4:08 pm, May 28, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 4

  • 20%
    If they really want to help out the budget, why wait to 2015 to do the 20% cut? why not enforce it now like the rest of us have to do? That's bound to be another million!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • One reason may be that they don't want to destroy the Defense Department
    You have all the answers, then tell me what 20% to get rid of? You can't cut pay or benefits to the military. You can't cut any weapons system currently in development or procurement. You can't close even half empty bases. Congress has already secured all of those things. It would be pretty irresponsible to dump half the Defense department, including the military on the unemployment lines across the country all at once. That would be upwards of a million more people on unemployment. That doesn't include the severance pay the government would have to pay all those people. It would also take most of 2014 to complete the process, so you would get little or no savings next year from the process. That is why they are doing a smaller reduction with a goal of 20% by 2015. FYI, fiscal year 2014 starts October 1, or a little over 2 months from now.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Try insourcing, but doesn't benefit political buddies
    Honest Broker
    Myth - Outsourcing saves money. 2011 POGO.ORG Bad Business report pointed out that contracting labor costs 2 to 5 times more than just using Govt employees, yet the politicians continue to push using contractors. There is just too much conflicts of interest on Capitol Hill. How many jobs are contractors doing that will go on indefinitely? Internet going away? Doubt it, so why are we contracting out so much IT work? We cannot draw down the military because the politicians allowed overseas outsourcing of US jobs to China and India so nowhere for these contractors and veterans to work in the private sector. Most of the politicians have stock in those overseas companies, so they are not worried about their future if they keep the work overseas. By pushing the jobs back into the Govt, we could cushion the job loss impact but the politicians would lose money and they would have to retract all their media statements. Doubt that happens, so stayed tuned for the next budget cut saga to hit the news.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Because they dont have the right people.
    You ask why the fed cant handle their own IT work? It's because of several reasons: 1. There's a hiring freeze on so no one's getting picked up for anything. 2. They can't pay enough for the industry, why would I work as a systems admin as a GS-9 when I can make 40K more in the private sector doing the exact same thing. 3. The way federal workers are getting spat on is enough to deter a lot of good people from wanting to join up. I know 5 people who wanted to become feds (some agents, some IT security, some intell stuff) but after seeing this sequestration and all the venomous rhetoric all but one has turned back to the private sector. People have been trying to get rid of contractors for as long as anyone can remember. It'll never happen. Unless you triple the size of the government or cut everything to the most minimalistic extreme and explain to the public that they're on their own.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }