying overhead for contractors.  And most professional grade contractors cost as much as govenrment employees.  And every option year on a contract, the cost goes up.  Because no one ever says that "we have less money, we will do less and cut things that need to be done.  Instead they say "we've still got to get this work done and we have to hire outside help to do it.  Now, people that are on contract cannot make decisions for the government, so govenrment people still have to sign off on their work. 

I am not trying to show off my knowledge at all. I was schooled by some of the best government accountants and budget people.  I had a lot of misperceptions about money and budgets.  Here is another one - when you do your budget, you always pad additional lines with things that you may or may not end up doing - so that way you can go to the Comptroller and ask them to reprogram money to any lines that you are short of fund on. 

And then there is reimbursible dollars, but that is for another discussion. 

Just don't be fooled by the media and the WH and Congress. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 2:12:49 PM

Hound what you describe is how the taxpayers get screwed, not how real world private sector works. Yes, some line items in budgets get padded but I  many cases laws, rules and regs implications enter by government prevent them from being used elsewhere. I  private sector when revenues (budgets) go down REA L cuts get made.  When they stay flat raises are canceled and any planned increases are put on hold. Capital improvements are taken off the table.  Folks may even be asked/forced to take pay cuts. You can't just go out and hire a contractor to do a job that there is no money for employees to do. No/less money means real cuts,  not budget trickery.

More and more industry has gone to using temp agencies to fill positions but it is not because the payroll budget was cut so let's just hire it out. They do it because it is cheaper for someone else to pay the benefits, if any, and taxes and such associated with full time employee. But once again, when the bosses say cut, folks go away. If a position is eliminated there is no option to just hire it out to a contractor. That position  and money is gone. The duties are re-assigned to others, usually with ZERO increase in pay for those who must take on those responsibilities. For one example my significant other has been at Russell for 40 years. In the last round of attrition the one employee who was a direct report to her went out along with many others.  She was naturally given his duties. But along with that two others who were retired out and position s eliminated had their responsibilities transferred to her. One of them was a licenses professional and I was shocked that those duties primarily came to her. But she now does 90% of what that position did.

Bottom line is she now is doing what a couple of years ago 4 people did. She started going in 30-45 minutes earlier everyday to keep up. Obviously there was some dead weight on payroll, but that is true in any organization. The point is those duties were reassigned, not contracted out. The money was taken out of the budget, not reallocate to a contract agency. I believe that the DVD probably has a higher calaber employee than HUD, DOE, EPA, etc, but you also need to realize your government experience has virtually no correlation to private sector business. Especially in small and mid-size business where budgets run tighter.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 2:38:56 PM

Have to wonder if the General who will be leading the Pentagon willl do anything to fix this or will he just protect his buddies?

From FOX

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 3:18:33 PM (updated 12/12/2016 3:37:04 PM)

Dont know about the Pentagon but maybe from the Presidents office since he has already started with Air force one costs, F-35 Spending costs probably a good start.  Glad you are giving Trump the kudo's he deserves for stopping some of this wasteful spending before he even becomes president - Hopefully when he replaces Obama in January he will be able to do so much more starting with plenty of pen and phone executive orders that I am sure will make your biased liberal media's heads explode.  Maybe a Budget without a bunch of continuing resolutions, maybe even some actual downsizing of some government, I am sure you and I would differ one which ones should be cut back, eliminated or expanded so not going to waste my typing.

Not even to start to mention the fact that Obama and his pick for the pentagon could have cleaned this up over the past 8 years - so you want to give a pass to the guy currently doing the job - and put the responsibility on someone who has not even start the job yet.  Sounds like a Democrat.  Obama had no scandals in his 8 years *sorry threw up in my mouth just typing that one *, and lets blame GWB for everything for 8 years, or the guy who is not in office yet - and 1st heard about it this morning when i was reading the paper.

LOL

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 4:20:43 PM

"so you want to give a pass to the guy currently doing the job - and put the responsibility on someone who has not even start the job yet." 

Phillsie....now think if I were trying to give the current Defense Secretary Carter A PASS...WHY WOULD I EVEN POST THE ARTICLE???????

And YES, the logical question is will Trump's Def Sec get to the bottom of it????? 

I wonder what the Hound has to say about the 125 billion?????

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Hound
Date:	12/12/2016 4:52:12 PM

Term limits!!!  Wow, now that's a dream we all have.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 5:03:35 PM

I do see a problem with having a "general" in charge of defense, but remember, I think most of the generals under consideration are the same guys 0-BAMMIE had forcefully retired or who retired in disgust.  Those guys were doing their jobs and couldn't stand the HIWIC.  Now that presents another problem.....o-BAMMIE's little snowflake, LGBTQUEER loving, limp wristed generals that are currently in charge!!  Hopefully, MADDOG will fire the whole lot...

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 5:06:26 PM (updated 12/12/2016 5:07:58 PM)

Gooffssiiieeee - because you have already given a pass to basically anything and everything scandel related for 8 years.  You were willing to get behind Hillary for president because of her flowing resume and abililty to drain swamps, fix budgets and solve those hard problems. 

Hopefully he will get to the bottom of it, and hopefully the president, congress and most of DC will learn to do with a lot less - like the rest of us in what has been reported as such a booming economy.

Cant speak for Hound but I would say it is a drop in the bucket of wasteful spending and it all needs to be accounted for as the swamp gets drained.  Maybe if we hold the government to the same accounting standards they apply to all of corperate America that would be a start!!

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/6-5-trillion-missing-from-defense-department/

How about the 6.5 Trillion missing from Defense not some cost cutting measures not implemented that were recommended by a review board?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/

how about the 6 billion the state department cound not locate.

I want them to trim or eliminate the fat from the budgets and start to account for it or go their butts to jail like the public sector does, including the clowns on both sides of that isle in congress.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Hound
Date:	12/12/2016 5:14:02 PM

If only - but probably the one thing both sides agree will never happen.  Politicans will never pass a bill that will cut their money and power, or they will pass it so that it only goes into effect in 100 years or something sending it so far down the road that by the time we get there it will be a moot point.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 5:27:29 PM

Depending on the General I do not have a problem with it.  I would rather someone in the military who has a clue what can and can not be done in terms of killing and breaking things based on what we have in inventory both weapons and soldiers.  We have seen what happens when politicans micromanage wars and conflicts such as Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq etc.  We need a clear goal for a soldiers and let them do what they do best.

Oh we know where the enemy is at, we know where they stockpile their weapons but nothing can be done because it might hurt someone feelings, or cause an incident.  Sorry when you are at war - you play to win, you kill them and break their stuff to the point where they can not wage war anymore and quit.  Dont tell them 2 weeks before hand that you are going to drone stike the tent three camels to the left - you just do it and then you might get the person you are trying to actually take care of, instead of seeing convoys of trucks leaving the city right before you told them you would attack.

oh but Bush lied about WMD's, well when you tell someone you are planning to go to war with them for weeks or months dont be suprised it stuff gets moved around, not the smartest plan.

https://spectator.org/60689_new-york-times-rediscovers-weapons-mass-destruction-iraq/

It is widely believed that Saddam Hussein maintained no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) after the 1991 Gulf War.

Indeed, those who had long followed the issue knew that the ISG’s conclusion couldn’t possibly be true—because the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) destroyed tons of proscribed Iraqi material in the years after the war.

Indeed, senior officials in the U.S. and other governments, with no less access to critical information than the ISG, reached a very different conclusion about Iraq’s proscribed weapons: they were moved to Syria, on the eve of the war. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 7:03:33 PM

I don't think I have drawn any paralells between government and industry.  In fact, those who would draw those parallels would be wrong.  Government is not a profit making organization, where as industry is. But my point is that, If you can only hire one person for every two that leave, the work of the person that left still needs to be done.  And yes, sometimes it involves a lot more hours for those that remain.  I can't think of too many times in my career when I was working at least 10 hours, sometimes as many as 14 hours.  Over a certain salary, you do not get paid overtime.  If you are lucky you might get comp time, but usually not. 

And my second point is that some of those laws, regulations and policies are directed by Congress and sometimes they direct "oversight", that means a new responsibility.  And everybody hates "oversight" responsibilities because it is a thankless job. 

Believe me, govenrment managers and supervisors would be thrilled if they could fire people like private industry does. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 7:10:48 PM

That is a good question.  My gut is that he will be more intereted in strategizing the war efforts than mucking around in the budget.  Of course, he will have to be involved in the budget, because he will have to sign off on the Defense budget proposal, but I doubt, once he is inplace, he is going to care much about civlilain personnel, as long as we have a war to fight.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	One to Watch
Date:	12/12/2016 7:27:22 PM

Next to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of the Strategic Command is the most powerful person in the military.  STRATCOM was formed out of the old Strategic Air Command (SAC), and is SAC on steroids.  In addition to strategic bombers and Minuteman missiles, STRATCOM picked up submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), the space mission, and the national cyber security program.

Last month I had the pleasure of attending the STRATCOM change of command ceremony where Air Force General John E. Hyten took command of this far-reaching organization.  I won't go into detail, but I KNOW the character and devotion to service this man embodies and am very comfortable that he will continue to serve honorably under the Trump administration.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Dems finally turn on hillary
Date:	12/12/2016 8:06:58 PM

I read that article.  My thought?  I'm surprised it was only $125B.  We've been pouring money into Afghanistan, the Corps of Engineers have been over there building stuff and the military was given money just to pay off tribal leaders.  There is also a bit of fraud and waste in the government credit card program.  I don't know what the scope of their study was or over what period of time. 

As far as the F-35, I had an insightful look at that program while I helped them with their technology transfer issues.  First of all, the aircraft is the most complex aircraft we have ever built.  It is fully integrated with a lot of sensors that take the data from the sensors, analyze it, integrated it with data from other sensors and put it on the display for the pilot.  You don't need to be an expert in software development or execution to realize that is a very complex task.  There were a lot of change orders and change orders cost money.  Secondly, a lot of the physical characteristics in terms of materials used on the plane.  And as you can probably imagine, there were a great many changes that were needed in the production.  We imposed a lot of requirements onto Lockheed and other participating companies as far as software and node security in the transmission of data to the European companies participating in the program. And then there is Congress. If memory serves me correctly, 45 U.S states had something industrial as it related to the F-35 and not one member of Congress is going to let anyone even talk about cancelling the program, because when you cut jobs, it's harder to get re-elected.  Additionally, at one point Congress funded a second engine manufacturer - a move that no one in DoD supported.  Several times Congress has reduced the money for the program and extended the production which end up costing more money has Contractors do not get to take advantage of the economies of scale of parts puchases and there is also a cost associated with companies keeping the skilled labor onboard, even through breaks in production.   Then there was the testing, which if you recall did not go well in the beginning.  In fact, I still believe there is concerns about the safety of the aircraft. 

One other thing I would like you to keep in mind and that is the US User.  It would be nice to think that the design is done and locked in but that isn't how it works.   As soon as you get the design finalized the user decides he needs an additional bell or whistle on the thing, or they come up with another mission to use it for, and then there are different versions to meet those needs.  So decisions that have been made already have to be remade and that costs money too.  Keep in mind, we're not making widgets, but highly sophisticated aircraft.  So before anyone knocks  Lockheed in the head and say that they have overcharged the government, but I wouldn't take that bet at this point.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Phil
Date:	12/12/2016 8:23:01 PM

from your lips to God's ear.  If only it were that easy.  You have 4 military Departments and each of them have a number of components, and money is allocated to each one.  And they all have different need, different missions, different priorites.  You have acquisition dollars, operations and maintenance dollars, you have reimbursible dollars and there are black program dollars. It's not that there aren't standardized accounting and budgeting practices but it is not completely consolidated.  There are reports being generated all the time.  But, as I said previously, it is not a profit making business, there are not stock holders to fire the CEO and sometimes mistakes can be perpetuated for years before they are found.  There isn't even one standardized email system.