©
NORFOLK
Virginia Sen. Jim Webb is asking for a full Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on the possible recommendation to eliminate the Norfolk-based Joint Forces Command.
Webb wrote a letter to the leadership of the committee on Monday.
Virginia political leaders have expressed concern after learning that a Defense Department advisory board may recommend the closure to reduce defense spending. They argue that the command is crucial to national defense and eliminating it would be a mistake.
The command employs more than 5,000 civilian and military personnel.
Webb said in his letter that the recommendations are more properly addressed as part of Congress' normal budgeting. He also says the lack of prior consultation with Congress on the recommendations is deeply troubling.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Make up your mind
So webb says moving a carrier is a bad idea since it would impact the DoD budget and cost to much.
But moving a hospital ship to tidewater is a good idea no matter the cost.
And now DoD wants to reduce spending buy reducing dependence on government contractors and streamlining redundant functionality. But yet webb says that is a bad idea.
Does this junior senator have any idea what he is talking about? Do you want DoD to reduce costs or what? With logic like his, no wonder he is ignored.
JFCOM - Top heavy
Yes, JFCOM is top heavy and that is the primary reason they were put on the radar. But JFCOM has important functions, not counting academic ties to ODU's modeling and simulation, which even gates said isn't going away. The buildings aren't going away, and neither is the work being done. The only thing that will change is the name and who they report to. With twenty flag officers putting in for retirement, this is only a shell game.
For those that are interested and support JFCOM.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=152124658134379
Doesn't appear so
The only reason seems to be the high percentage of contractors. Because of how the law is written, they believe that allows them to kill all the jobs without the participation of Congress or conducting any of the impact studies.
Sidetracked your message.
In reading your reply a second time, I realized you were making references to BRAC, as apposed to the closing itself. My apologies for sidetracking your message.
The reason Gates gave
The reason Gates gave for closing jfcom was the cost to keep it running. Every building has its own GEN or ADM, there are GS15's who manage a handful of other GS15's and so on - this is unheard of in other commands. I don't know any contractor that makes six figures, not to say there isn't any, but on the other hand, I know a list of government employees who do.
The sad part is, no one has done any real homework on this. Sen. Webb asked for the cost saving figures and was sent a PowerPoint slide.
i sure don't feel that
webb's decision is a good one. He's just trolling for votes and it won't work.
Wrong
You know the country is messed up when military decisions have to pass political muster. It should be up to the DOD what should or should not be closed and not politicians. The DOD should be given a budget, told they have to make due with that amount, then let them make their own decisions as to what to do with it. Anytime America has allowed politicians to get involved in making military decisions, especially expenditure and weapons acquisitions, it has resulted in problems and wasted taxpayer money.
That's how the Constitution is written
Article 2 Section 2 specifically puts control of the military under control of the civilian government. Not doing that would give the military leadership unelected political power.
LOL, so who sets the budget
LOL, so who sets the budget for the military?! Wouldn't that be, uhmm, the politicians? Right there it becomes political to some extent.
The "extent" is precisely the problem ...
The Congress indeed holds the purse strings and appropriates the money. Sadly, the process has degenerated into 500 little CEO wannabes trying to direct spending to each of their pet projects in their districts to win votes. And the military leadership for too long has been complicit by going along with this in order to buy budget votes for what they want elsewhere. So yes, politics on both sides. It is long past time for a better way. Hire a good executive (Gates in this case), give him a budget and goals, and let him make the decisions and do the job. If he does it poorly, fire him and get someone else. But this nonsense of dragging out projects and programs just because it affects jobs in some powerful Rep's district has got to end.