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."

Comments

good.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.

Re:good.

[Anonymous Coward]

So... we had a flying team to subsidize random private businesses? No wonder we have problems.

Re:good.

[cheater512]

Great idea mate! That would really start to make some budget savings.

I think you've just found the solution!

Re:good.

[mjwx]

This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.

But how will the US government continue with their policy of bread and circuses without circuses?

Re:good.

[clemdoc]

Put LSD in the bread.

Re:good.

[sjames]

If we had stayed out of Iraq, we could have saved more than a decade's worth of the sequestration. The F35 cost us another 15 years worth so far. So we're up to 25 years worth without a single person feeling a pinch.

Throw in taxing the 1% as much as the middle class pays and we're flush with cash.

Re:good.

[Opportunist]

No, but they are a good PR show, and they can easily boost support for the armed forces. Even if the kid may not be material to become a pilot, the very least he'll take away from the air show is that he was well entertained by our "men at arms" and that the army (navy, whatever) is a good thing.

Else, what's he gonna get? A recruitment goon at his school who may or may not woo him with ... well, more or less empty promises, and evening news telling us how yet another bunch of our kids died and how some others piss on enemy's graves while taking pics of it with their iPhone.

Re:good.

[crutchy]

What could be a better PR mouthpiece for the US military than Fox News?

Re:good.

[crutchy]

They work cheap, but that's only good for people who don't seem to care for the long term.

wrong... that's all anyone cares about in the long term (including consumers)

proof: how much stuff in your house ISN'T made in China?

Re:good.

[davester666]

And why hasn't NASCAR been paying for those military flyovers for every race [which also were just cancelled]? Or is it 'payment in kind' by mentioning the military as part of the starting ceremony?

Re:good.

[Anonymous Coward]

What could be a better PR mouthpiece for the US military than Fox News?

All those programs/movies showing how Obama single-handedly shot Bin Laden?

All the "USA, fuck yeah!" military programs on Discovery?

The "Serviceman comes home" Ford Mustang commercials?

etc.

A few "Join the Army" stands in low-income-area shopping malls will fill the ranks more than the Blue Angels ever will.

Re:good.

[Joce640k]

Even if the kid may not be material to become a pilot, the very least he'll take away from the air show is that he was well entertained by our "men at arms" and that the army (navy, whatever) is a good thing.

Or they could just rerun Top Gun on TV - same thing (except more people will see it).

Re:good.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had stayed out of Iraq, Hussein would have started selling oil for Euros, which would have been the beginning of the end for the petro-dollar. You could not afford not to invade Iraq.

Re:good.

[dkleinsc]

The F35 cost us another 15 years worth so far. So we're up to 25 years worth without a single person feeling a pinch.

I generally agree with your sentiments, but this one isn't quite true: The people that would definitely feel the pinch if we killed the F35 are all the people who currently work on designing and building it. And that makes a difference, because a fair number of Congresscritters get their seats by promising to bring home the military pork spending. Even Congresscritters who's stated position is that we need to "cut spending".

Re:good.

[AlphaWolf_HK]

A lot of chicano (no, that's not slang, look it up) groups idolize Caesar Chavez. Most don't know though that he hated illegal immigrants, badly. I don't know if this is because he didn't like how they worked, or if it was because they competed with his labor model.

Also, unrelated but interesting, the more activist chicanos idolize Che Guevara, who very vocally hated Mexicans in general.

Re:good.

[Lawrence_Bird]

I am seriously shocked that someone thinks that the military should spend millions of dollars of taxpayer funding on public relations. It is bad enough that the services spend a boat load on recruitment using glitzy tv ads during major sporting events at a time when they reject the vast majority of applicants.

If people want these types of airshows they should pay a ticket price which covers the cost. In the same manner, no active duty soldier should be participating nor should any equipment attached to the armed forces be used. There are plenty of ex-pilots who could do this for pay and using retired equipment purchased from the government.

Re:good.

[jacknifetoaswan]

Going to airshows and military installations as a kid inspired me to try to go to the Naval Academy, in the hopes that I could fly. As it turned out, I couldn't get the Congressional appointment that's required, and it's nigh on impossible to fly if you didn't go to a service academy, so here I am, building weapons systems for the military to use, rather than actually using them.

They're a great recruiting tool, and they help to inspire legions of young men and women to join the armed forces when they're older.

Re:good.

[jacknifetoaswan]

The flyovers are typically done as part of routine training hours flights. Pilots and their air crews are required to spend a minimum number of hours in the air, to keep up with their training requirements. This includes fighter pilots, as well as bomber and cargo aircraft pilots. That's why sometimes you'll get a formation of F-16s, and sometimes it'll be a lone B-52. The flyovers might be 1/100th of what a typical training flight would include.

Re:good.

[AlamedaStone]

Yes and local businesses who depend on these air shows for tourist income will flirt with failure and pit more people out of work, fucktard.

So let's take the money and use it to start fixing our massive national infrastructure problems. Because... you know. Hiring people to do work that needs doing seems like a more efficient way to put people to work than showing off fancy airplanes.

Re:good.

[AlamedaStone]

I can think of a fantastic way for the US military to reduce recruiting costs AND increase recruiting.

Operate ethically. Stop going to war for lies and treasure. Demonstrate (not just talk about) care for servicefolks and vets.

I almost applied to enlist in the AF as a teenager, but in the end my conscience couldn't support it. I wanted to support my country, but the politics of the last half century of American warfare has made most of the country appropriately skeptical. I was worried that I'd be used as a murderbot and then dumped if I break. My recent experiences talking with some new vets has confirmed my worst fears, too. I still think I made the right choice, but it makes me sad as well.

If the military thinks advertising and PR can "fix" their recruiting problems without altering their actual behavior, they're acting like every huge corporation - actions don't matter, only spin. It's sickening.

Re:good.

[dywolf]

yes, thats it. mod down the truth. davester is clueless, the flights ARE already paid for as training. jackknife is correct.

Re:good.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

He didn't travel. So there's a shit load of savings right there.

I love the distortion too. No mention that it is part of the "In performance at the White House" program has been around since 1978 and airs on PBS and American Forces Network nor that "Corporate funding for this program is provided by Pepsi-Cola. Foundation support is provided by The Annenberg Foundation and the Anne Ray Charitable Trust. Major funding is also provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS and public television viewers. Support programming like In Performance at The White House through your local PBS station."

Re:good.

[phlinn]

That's Bull shit If they confiscated 100% of the top 1% it would just barely close the deficit this year, and it wouldn't have in 2012. $1.324 trillion AGI - $0.318 trillion income tax already paid would have been less than the 1.1 trillion 2012 deficit. The sequestration is chump change in the budget sadly.

Re:good.

[phlinn]

Forgot to add: even with the sequester, total federal outlays are projected to be larger in 2013 than they were in 2012. I really get tired of DC pretending reductiong in future growth are the same as actual cuts.

Washington monument gambit, again.

[jcr]

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

Re:Washington monument gambit, again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, while the federal government as a whole is only slowing the rate of increase, the defense department specifically does have real cuts.

Of course your point is still correct-- the blue angels are being targetted to make it publicly visible.

Re:Washington monument gambit, again.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You could cancel the entire defense department and chop out only half a year's deficit.

Your normal inter-party memefest blaming each other fails, that's how out of control spending is. These idiots are talking about saving a trillion over 10 years, borrowing more than that every year.

You could tax 100% of the income of the rich and get about $500 billion a year more than now. Assuming they continue to work for 0$ a year. You can't balance without taxing the middle class, which won't happen. And even that won't be enough to begin to cover the $40 trillion in still-unfunded retirement liabilities of all retirement funds from SS to county and city promised pensions -- promised by politicians long gone to buy labor peace, knowing they wouldn't have to deal with it.

Local businesses will feel this

[Chewbacon]

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.

In spirit I share your sacrafice!

[CuteSteveJobs]

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/

yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

Navy budget is $180 billion

[Anonymous Coward]

"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!

Sequestration did not cut budget

[therealkevinkretz]

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.

Re:How About Blue Drones?

[AlamedaStone]

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.

Let's let that Ender kid have the first go.