Pentagon Warns of Sequester Furloughs

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta informed hundreds of thousands of his civilian employees this week that they could be furloughed if the sequester takes effect on March 1. In a letter to the entire Department of Defense workforce, Panetta warned that "should sequestration occur and continue for a substantial period, DoD will be forced to place the vast majority of its civilian workforce on administrative furlough." This could impact as many as 800,000 civilian employees, which Panetta argued "will result in a serious erosion of readiness across the force."

Posted by AuntieSocial at 06:30 PM | 64 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

AuntieSocial

Joined 2007/10/08
Visited 2013/05/19

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Decline of the American Working Class (10 comments) ...

It's Time To Play: Guess The Retorter! (7 comments) ...

Schiff: Fed knows a increase rate will collapse faux economy (2 comments) ...

Ben Bernanke to announce Federal Reserve IPO SYMBOL (FKU) (0 comments) ...

Dear President Obama, America refuses to issue money as debt (10 comments) ...

that's a lot of indians.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

that's a lot of indians.

Which kind of Indians?

The ones with feathers and peace-pipes (the cool Injuns) or the walking disaster-area kind?

#1 | Posted by Rigel at 2013-02-21 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's a good start, only another million to go.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-21 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This could impact as many as 800,000 civilian employees, which Panetta argued "will result in a serious erosion of readiness across the force.""

Leon Panetta is a retard. Readiness for what? An invasion by Venezuela?

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-21 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Leon Panetta is a retard.

No, he is senile.

A fine difference.

#4 | Posted by Rigel at 2013-02-21 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Defense "Industry" aka the military industrial complex is as addicting as herion and withdrawal will be just as painful.

#5 | Posted by squinch at 2013-02-21 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

withdrawal will be just as painful.

#5 | Posted by squinch at 2013-02-21 12:38 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

To about 800,000 workers and their families, sure. Some percentage of people actually die going cold turkey, by the way.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-21 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

they're lying.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-21 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Will these newly unemployed folks be laid at Obama's feet too?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-21 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#8 Of course. After all the Obamaquester was Obama's idea alone, he alone voted for it in the House and the Senate and then signed it.

- Wing dings.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-21 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole sequestration can be avoid IF Congress votes to repeal the cuts.

But alas the congresscritters love the drama.

The curtain rises on act iv.......

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-21 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If some people lose their jobs, so be it."

- John Boener.

P.S. the only person that should lose their job over this is you, you orange-faced drunken coward.

#11 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-02-21 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let them go crying to all the public employees who have been laid-off or fired.

This will hurt southern states the most. Now maybe they will try to modernize their economies and get off the government teet.

#12 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2013-02-21 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing but a joke - there will be no 800 thousand laid off as the sequester just cuts down a percentage of future spending (increases) by the government. Just your typical scare tactics. obama asked for the sequester and I hope he gets it.

#13 | Posted by MSgt at 2013-02-21 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

The lazy authoritarian liberals began this and have had 6 months to take care of the problem and what have they done, NOTHING.

Obama and company have continued to do nothing through out his tenure and struck a deal to push out the cuts but now scream and scare the public because they didn't do anything when they have had time to fix the problem.

#14 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-02-21 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Will these newly unemployed folks be laid at Obama's feet too?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-21 01:26 PM | Reply |

Oh, yeah. He played his Alinsky games and now it'll come back to bite him. Like Howard Dean said: "Let it happen."

#15 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Like Howard Dean said: "Let it happen."

#15 | Posted by matsop

Well, Congress has become very good at doing Nothing.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-21 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 As usual the left points fingers and accepts no responsibility whatsoever. The house passed two sequester avoidance plans.

How many did Harry Reid propose? The President?

NONE just like the last Budget they passed, or even offered. The left was salivating over Obama's sequester last year. Many here were proud of it and spoke of how they actually preferred it....not wanting to compromise.

Are you now pretending to have ANY suggestions????

#17 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-21 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its Checkers vs. Chess. Who do you think will loose this argument, Republicans and the MIC, or Obami and the people.

Let the cuts happen and see how fast social services are restored. No one wants to see starving children and people are tired of war and want a peace dividend. Remember that term...

#18 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2013-02-21 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

DR uberlibbies are now 100% behind the military industrial complex now. Remember when they used to say stuff like, we need to cut defense? Like when then said it was a disgrace that we spend more on our military than then next--whatever, 20? 30?--largest countries combined?

Now that Obama has pretended he gives a damn, suddenly they pollute the blogosphere by becoming neocons. There are 800,000 civilian employees of the Pentagon. Eight. Hundred. Thousand. Read that again, slowly, until you get it.

#19 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-21 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"DR uberlibbies are now 100% behind the military industrial complex now. Remember when they used to say stuff like, we need to cut defense?"

Leon Panetta used to a San Francisco liberal. As soon as he walked through the doors of the Pentagon he become just another hack for the military-industrial complex. Funny how often that happens in Washington.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-21 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure seems to pay better. I doubt he could have gotten a civilian job that allows him to fly back-and-forth between Monterey and Washington on a wide-bodied jet all by himself every weekend.

#21 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-21 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

As the inimitable Howard Dean said about the sequester: "let it happen". It would take about a quarter of 1% off the GDP and show at least there is some thought process going on in Obungler's cerebri.

#22 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

President Obama proposed it, Congress accepted it, what's not to like?

Fiscal Cliff: Reborn! T-minus 7 days and counting.

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-21 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one wants to see starving children

#18 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2013-02-21 06:44 PM | Reply |

Prolix is sure one funny guy----the old "starving children" canard.

#24 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well I guess by the actions of our Government, this statement proves true....

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," Mr. Rumsfeld

BTW, Thanks for proving one of the Worst "Secretary of Defense" right. We will never learn from our mistakes

Hillbilly Armor Mount Up!!!!

#25 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2013-02-21 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

This sequester is a crock. It's a decrease in the rate of spending increases. Now, someone tell me why 800,000 employees would be furloughed when all the sequestration is is a decrease in the rate of spending increases. Only lefties/demorats could be naive enough to drink the kool-aid.

#26 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"let it happen"

Let's light this candle!

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-21 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure glad Obama proposed and signed into law the sequester.

#28 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"let it happen"

Let's light this candle!

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-21 07:22 PM | Reply

Let's have a birthday cake full of them.

#29 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

This will hurt southern states the most. Now maybe they will try to modernize their economies and get off the government teet.

#12 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

Yeah...southern states are known for being big in the defense industry.

*(IDIOT!)

Sorry...I sneezed...San Diego, Suburban Boston, Northern Virginia will all suck the [bleep] sandwich on this one.

#30 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-02-21 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," Mr. Rumsfeld

BTW, Thanks for proving one of the Worst "Secretary of Defense" right. We will never learn from our mistakes

Hillbilly Armor Mount Up!!!!

#25 | Posted by cmbell73

The [libs] never post the whole Rumsfeld quote, or the one from Bush about bin Laden.

Whatever though. Rumsfeld was able to rebuild the military and fight two wars with less money than Zero has spent losing Afghanistan to the mullahs.

#31 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-21 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah. Prolix's stroll down the short road to Total Retard had me laughing too.

It's the "modern economies" of Wall Street finance, Hollywood moviemaking-for-tax-credits, Big Military Contractors, and Ivory Tower think-tanks that suck hardest and longest on the government teat. "Too Big To Fail" ain't happenin' in the bayous of Louisiana or in the Colorado Rockies. Liberal Democrats in New York and Connecticut are floating on a river of zero-interest green, and need Obama-voting drones to pretend that the real vultures are guys trying to run a small roofing business somewhere in Alabama.

#32 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-21 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a drop in the bucket, we spent more money giving away to other countries for "services", government needs to be cut way back to include pay cuts for every politicians.

#33 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry...I sneezed...San Diego, Suburban Boston, Northern Virginia will all suck the [bleep] sandwich on this one.

#30 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-02-21 07:29 PM | Reply |

Appear to be bastions for Obama supporters. Could it be the lefties/demorats that wanted all these defense cuts in the past suddenly are having second thoughts since it would affect their voting blocs more. Politics sure create strange bedfellows.

#34 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Whatever though. Rumsfeld was able to rebuild the military and fight two wars with less money than Zero has spent losing Afghanistan to the mullahs.

#31 | Posted by uglyblinddate

Don't forget that Obama also lost Iraq to err, well, somebody.

Have you learned to speak Farsi yet so you understand your new Mullah Overlords?

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-21 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rumsfeld was able to piss away $3 trillion turning Iraq into an Iranian province after he and Gannon's punchboard renovated the Pentagon.

FTFY

#36 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2013-02-21 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Iraq was the one thing Obama left completely alone. And that's why it uniquely seems to be working out okay.

OTOH, how's Libya looking? How about the economy? Obama"Care"? The best way to prosper in this world is to have Barack Hussein Obama completely ignore you.

#37 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-21 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

how's Libya looking? How about the economy? Obama"Care"? The best way to prosper in this world is to have Barack Hussein Obama completely ignore you.

#37 | POSTED BY UGLYBLINDDATE

I think you may have hit something here...Perhaps the economy will turn around if we start referring to the U.S. as ChinaIranSyria??

#38 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-02-21 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the question becomes.... How do you Limit Civilian Support, Whithout Hindering Military Effectiveness??? How does Sub-Contracting Services Effect, Military's Performance???

#39 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2013-02-21 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So the question becomes.... How do you Limit Civilian Support, Whithout Hindering Military Effectiveness???"

By cutting the waste and being more efficient. That's the whole idea.

Parks are going to take a hit as well. Glacier and Yellowstone are planning to open two weeks later to save money on initial snow removal to open the roads.

#40 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-21 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is actually typical of the way Democrats work. Whether at the national or local level. They'll cut police, or shut an entire park, rather than spreading the cuts out, or doing anything sensibly. So Zero will probably furlough the TSA and make everyone stand around for 4 hours instead of 1, confident that MSNBCNBCABCCNNCBS will go out and interview people who demand that Washington do something about their inconvenience. Or they'll close entire national parks, and interview parents of 10-year-old kids with Downs or CF who wanted to see Yosemite just once before going into emergency surgery next week.

Just like with the fiscal cliff. Nothing stopping Hussein from finding a microphone and declaring, "whatever Congress does or does not do, my administration will ensure that every Social Security check gets paid, and every dime of interest paid on our debt." That would be what a good Chief Executive might have done. But we don't have one. We had an American Idol contest for President, and now we wonder why nothing works properly.

#41 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-21 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So the question becomes.... How do you Limit Civilian Support, Whithout Hindering Military Effectiveness???"

oh dear...maybe our soldiers will have to peel their own potatoes and wash their own pots and pans again.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-21 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Could he be exaggerating? Are all those civilian employees really needed?
Do we really need to have armed forces people deployed all over the world especially since Obama doesn't want us to be a military super power?
Is armed forces procurement as lean and mean as it should be?
80 billion is a lot of money, but what percentage is it of the total spending?

"Methinks he does protest too much."

#43 | Posted by Donald at 2013-02-21 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

80 billion is a lot of money, but what percentage is it of the total spending?

"Methinks he does protest too much."

#43 | Posted by Donald at 2013-02-21 08:59 PM | Reply

Fiscal year 2011/2012 had outlays of about $3.8 trillion. If they based that as their base for the 8% zero based budget increase for the next year, the increase would be about $300 billion. Then if you took the $80 billion off the increase of $300 billion, you would have an increase in the 2012/2013 budget of about $220 billion. No matter how they figure it, you don't get a budget cut----it's all smoke and mirrors. You will just get a decrease in the rate of spending increases. Time to put the monster on a diet.

#44 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-21 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

WHAT A BUNCH OF GARBAGE! Obummer proposes and gets the sequester passed, says he will not accept any changes in the terms........18 months ago. Now that HIS program is going to happen he is panicking. Could it be if the world does not end he loses his credibility? So he goes to one of his cronies and has them spew this garbage. Think about it, the defense department will see about 25 to 30 billion cuts in the increase in their budget this year. If the 800000 people are going to lose their jobs average $20,000 per year, probably very low, that means becasue we do not spend 30 billion we are going to cut 16 trillion dollars of payroll? What total B.S. Just keep drinking the kool aid, htis president is an embarrasement to the american way of life, what a loser and history will bear this out.

#45 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-02-21 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So the question becomes.... How do you Limit Civilian Support, Whithout Hindering Military Effectiveness??? How does Sub-Contracting Services Effect, Military's Performance???"

I am eligible fore retirement in six-point-five years. On the date I leave, I will gleefully inform anyone who is listening how much tax money (I believe)is wasted on programs that not only don't add value to the mission of national defense, but actually detract from it. Sometimes in way that would leave civilian managers and leaders aghast in disbelief.

My only concern with sequestration would be that the actual units involved with defense would be sidelined in favor of support units who were better at convincing government of their absolute necessity. And if you don't understand this, don't worry. Before entering the military I wouldn't have understood either.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-21 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Madbomber

As I understand it the sequestration only cuts the increase in the budget. The dollar amount is less than 1%, and I am sure, if they want to, in the Pentegon they can find 1% in their increased budget to cut. The government needs to cut every departments budget 5%, something the business community has been doing for years. Cutting expense, utlizing resources better, all ways business remain afloat. A 5% cut, as bloated as the govenment is, is a no brainer. If they went to the department heads and said "your budget is being cut 5%, after you spend all your money everybody goes home and does not get paid" would be a good start. Give department heads a percentage of the savings as a bonus. These are all things the business community is very familiar with. The first round is not at all painful. The second and subsequent rounds get a little tougher.

Of course expecting politicians, either party, to do something intelligent is a stretch.

#47 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-02-21 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's face it....... The damn sky is falling again. We are still spending more money per year than we did last year. Where's the cut???

#48 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-22 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Defense "Industry" aka the military industrial complex is as addicting as herion and withdrawal will be just as painful.
#5 | Posted by squinch at 2013-02-21 12:38 PM

Thus the "suicides" to keep the whistleblowers at bay for as long as possible - even at the highest ranks.

they're lying.
#7 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-21 01:10 PM

Precisely. The wars are being purposefully continued to maintain these industry. Drawdown naturally implies lessening the footprint.

All military contracting should be gone through with a fine-toothed comb. These para-military scum are not even hiring Americans anyhow.

The Pentagon is a treasonous, dangerous and should be considered the primary contributor of nearly all of the terrorism across this planet.

#49 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-02-22 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Pentagon is a treasonous, dangerous and should be considered the primary contributor of nearly all of the terrorism across this planet.

It's ridiculous statements such as this that detract from the legitimate complaints regarding the military and the defense industry. And to accuse the DoD of being terrorist, you would actually have to redefine terrorism.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-22 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see a lot of checkers players here.

You don't think the welfare southern states will be hurt by this the most?

Politics is chess not checkers.

#51 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2013-02-22 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Pentagon is a treasonous, dangerous and should be considered the primary contributor of nearly all of the terrorism across this planet."
It's ridiculous statements such as this that detract from the legitimate complaints regarding the military and the defense industry. And to accuse the DoD of being terrorist, you would actually have to redefine terrorism.
#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-22 03:52 PM

Well, if the truth about 9/11 is that the Pentagon fabricated everything and orchestrated the attacks directly would that change your mind regarding the nature of global terrorism?

I see a lot of checkers players here.
You don't think the welfare southern states will be hurt by this the most?
Politics is chess not checkers.
#51 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2013-02-22 04:48 PM

I disagree - politics is a rigged cup game.

#52 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-02-22 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

People, please.

Rule number one: If it was spoken by a national level political figure, the reality will be anything but the stated outcome.
Rule number two: Anyone who does not believe rule number one is either new to the game, a run of the mill loyal partisan or merely a slow learner.

Go ahead. Challenge me on this. Link to any instance that rule number one has not been the reality in the end.

#53 | Posted by libertarian_gi at 2013-02-22 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Well, if the truth about 9/11 is that the Pentagon fabricated everything and orchestrated the attacks directly would that change your mind regarding the nature of global terrorism?"

Terrorism can be loosely defined as the use of violence to create fear as a means of achieving a desired political end state. The DoD has more weapons and firepower than any other organization on the planet, they don't need to use terrorism in order to achieve that end state. In any case, it wouldn't change my mind about terrorism. It doesn't matter who orchestrated 9/11, it's still terrorism. It's something of an odd question though. If the Pentagon were to target itself, using any means, is it really terrorism?

If I beat myself up, can I be charged with battery? Can I charge myself with battery?

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-22 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

ah yes....and all those senators just forget all about the stop the sequester bill that passed the house but ended up somewhere inside harry reids' office...

tsk tsk tsk

and now they scream...

tsk tsk tsk

LET IT RIDE....lets SEE if it's really what the ole boys say gonna happen.........Im saying it will be nothing of the sort EXCEPT for what the potus DOES to INSURE bad things happen..

#55 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-02-22 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Terrorism can be loosely defined as the use of violence to create fear as a means of achieving a desired political end state. The DoD has more weapons and firepower than any other organization on the planet, they don't need to use terrorism in order to achieve that end "

lol. In other words, they are the baddest terrorists on the planet!

#56 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rumsfeld was able to piss away $3 trillion turning Iraq into an Iranian province after he and Gannon's punchboard renovated the Pentagon.

#36 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

WTF does that have to do with anything? What's your point?

#57 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-23 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

So the question becomes.... How do you Limit Civilian Support, Whithout Hindering Military Effectiveness??? How does Sub-Contracting Services Effect, Military's Performance???

#39 | Posted by cmbell73

WRONG!!!!! The question becomes; How is spending more this year than last year become a CUT!!!!????

#58 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-23 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

"How is spending more this year than last year become a CUT!!!!????"

Everyone's 2013 budget is being reduced by 8 or so percent. Call it whatever you want.

#59 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-23 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obummer is not upset defense is being cut, he's p.od he can't take that money and spend it elsewhere.

#60 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-23 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you like how lahood said TSA agents will back log airports? All the dems have their talking points. They have absolutely zero ideas on how to curtail spending. Any thought whatsoever will force the u.s. into severe depression.

#61 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-23 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

DAVE POST 60

BINGO !!!!!!!!

#62 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-02-23 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who's plan was this?

Both Obama and Boehner supported the plan and urged Congress to pass it, which it did, with bipartisan majorities. The supercommittee deadlocked, though, so it never proposed new cuts. Hence the sequester.

Whose idea was it?

It was Obama's idea, but Republicans agreed to it and provided key support.

The most detailed account on this point is in The Price of Politics, a book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward about the 2011 debt ceiling standoff. His reporting shows the White House developed the idea and presented it to Democratic leadership on July 28 and to Boehner's team on July 30.

Both sides saw it as a way to force further negotiations later, according to Woodward. The Obama team thought there was "no chance" Republicans would allow defense cuts to happen, while Boehner said Democrats would cave to save domestic programs. Woodward quotes Boehner predicting the sequester "is never going to happen."

So now it's going to happen. I say we get rid of all of them and get a fresh new Congress and President. They are playing Chess with our future.

#63 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-02-23 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I say we get rid of all of them and get a fresh new Congress and President."

And you propose doing this how?

#64 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-23 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag: