7:55 am, May 23, 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.

  • 3

  • why now?
    I remain curious why former officials did not implement their current suggestions during their tenure.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • 1st check: Mission critical, 2nd check: Build or buy? In-source or Out-source?
    Honest Broker
    It's great they are reviewing missions, but the next step needs to be the ugly question; Are we paying too much? POGO.ORG showed that contracting out costs 2 to 5 times more for labor services even with all Govt benefits in the equation. Next is the question of buy the whole system or just the major components? My office built a surveillance system for 1/5th the cost of an equivalent by just buying the major components and then 4 Govt engineers and computer scientist writing the software over 1 year. We can put systems together in 1 week, but it takes us 4 months for the parts orders to go through the Govt process. The politicians throw these road blocks in the way, so the contractors look more efficient. Because budgets are being cut, many military are putting in their orders for the Govt solution anyways and just waiting on the parts. We have a lot of talent in the Govt, but conflicts of interest by the politicians, Corp America and retiring Feds are clouding the decision to build in-house or out-source. There are plenty of ways to get the job done, but you have take the conflicts of interest out of the loop.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • One flaw with the reasoning
    Use it or lose it is not really based on individual incentives. Most supervisors expect the money to be gone as a minimum, and many programs, especially lately, are underfunded to begin with. So there is little opportunity to hit milestones with money left over. Extra money generally goes toward milestones and options that were cut due to lack of funds. In any case, the incentive is to keep money flowing into your program for the out years. It would be nice to get a bonus this year for saving the money, but what good does it do when there is no bonus money this year and you are still looking at losing money you expect to need to hit milestones next year and the year after? In the end, this strategy is just doing less with less. Doing triage to see what programs we can kill and keep the overall organization functioning in some meaningful way. I agree that DoD has way too many layers of management, but replacing one set of arbitrary cuts with another doesn't seem like much of a step forward. In the end, our elected officials must decide what services and functions they don't want to support any longer. What parts of the government they want to cut away.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }