Thursday, 1 August 2013

How to Help Fast-Food Workers


How to Help Fast-Food Workers
by Sheldon Richman August 1, 2013

Doubling the minimum wage may seem like a good way to help fast-food workers, but it would hurt them instead. So what should we do? We must sweep away the government-created barriers to income earning, barriers that protect established businesses from competition and rob the most vulnerable people of options.

This week, fast-food workers have engaged in 24-hour strikes throughout America to bring attention to their struggle to make ends meet. They have been demanding an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour and the right to organize unions.

The low minimum wage, however, is not the cause of their problems; it's a sign of deeper factors holding them back. In fact, the minimum wage distracts us from the radical changes we must make if low-income workers are to advance. Those who fixate on the minimum wage unwittingly do struggling workers a disservice.

What workers need is greater bargaining power, and that comes primarily from having options. Unfortunately, the corporate state, which people mistake for the free market, closes off options. Anything less than removal of these obstacles is a cruel hoax on those seeking better lives.

What's wrong with simply doubling the minimum wage? The answer is that wages are not arbitrarily set. Even in a corporatist economy, they result from supply and demand. This can be seen in an extreme hypothetical example, in which the minimum wage in the fast-food industry is raised to $100 an hour. What would happen to employment? It's easy to see that it would plummet as the industry itself faded away. Why? Because, given the price of fast food, workers can't possibly produce $100 worth of value for their employers in an hour.

Employers don't hire people as a favor. Businesses exist to make money for their owners. If hiring someone is to be worthwhile, that person will have to produce more than she is paid. If she can't, she won't have a job.

Couldn't a restaurant raise prices to cover the higher wages? It could try, but this would drive away customers, who would seek out cheaper meals at other restaurants. (Franchisee profit margins are already thin.) If they all raised prices, people would eat at home instead. What happens to the jobs then?

The point is that wages aren't set by picking numbers out of the air. Set them too high relative to value created, and the business disappears. Set them too low, and workers will look for alternatives.

So the spotlight should be on alternatives. On first glance, someone working at a fast-food restaurant seems to have alternatives. McDonald's faces competition from Burger King, Wendy's, and more. Low-skilled jobs can also be found in other kinds of businesses, such as Walmart. The problem is that the demand for such labor is more than matched by the supply. That's the thing about low-skilled work: lots of people can do it, especially when an economy has not fully recovered from a (government-induced) recession. That's why it pays to acquire marketable skills. (Rotten government schools handicap the most vulnerable Americans.)

Government aggravates an already bad situation anytime it erects artificial barriers to employment alternatives, including self-employment. But governments at all levels do this routinely, usually by protecting the well-connected from market competition.

How so? I couldn't possibly count the ways here. But we can mention the most common: Occupational licensing restricts entry into many kinds of work by raising the cost of going into business. Zoning restrictions prevent people from using their homes for commercial purposes. Restrictions on street vendors and cabbies quash small-scale entrepreneurship. Intellectual-property law inhibits or harasses those whose products might be construed as violating patents or copyrights. Government land holdings make land artificially more costly. Taxes and regulations impose greater burdens on would-be entrepreneurs than on large, established businesses.

All this and more shrink the options of those with limited skills and meager resources, forcing them to vie with one another for the remaining, perhaps less-desirable jobs with reduced bargaining power. This gives an unfair advantage to employers, who know there are others eager to take the place of any "troublesome" worker.

A higher minimum wage granted by a condescending ruling elite can't help people trapped in this situation. Only a radically freed market can.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/how-to-help-fast-food-workers/

Illusion


[]  

Israel: 3,000 Year Old Text Sheds Light on Biblical History of King David’s Time [Video]






--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

We Have The "B" Word ,"F" Word, And The "N" Word. What About The Other Letters?




We Have The "B" Word ,"F" Word, And The "N" Word. What About The Other Letters?

Aug 01, 2013 04:50 am | Jeff Dunetz

When I was a kid, the only time I was allowed to say "bad words" was when I was tattling on someone else (usually my older brother or sister), such as "Mommy Paul said F**K." These days it has become easier to tattle, the bad curse word simply became a letter, the "F" word.

Right after the OJ murder trial, that horrible word nigger became the "N" word, and unless it is being used in by an African American comedian, it gets bleeped out when someone says it on TV or radio.

Sometime in the past five years we stopped being able to use the noun "bitch" it became the "b" word. It is still proper to use the word as an verb "as in she bitched at me all day," but it was now a major PC police violation if you said, "That bitch! She bitched at me all day"

There are those who believe this initial protocol is an example of political correctness gone overboard. I disagree we have 26 letters in the alphabet we should have words that go with ALL the letters, perhaps some of the letters should have more than one, its not nice to leave any letter out.

So in honor of a society where some people say the scientific term "black hole" is racist --the below is a list of   the words that we will no longer be able to say completely aloud, from now on we will only be allowed to use their first letter:

  • "A" Word- As in Huma Abedin, because we all know Hilary is going to throw Weiner's wife  under the bus.
  • "B" Word- Yes we have Bitch, as in that  Barbara "don't call me Ma'am call me Senator" Boxer.
  • "C" Word- Cuts, as in Tax Cuts or Budget Cuts. To the progressive Democrats who now run the United States and the media, these words are worse than the "N" or the "F" words.
  • "D" Word- Drilling as in looking for domestic oil on US territory.
  • "E" Word- Earnings, things that big businesses are no longer allowed to have.
  • "F" Word- Still the traditional F**K. Some people used it when Barney Frank was called Fa*g**, but I can't understand what is wrong with calling Congressman Frank a Fat Guy.
  • "G" Word-Guns those evil things that are bad for America, especially when owned by a law-abiding citizens.
  • "H" Word- Hussein, (you know who's middle name) as in the Israelis hate me because of my middle name.
  • "I" Word- Illegal Immigrants we now prefer Criminally Trespassing Aliens.
  • "J" Word-As in Jury, once one declared Zimmerman not Guilty there is no Justice for African Americans
  • "K" Word-As In Karl Rove, the Democrats and some Conservatives believe he is Satan--he can't be because, as every Jets fan knows Bill Belichick is Satan.
  • "L" Word-Libya as in that country where our mission was attacked. But at this time what difference does it now make?
  • "M" Word- Marines, Code Pink founder/Barack Obama fundraiser Jodie Evans says they are evil, so did the Late John Murtha.
  • "N" Word-Nigger The "traditional" definition.
  • "O" Word- Oil, You bad Americans must be weaned off the stuff.
  • "P" Word- Protect as in what the Senate Immigration Bill didn't do with the US Borders.
  • "Q" Word- Qur'an a Book that terrorists never read, nor have they ever heard of because we aren't fighting Islamic terrorists.
  • "R" Word-Rocky or Rambo. If Sylvester Stallone makes one more Rocky or Rambo movie he should be water boarded
  • "S" Word-Socialist. Sure he ran for State Senate on Socialist party lines, but the President was just joking about redistribution of income and social justice.
  • "T" Word-Tea Party. Anybody that calls for fiscal responsibility is a racist and is not a good American. The "T" word was targeted by the IRS
  • "U" Word-Under God, a term we aren't supposed to use anymore.
  • "V" Word-Vampire. If they make one more vampire movie or TV show, I am going to cut my own veins.
  • "W" Word-Word, Sure Nancy Pelosi said it was a her favorite word, but lets not remind people of her dumb choice.
  • "X" Word-Xenophobia,  Obama  says we cant say anything bad about Islamist terrorists
  • "Y" Word-as in Yerushalayim, the Hebrew word for Jerusalem. Obama says it isn't the capital of Israel.
  • "Z" Word- Zealot. What the progressive/Democrats call any person who has attended a religious service more than once in a particular year. Most Zealots live in rural America and cling to their "G" words.

There you have it America, start learning them now, because according nobody wants to unite the country more than our President, Barack H*****N Obama. The President promised that he will bring the country together; there is nothing that will bring the country together more than using the 26 terms above in all 57 states.

Now some of you may say, this is totally wrong, the Federal Government should not interfere with communications, they should stay away from what goes into or comes out of our mouths. It's a matter of personal freedom. To them I say, how different is this 26 letter substitution plan, than the food labeling provisions of Obamacare, or what Mommy Bloomberg wants to do in NY.  If government can tell us what we can put into our mouths, like salt or sugared soda, isn't the next logical step for government to tell us what can (and more importantly what cannot)  come out of our mouths?

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://www.jeffdunetz.com



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Bad management drives talent from CIA, internal reports suggest





CIA has had rotten management for past 30 years.

 

B

 

Bad management drives talent from CIA, internal reports suggest

By Ken Dilanian

Published: July 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — For the Central Intelligence Agency, he was a catch: an American citizen who had grown up overseas, was fluent in Mandarin and had a master's degree in his field. He was working in Silicon Valley, but after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he wanted to serve his country.

The analyst, who declined to be named to shield his association with the CIA, was hired in 2005 into the agency's Directorate of Intelligence, where he was assigned to dig into Chinese politics. He said he was dismayed to discover that unimpressive managers wielded incredible power and suffered no consequences for mistakes. Departments were run like fiefdoms, he said, and "very nasty internecine battles" were a fixture.

By 2009, he had left the CIA. He now does a similar job for the U.S. military.

CIA officials often assert that while the spy agency's failures are known, its successes are hidden. But the clandestine organization celebrated for finding Osama bin Laden has been viewed by many of its own people as a place beset by bad management, where misjudgments by senior officials go unpunished, according to internal CIA documents and interviews with more than 20 former officers.

Fifty-five percent of respondents to a 2009 agencywide survey who said they were resigning or thinking about it cited poor management as the main reason, according to a 2010 report on retention by the agency's internal watchdog that mirrored the findings of a 2005 report. Although the CIA's overall rate of employee turnover is unusually low, the report cited "challenges" in the retention of officers with unique and crucial skills, such as field operatives.

The heavily redacted, unclassified report by the CIA's inspector general was turned over to the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau recently, two years after a request was filed under the Freedom of Information Act. Retired CIA officers who talk regularly with former colleagues say little has changed. CIA employees are generally prohibited from speaking to the news media and are grilled during periodic polygraph exams about any contacts with reporters.

"Perceptions of poor management, and a lack of accountability for poor management, comprised five of the top 10 reasons why people leave or consider leaving CIA and were the most frequent topic of concern among those who volunteered comments," the inspector general's report says.

CIA employees complained of "poor first-line supervision, lack of communication about work-related matters and lack of support for prudent risk taking," the report says.

The raw numbers in the survey were blacked out, but CIA human resources officials said in interviews that those who were considering leaving represented about 12 percent of the respondents. Other internal surveys suggest that most CIA employees have confidence in their managers, the officials asserted — but they declined to release the results.

The officials acknowledged that the inspector general's report identified long-standing concerns about the CIA's culture. In response, they say, they have placed new emphasis on training and evaluating managers. They touted three leadership courses that are required for senior officials as a condition of promotion, all of which were started before the report.

"I really think you would see a different result if the (inspector general) would come back and ask those same questions," said John Pereira, the CIA's chief of corporate learning.

The inspector general's report concluded, however, that "none of these initiatives include a mechanism for improving accountability for poor management."

Seven of 19 reviews of the CIA posted from 2010 to 2012 on Glassdoor, a website that allows employees to review their workplaces anonymously, cite bad management.

CIA officials acknowledged they had not implemented any specific new accountability measures since the July 2010 report, which criticized a lack of progress on that front after a 2005 inspector general's report that also noted a high level of complaints about bad management.

"Since the 2005 report on retention, the agency has taken no significant actions to address management accountability with regard to poor management that may lead to high rates of attrition," the 2010 report says.

Complaints about management are most concentrated in the National Clandestine Service, the CIA's spying and covert action arm, where 71 percent of employees who had left or were considering leaving cited bad management as a reason. Such complaints are acute among newer employees, "who have exhibited high resignation rates in recent years," the report says.

Although the CIA's overall annual attrition rate is low at 3.5 percent — compared with a governmentwide rate of 6 percent — that figure masks the premature departure of some of the most creative people who joined after Sept. 11 attacks, former CIA employees say.

"After a while you say, 'You know what? I love my country, but I can serve in other ways,' " said Aki Peritz, who tracked terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi while working as a CIA counterterrorism analyst in Iraq but left the agency in 2009 and now works at Third Way, a Washington think tank.

"The more adventurous people, the risk takers, tend to throw up their hands and leave," said a former CIA manager who did not want to call attention to his association with the agency.

"You end up with the C's, the people willing to hang in and put up with it."

The toll of such departures is difficult to quantify, but CIA veterans see the consequences in breakdowns such as what happened in 2011 in Lebanon, when CIA informants were arrested in part because of poor tradecraft by agency officers, current and former U.S. officials said.

And they see it in the CIA's flat-footed response to the Middle East's political tumult, which led President Barack Obama in 2011 to express his disappointment with the intelligence community. No career has suffered over either failure, U.S. officials say.

In October 2010, three months after the inspector general criticized a lack of management accountability at the CIA, an independent review found "systemic failures" in the operation that allowed an al-Qaida suicide bomber to kill seven agency personnel and injure six others in Khost, Afghanistan, in 2009.

No one was fired or disciplined.

No CIA officer was punished in the case of a German citizen named Khaled Masri, who in 2003 was mistakenly identified as a terrorist, kidnapped by CIA officers in Macedonia and sent to a secret prison for interrogation in Afghanistan, officials say.

"We do fire people here at the agency," Pereira said, adding that the agency also has demoted, suspended or reprimanded managers. "We can't give you specific numbers, obviously."

Some of the CIA's problems stem from its hidebound bureaucratic structure, said Peritz, who left the agency in part because of dissatisfaction with his supervisors.

"CIA is a 1950s-style top-down organization where you come in at the bottom and move your way up the ranks," he said. Directors come and go, but "if you look at the people who actually make the decisions, they've been there for 25, 30 years. They've never actually worked in the private sector."

Added the former China analyst: "People warned me about the bureaucracy, but when I think of bureaucracy, I think of things taking a long time, forms to be filled out, inefficient processes. What I wasn't prepared for was the culture. It was the most bizarre place I have ever worked."

Failing managers are allowed to stay in their jobs too long and given too many chances, said Susan Hasler, who served in the Directorate of Intelligence from 1983 to 2004.

"I used to call them rotating attrition specialists," she said. "I know one who cleared out two or three branches before they finally determined that he wasn't management material. In the meantime, he ruined a number of careers."

Charles "Sam" Faddis, a former case officer in Iraq, wrote a book in 2009 titled "Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA" that skewered the agency's management.

Faddis recalled a chat with an agency veteran in 2003 who had just spent time training new hires at the Farm, as the Virginia training center is known.

"He was awed by the quality of the recruits," Faddis said, but he was concerned about "whether we will prove worthy of these people. He said they are going to go to the field and there is a chance they are going to be horribly disillusioned. And I think that has come to pass."

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Beck: We Have Almost Taken Over the Republican Party! [Video]






--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Branches Of Military Battle Over Shrinking War Chest




 

 

One major problem for the Army in its helicopter on Navy ships idea is that none of its aircraft are designed with fold-up capabilities. Guess what, Army dumbos? They can't be stowed.

 

Added to that is that the tie down points on Navy vessels are designed to work with Marine and Naval aircraft. Some of the Army copters don't fit.

 

Maybe the Army needs to have its own navy. I suppose some of them are already trying to figure out how to propose that.

 

The Army even has Constitutional problems. Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years and to provide and maintain a Navy

 

So the Army should be used to scrambling to define itself and its form, since it isn't even guaranteed by the Constitution to be the only one.

 

The Navy, in contrast, is a singularity and does not have a two year limit on its funding.

 

The reason was that, to paraphrase Jefferson, armies, being on the land, could be a threat to liberty. Navies, by their very nature, couldn't. I guess our founding fathers never envisioned the capabilities of our current Corps.

 

This Constitutional protection also gives reason to not support the idea of splitting the Marine Corps off from the Navy as a separate service.

 

Oh how the Army must lament the demise of the Soviet Union.

 

Semper Fi,

 

Wall Street Journal
August 1, 2013 
Pg. 1

Branches Of Military Battle Over Shrinking War Chest

By Julian E. Barnes

Fights between branches of the U.S. military have erupted over responsibility for everything from drones to clocks as America's armed forces battle to keep their share of a shrinking defense budget.

The emerging debate is expected to be the most intense in two decades as the branches of the military seek to retool their missions to match the needs of future conflicts.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday recommended cutting the Army to its smallest size since before World War II and making other force reductions that would prepare the military to live under a reduced budget. Final decisions are months away, fueling a bureaucratic battle over how the U.S. will project power around the world.

In hindsight, U.S. Army Col. Mark Moser may have inadvertently fired the opening salvo. He was ordered last year to put together a presentation that envisioned stationing Army helicopters aboard Navy warships to support ground troops in far-flung battlegrounds. Word soon reached the Marine Corps, who now piggyback their helicopters on Navy vessels.

In April, Army Maj. Gen. Kevin Mangum, commanding general of the Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Ala., said in a speech that basing helicopters on Navy ships could "be our ticket for the future." The Army, he added, must not concede the mission to the Marines.

The Corps returned fire. "If anyone wants to spend money to duplicate our capability, just give it to us instead as we already know what we are doing," said Marine Brig. Gen. Paul Kennedy, who commands a new rapid-reaction crisis-response headquarters in Okinawa.

Mr. Hagel's strategic review didn't look at specific missions, such as whether the Army or the Marines should keep helicopters on Navy vessels. But, in an effort to save money and eliminate duplicate work, the Pentagon is reviewing the size of the military forces, as well as a choice between a smaller, technically advanced military on one hand, and a larger force on the other.

"You have to ask what attributes you want for your military," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Steve Kwast, who oversees his service's strategic review. "Then we have to make sure the money follows the priorities."

The formula for U.S. military spending has been constant for much of the time since the Vietnam War: The Air Force has claimed about 30%, the Navy and Marine Corps together between 30% and 35% and the Army claimed roughly 25%, though its share increased during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

But if the Pentagon changes the missions assigned to each service, so too might their share of military spending change, heating up the conflict.

The Marines have their own plan of attack. As part of the Pentagon's strategic review, the Marines proposed to focus on quick-response forces world-wide and leave primary responsibility for big wars to the Army.

Marine officials believe such teams—for, say, an attack on an embassy, humanitarian disaster or a terrorist strike—best matches the service with the kind of military operations the U.S. will most likely need in the years ahead.

To follow that path and comply with mandated spending cuts, the Corps will give up at least a third of its tanks and trim its command structure. The Marines proposed cutting their force to 175,000, down from their current target strength of 182,000, although Mr. Hagel said Wednesday cuts could reach 150,000.

The Marines are now building new land-based rapid-reaction forces. They have created a new 550-person task force of troops and aircraft, based in the Mediterranean. They are building forces in Australia, in addition to the new headquarters in Okinawa. Rapid-reaction forces are being considered for the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere.

The Marines would still play a role in big conflicts, a showdown on the Korean peninsula, for example. In the first days of war, they would send airplanes, helicopters and infantry from Navy ships to secure a foothold.

But Army officials say they also need the ability to attack from the sea and provide air cover for invading troops. With the shift to the Pacific, where the U.S. lacks the same concentration of land bases it has in the Middle East, the Army, like the Marines, says it needs a place to keep helicopters at sea.

Participants in the strategic review said the Army appeared torn between competing missions. Traditionally, the Army's job has been to use overwhelming force on the battlefield to win a war against a nation-state. In recent months, the Army has tried to remake its training to improve such skills. But the Obama administration, wary of more overseas entanglements, seems more inclined to use the Air Force or Navy to deter would-be adversaries.

So the Army has also focused on building small teams of soldiers who can move quickly to different parts of the world. It has retooled itself to deploy these smaller, lighter units for overseas missions, well short of war. Basing helicopters on Navy ships would be part of the new mission. Marines said the job was already taken.

Although military service chiefs rarely, if ever, publicly criticize one another, the language of U.S. four-star generals has grown more strident.

In early May, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said his service must maintain its capabilities to deploy quickly and act with overwhelming force in the opening days of a conflict. "We provide depth," he said. "The Marines know that. They're not built for that."

At a speech in Washington later that month, Gen. James Amos, the Marine commandant, said, "Just the same way America doesn't need a second land army, America doesn't need a second Marine Corps."

The Army and Marines aren't the only services battling. The Special Operations Command—which oversees the Green Berets, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and other elite units—has proposed taking over combat-rescue duties from the Air Force.

The Air Force needs a new rescue-helicopter fleet, which will be costly. Special Operations has the newly acquired V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, capable of pilot rescues. But Air Force officers said the service doesn't want to cede the responsibility, part of its core mission since its inception in 1947.

Then there is the drone fight. Through wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army built a fleet of unmanned aircraft. The Navy, meanwhile, has begun developing a drone for its aircraft carriers. The Air Force, which has the most advanced drones, has said it could manage, develop and deploy the U.S. fleet, arguing it would cost billions of dollars more for each service to develop its own drone units.

The Navy and Air Force also operate manned-surveillance aircraft. The Navy's fleet is brand new; the Air Force fleet is obsolete. That has prompted suggestions by the Navy that it take over the entire manned surveillance mission. The Air Force is deeply skeptical of the idea, say Air Force officers.

There is also the matter of the master clock. The Navy maintains some 80 atomic clocks, many of them at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. One of the most important uses of the master clock is to provide a time reference for the Global Positioning System. The Air Force, which has its own atomic clocks, argues it should take over the job of keeping time, since GPS relies on satellites. The Navy, which has been the U.S. timekeeper since 1845, objects.

For the Army, the proposed strategic change means a new focus on the Pacific. The Army has traditionally been focused on protecting Europe and the Middle East, leaving Asia to the Navy. But the Obama administration believes that future economic and security challenges will be centered in the Pacific. Developing sea-based helicopters, some Army officials say, is a critical element of the Pacific shift and could counter criticism that the Army takes too long to get its powerful weaponry to a fight.

Col. Moser, the Army's deputy director of aviation in the Pentagon, said he drew on his experience in the 1994 U.S. military intervention in Haiti to create his helicopter proposal. Most of the airfields in Haiti were booby-trapped, forcing the Army to fly its helicopters from the USS Eisenhower, a carrier stationed off the coast of the island nation.

To develop the proposal, Col. Moser consulted with Marine aviators and the Army idea quickly spread around the Corps. Marines saw the proposed mission—including antipiracy and humanitarian assistance—looked a lot like the daily business of the Corps, kicking off the bureaucratic skirmish.

The across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester exacerbated the tensions. Even though Navy and Marine Corps officials found enough spending reductions to prevent furloughs in their civilian workforces, top Pentagon officials decided the pain would be shared. The Defense Department forced the Navy and Marines to give up $742 million to the Army.

The Pentagon review announced Wednesday said the size of the U.S. military could be cut dramatically if the across-the-board cuts remain.

Defense officials said Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been adamant about shrinking the size of ground forces, particularly in the Army. Adm. Winnefeld, these officials said, favored a smaller military that emphasized investment in new weaponry. A spokeswoman for Adm. Winnefeld disputed that characterization, saying that Adm. Winnefeld views ground forces as essential but believes the entire military must shrink.

During initial strategic review sessions, Army officials opposed any cuts beyond the agreed-upon reduction of active-duty forces to 490,000. But senior Pentagon officials said that even without the across-the-board spending cuts, the Army should shrink to 420,000. Army officials offered a counterproposal of 470,000.

Pentagon officials said Wednesday that the final cuts could leave the Army with 380,000 soldiers or less, if the sequester remains law.

In the next months the debate will continue to play out between the services. Defense officials said Adm. Winnefeld favors a smaller, but technologically advanced military, while Army officers are pressing to minimize the cuts to their services.

At Wednesday's news conference, Adm. Winnefeld said the review offered a "deep and very painful look" ahead. He added that as the services came to terms with the new budget picture, "nobody was very happy."

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Obama Is at Two Dozen Scandals and Counting





Sard posted: " By Keith Koffler, White House Dossier President Obama claims that Republicans are busy probing "phony scandals." But the sheer number of scandals suggests that misbehavior, abuse of power, and possibly corruption are not something being dreamed up by th"

New post on therightplanet.com

Obama Is at Two Dozen Scandals and Counting

by Sard

By Keith Koffler, White House Dossier President Obama claims that Republicans are busy probing "phony scandals." But the sheer number of scandals suggests that misbehavior, abuse of power, and possibly corruption are not something being dreamed up by the GOP, but a defining characteristic of the Obama administration. Here is a full list of the […]

Read more of this post

Sard | August 1, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Tags: AP, Barack Hussein Obama, Benghazi, Democrats, DoJ, Eric Holder, GSA, HHS, IRS scandal, Kathleen Sebelius, NSA, Pigford, Sestak Bribe, White House | Categories: 9/11, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Economy, elitism, EPA, Fast and Furious, Federal Budget, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, GOP, Health Care Bill, House of Representatives, Immigration, Indoctrination, Islam, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Libertarianism, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, National Debt, Obama Lies, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Racism, Second Amendment, Self Defense, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Union Actions, United Nations | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-aqK

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2013/08/obama-is-at-two-dozen-scandals-and-counting/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.