Slashdot Mirror
Sequester Grounds Blue Angels
SchrodingerZ writes "The Blue Angels squadron, known for their intricate and death-defying aerial demonstrations, has canceled all scheduled air shows for the rest of the year. The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending, due to the 85 billion dollar sequestration given by the federal government. In a statement from the office of the Commander Naval Air Forces in San Diego, the Navy said, 'Recognizing budget realities, current Defense policy states that outreach events can only be supported with local assets at no cost to the governmen.' Currently, the cost of an air show is above $100,000. This story came just a week after the announcement by the Air Force that their Thunderbird shows will also be canceled."
This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.
There are no cuts in the so-called "sequester cuts". A cut is when you spend less than you did previously.
What the Navy's doing here is known in DC as the "washington monument gambit". Any time a bureaucracy doesn't get as much money as they want, they pick out the most popular thing that they do, and claim that they can't do it anymore due to lack of funds, in hopes that this will garner public support for their whole pork barrel. For the department of the Interior, it's closing the washington monument. For the white house, it's cutting off white house tours.
The truth is, if the navy could afford the Blue Angels last year, they can afford it this year.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
My town has 2 Blue Angels shows a year and its huge for business, especially the show on our beach. It's one of the busiest weekends on the beach as people will try to get out there but end up sitting in traffic all day and some miss the show doing it. I hope all businesses who benefit from air shows are coming up with other events to support themselves. I'd actually still go just for a civilian air show (don't get me wrong, the Blues are cool) since you see different planes, pilots and stunts every year.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
The last link that purports to be about the Thunderbirds is really an article about the Blue Angels. With the exception of one line at the end saying: btw, the T-Birds are also cancelling shows.
Here is (was) their performance schedule.
The Daily Show said congressmen have given themselves immunity to the sequester so their salaries are not affected. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/look-whos-not-taking-a-pay-cut/
If it's huge for business, they should f-ing pay for it.
Fucking socialist fascist business owners and their lackeys.
ironic captcha: military
Yeah don't stop the trillion dollar wars.
Don't stop the money printing.
Don't stop the money wasting.
Stop the stupid air shows, close down airport towers..
Austerity for all except the bankers, the war mongers blah..
You know, the Wonderbolts would be a lot cheaper to operate...
You are in the same mess as Britain was in the 70's. Spending far more than you can afford, people on the government payroll, playing games to demand more money (Navy in this case), taxes too low to pay for it all. Printing money to keep afloat.
You need Mrs T! (Cue the 'A" theme song.... ta ta da dah du di dahhh).
She'll slash spending, raise taxes, close loss making subsidized industry, turn things around. And once she's done that, you can blame her for every social ill as if she caused any of the collapse she fixed.
I bet she could trim a good $50 billion off that annual $180 billion budget the Navy has no problem.
What they really need to do is end the F-35 and F22 Raptor programs. That will free up "assloads" of money.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Stop peddling that argument. Private solutions are never cheaper. Even if they could be done more cheaply, it only increases the profit margin.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"studies estimates nearly $2 billion dollars goes to illegal aliens annually"
Navy Budget is $180 billion, and that's just the Navy part, not the army, Airforce, NSA CIA etc.
At some point you gotta bite the bullet and trim it, not 'pretend trim it', not 'increase it this time (again) and promise to cut it in future', CUT IT!
Suppose illegal immigrants DO cost $2 billion, and you find a way to save that without shifting it to mortuary costs, and road cleaning services and border patrol costs. YOU NEED TO CUT $900 BILLION A YEAR off the budget! Get a grip, stop making excuses, stop blaming other, CUT SPENDING, RAISE TAXES, get on and fix it already!
"Stop peddling that argument. Private solutions are never cheaper."
Navy is not in the entertainment business. If they're running Blue Angels at a loss, then they should stop. Sell the planes, sack the pilots. If it makes a profit, cancelling them would be dumb. So they're running Blue Angels at a loss.
How about Navy boat trips? If they're so much cheaper than private boat trips, I'm sure they'll put the competition out of business!
If Army is so cheap, how come I can hire a clown for my daughter birthday from the private sector? Where's the Army clown here to entertain my daughter for cheaper, yet still more profit? How about a pony ride from the cavalry division?
Navy are not in the entertainment business, they have no business running airshows at a loss anyway. The planes need to go, the pilots need to go, that should be done by the private sector.
USA is not a socialist planned economy where gravy train military gets all the money it wants and runs theatres and shows and pony rides and whatever. Those planes are not fit for military use and withdrawing them, shows the Navy confirms that!
Saves $$$... and - not flying as much - helps save the Earth (a bit...)
Private solutions are never cheaper
yeah cos everyone knows the US government is incredibly focused on cost
i think you're confusing socialism and capitalism
socialism is what obama is doing... forcefully taking money of private citizens and distributing it
capitalism is private citizens engaging in business for voluntary payment by consumers
the business owners are behaving like capitalists should... the government voluntarily supports their business... the businesses don't force the government to do things for them
if the government is corrupt to the point where influence can be bought, then the government has too much influence and should be shrunk so that there is nothing to corrupt
capitalist businesses are no different to individuals... they act in their own interest (being that of their owners), which is no different to those that receive income from welfare, food stamps, etc or those that would pick up a greenback off the street and keep it for themselves
they don't do it because they are corrupt and greedy... they do it because they would be stupid not to take a bite when the government dangles a carrot in front of them
Private solutions are never cheaper.
LOL.
No sig today...
The sequestration portrayed in the press as reckless budget slashing is anything but. In actuality, it's a slightly lower rate of increase.
For 2013, the announced 'sequestration' is $84B in a $3600B budget which is an increase of about $140B over last year's. So by the official numbers, the 'cuts' are actually an increase of ~$56B. To go on, half of that $84B decrease actually doesn't take place until later years but is represented in 2013 via accounting sleight-of-hand. So in the end those crazy sequestration cuts - closing air-traffic towers, grounding the Blue Angels, and ending White House tours - are really a $100B increase over last year.
The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending ...
Defense spending outlays (including "overseas contingency operations" for Iraq and Afghanistan) will be reduced from $670.3 billion in 2012 to approximately $627.6 billion in 2013, a decrease of $42.7 billion or 6.4%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Sequestration
Definition of Massive (adj)
1.bulky: large, solid, and heavy
2.comparatively large: large in comparison with what is typical or usual
3.large-scale: extremely large in amount, degree, or scope
(Bing.com)
A 6.4% cut doesn't qualify as "massive."
What does this have to do with technology? Or is it just another example of writers on Slashdot trying to push a liberal agenda?
As a starter, would you like to compare commercial health insurance to medicare on an objective basis? I can hand you your ass on that summarily.
Wouldn't a "Blue Drones" show be cheaper, and still fuel business at the public events? Besides, the kids could get a chance at flying live, in special booths on the ground. Fully sublimated, of course.
Why not have all games with references to them pay them for property/image/badass/copyrightloopandhalfimmelman rights? For their upkeep? Like the Policeman's Ball fund?
Boy does my wife ever love not getting paid for the next month or so.
Try it for 5 years, fuckface.
there's no need to change anything, and you can just keep spendign like the year before. No need for furloughs, no need to ground planes, etc.
Yes, when you get MORE money, there's no NEED to furlough anyone. Furloughs can, however, be great political theatre for politicians who want to get even more of your money next year.
socialism is what obama is doing... forcefully taking money of private citizens and distributing it
If this is your definition of Socialism, then every country in the entire world with any sort of functioning government is Socialist, since they *all* take money 'forcefully' (taxation) and distribute it (by providing services etc.).
However, I expect your *real* definition of Socialism is actually "forcefully taking money of private citizens and distributing it *in ways I do not agree with*."
(If you are really an anarchist and believe there should be no taxes and thus no government, including no tax-funded police, military, roads etc. then I apologize for mis-characterising you - but you are a nutter in that case)
Spoken like someone who's never been on medicare. Someone's going to get their ass handed to them but it won't be Joce640k.
That's not true. Some departments were not included in the sequester, and a few are taking actual reductions. Just not many of them, and it isn't an actual cut overall.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
They have mostly been taking the easy approach of cutting highly visible services to show how painful the cuts are instead of cutting actual waste and bloat.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
800K people are taking a 20% pay cut via furloughs, in the DoD alone, just for the hell of it? Thats over 9 billion dollars in lost wages, for the hell of it? Its nonsense?
No you jsut dont know what youre talking about.
All of you ignorant "its not a cut" morons know nothing about the budget or the sequestration. If you did, you wouldnt keep spewing that BS.
It's simple.
There is Discretionary spending and Mandatory spending. And most of the agencies of the government are funded by a combination of both Mandatory and Discretionary monies, in various ratios. this includes the defense budget. The sequestration ONLY DEALS WITH DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. But when you talk about "everyone having more money" you are talking about THE ENTIRE BUDGET. You are conflating two whole pies, and ignoring the changes in how all the little individual pieces are spent.
All of the increases are in the Mandatory spending, and they happen because...its "mandatory". Stuff like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, congressional salaries, military personel pay. Laid down by law, no choice, must be in the budget, and it must paid. the only way to change this side of the budget is by changing the laws requiring the money be spent, which the sequester didnt do.
All of the cuts (ie, sequestration) is in the Discretionary spending. this is the stuff that actually gets negotiated every year when the congress and prez get together and try to pass a budget; the mandatory stuff is in the budget too, but since they cant change that, they dont argue about it. This is the only part they actually fight over. the DoD (the civilian agency in charge of hte miliatry) falls largely under Discretionary. That's why the 800,000 (800k) civil service employees of the DoD are ALL taking mandatory furloughs of 1 day a week, resulting in a 20% pay cuts. For ALL of them. The air shows (being public relations stuff, not essential to operations) also falls under the discretionary portion of the defense budget. Also under discretionary spending is most of the funding for scientific research, and education.
so again: the overall budget is bigger because the mandatory side, laid down by law, got bigger (mostly because social security). the discretionary side is the only thing the sequester affects, and is where all the cuts are.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
THUNDERBIRDS ARE *NOT* GO!
oops. i split that paragrah in two and introduced an error. should say that the veterans affairs portion of the defense budget is mandatory spending, not personel pay. personel pay is still under the discretionary side.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
...this makes me very happy -- I'll be able to hear myself think during Fleet Week!
$ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
As someone who has worked at a company that was not only a primary defense contractor (one of the big 6) but also provided a similar product to the commercial world, I absolutely positively GUARANTEE you that that is flat out nonsense. The private solutions are ALWAYS cheaper than the government's methods, simply because with a private option, if it's failing or their charging too much money or earning too much profit, someone else will come into the market and undercut them, ultimately driving profits down. When a government does something, the pressure is the opposite; there is nothing to drive the price down because the government has a monopoly while the mid level managers have every incentive to increase their budgets as they get more pay for their direct workers and for themselves. That's the first thing you learn in microeconomics 101.
I'd like to see the Pentagon / Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex budget cut to about 15% to 25% of what it currently is.
They are paid for with training money, and they are very good training. Hitting the time on target to the second is a skillset for every airframe we do flyovers with. For example, refeuling helicopters, the minimum acceptable is to hit the air refeuling control point between on time and 30 seconds late. Good is -0 +5 seconds. Also, on the way there, we typically plan and fly a new low-level navigation route, and on the way back fly instrument approaches at new airfields to beat up the copilot. This is very valuable training, and cancelling the flyovers is in the "make it hurt" category, not the "save money" category.
Tell that to the people taking a forced 20% pay cut for the rest of the year
Why don't you go tell THAT to the millions of people who stopped looking for jobs after years of trying?
Why does the government think it should be immune from reductions the private sector has been going through for years?
The truth is that while SOME departments get cuts like you mentioned, much of that is not really needed but done for political reasons. Most departments are getting more money than last year, the cuts are just a reduction in increase. You'd have to ask the department heads why that means furloughs exactly...
We should give the entire federal structure another 10% haircut (of what they had as a budget LAST YEAR) to force them to evaluate what REALLY could be reduced instead of just doing the spite reductions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And those golf trips and vacations every 4 months Obama takes? How much do those cost taxpayers? Like a million dollars each flight?
Any sentient being knows Obama threatened to veto congressional bills to give him some budgeting discretion in the sequester, so he can blame Republicans for the arbitrary cuts. So far, based on polls, the public doesn't seem to be falling for it, despite the media not reporting this key little fact.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Yeah, ene everybody knows that corporations are focused on you getting low cost. That's why you have to pay to drive on I-55 and there are no toll roads ion Chicago. Not! Yep, that's backwards. Private=toll, not only do you have the added expense of paying the toll, but the inconvenience of stopping to pay every few miles.
How about that private health care, funded by you and your employer? The world's most expensive but by far not the world's best. Yeah, those insurance companies are great at keeping costs down, they do a lot better job than governments in Canada and Europe. NOT!
Your lack of use of gray matter is why anti-government people are called "libertards." Because most of libtard ideas are ass-backwards and downright brain-dead and have little relation to reality.
Yet there is still funding for a star filled "Memphis soul" party at the White House for the obama's and their friends? I don't think they should spend on either, but there is some massively stupid spending going on, yet they cut things that the public actually gets to take part in or is a service to.
We really need to start teaching economics in high school.
Thank you very much for this informative post. I was not aware the two types of spending work this way.
Please mod up!
Posting AC as I blew all my mod points in this thread already.
The only reason the private sector is looking to cut costs is not to give you cheaper service. If you really think so, you're deluded beyond repair. The goal is bigger profit.
Name ONE, just ONE service that got cheaper when it was privatized. Yes, they probably managed to run the service more cheaply, but that saving was NEVER forwarded to the consumer. All it did was to up the revenue for the company.
And now please tell me where's my profit in that? If you say private companies can run certain services more cheaply, I can't argue with that. I think it was Adams who said you'll always find someone who can do something cheaper and crappier. But how does this benefit me in any way if the price for the service stays the same, all that changes is the service getting stripped of some of the "expensive fluff" government offered.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Funny? How so? Care to give an example where a private service at an equal level is cheaper than a public run one?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Odd. The London subway would have convinced me otherwise. Or the US phone/water/power providers.
I can agree that where there is actual competition it will go in reverse, but few governments bother to butt into markets where an actual competition exists. As soon as you have a de facto monopoly, because opening a competing service is prohibitively expensive and unlikely to succeed (like in pretty much every infrastructure area, be it transport, water, power, gas,...), I cannot see a private service being a good idea.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
everybody knows that corporations are focused on you getting low cost
cost doesn't equal sale price... if consumers really weren't happy to pay a high price, they wouldn't (corporations also don't stop you from complaining about prices, which plenty of consumers do, but at the end of the day they are happy enough to pay still otherwise they would look for alternatives)
if you really weren't happy with the price and inconvenience of paying tolls of I-55, you would look for alternatives. that you appear to still be in the whinging phase means the alternatives are ultimately far more inconvenient and that I-55 is the lesser of two evils
private health care, funded by you and your employer
when the government forces the issue, it creates a guaranteed demand and insurance companies can take advantage of it. it's not the insurance companies fault... anyone else (including you) would probably do the same if the opportunity for a guaranteed income came along.
in Australia private healthcare is optional, but while there is a public healthcare, you pay for it based on your income (as a percentage), so poor people who can't afford private healthcare are covered by medicare but high income earners who choose not to go private still pay for medicare (basically it encourages people who can afford private to get out of public funded medicare). australia's healthcare probably isn't the cheapest, but it works.
those insurance companies are great at keeping costs down
insurance companies are infinitely better at cost-cutting within their organisations than governments. again, prices and costs are different. costs are what the company spends, while prices are what consumers pay (which is what you're bitching about).
if you want to bitch about prices, compare what corporations charge to what governments tax. how much tax do you pay? make sure you add up state and federal taxes.
your lack of understanding of such a basic business concept as cost explains why there are so many socialist morons voting in america. do you really think the government is going to save you? your lack of understanding of the effects of government involvement in healthcare doesn't really offer you much credibility to judge the gray matter of others.
in a nutshell; when government gets involved, prices usually go up for consumers. probably the next government induced bubble burst will probably be student loans... because when the government guaranteed them, prices went though the roof; not because insurance companies are corrupt, but because the government was doing their marketing for them and selling loans at any price. and you should know that when demand increases for a company's product, prices often do too (look at the price of oil for example; price decreases usually only happen with tech products where mass production reduces costs for the company so companies like apple can reduce prices to compete with samsung, but if the government mandated that everyone should have a smartphone, prices of all phones from all makers would skyrocket). the underwriting costs were also eliminated by the government guarantees so banks made huge profits, which added further incentive to lend without due process. it's probably as bad (if not worse) as the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loan
Prior to 2010, federal loans were also divided between direct loans--originated and funded by the federal government--and guaranteed loans, originated and held by private lenders but guaranteed by the government.
In 2005, the bankruptcy laws were changed so that private educational loans also could not be readily discharged.
of course all governments are socialist... you just figured that out did you?
have you ever heard of a capitalist government?
countries only become socialist when the government gets so big and destroys free market capitalism to the point where the country's economy consists primarily of government activity
If Obama averages a golf trip and vacation every 4 months then that would make the number of trips taken around 16
Obama averages a lot more trips than that. You aren't counting his golf outings, his record number of fundraisers (or taxpayer-paid political events), some of which he flies in for an hour and leaves.
He certainly is not the king of vacation days. That honor falls to President George W. Bush
Not analogous, since Bush never presided over a sequester, let alone was one his idea, let alone did Bush threaten to veto a bill offering him budgeting discretion on a sequester, and then close the White House to tours and stop the Blue Angels, and then cry, "we have no money!"
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
you apparently don't understand capitalism at all
if companies could just make profit by reducing costs they wouldn't bother selling anything or hiring anyone
the cornerstone of capitalism is competition
sure you can lower your costs and not pass the savings onto your customers, but if your competitor reduces their prices, your customers leave you... which results in less profit
businesses in the free market must be competitive to make a profit. costs are one part of the balance sheet, but revenue is another, and without revenue you don't have a business. without customers you don't have a business.
a monopoly company is different, but that isn't capitalism... in a truly free market the opportunity for monopoly is very small (because anyone can start a competing business)... monopolies are usually the result of government meddling (subsidies, bailouts, unfair regulation, patents, etc).
at the end of the day, if you don't like the product or service offered by a company, take your money to its competitors; if that company has no competitors, then you don't have free market capitalism. if the prices are the same wherever you go, then you can always opt not to buy at all. nobody forces you to buy anything in free market capitalism, unlike government where you are forced to pay for benefits you may not even be privy to.
the united states economy, with all its bailouts and regulation is the source of many of the world's monopolistic corporations, and i would hardly offer the united states as a current example of capitalism at work. america is fast on its way to becoming a communist state.
However, I expect your *real* definition of Socialism is actually "forcefully taking money of private citizens and distributing it *in ways I do not agree with*."
Your expectation is wrong. I have a good grasp of capitalism and socialism... my teachers are people who have been predicting and warning for years about much of the mess the US finds itself in. Peter Schiff is an economic genius and Ron Paul is a political genius, and their track record for being right speaks volumes over the consistency of fuck ups by Keynesian economists and liberal progressive leaders.
If you are really an anarchist and believe there should be no taxes and thus no government
I think you are mis-characterizing me... but I'm not an anarchist either, I'm a Libertarian, which does not mean there should be no government, but limited government... in accordance with the Constitution.
I encourage you to look up "Peter Schiff" and "Ron Paul" on YouTube and educate yourself :)
It isn't just a 20% pay cut. I wish it were for me & 206 others at my base, it's a 100% paycut as in we got laid off. The furloughs are only available to people who are actual goverment employess. Most bases however are ran on the backs of contractors and us contractors don't get a furlough option. Believe me, I would rather work 4 days a week than ZERO days a week, especially in this still floundering economy.