In response to:

The Right Way to Cut Defense Spending

Rocky55 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 8:27 AM
"Outside service contracts", if done properly, will save money. The key is to determine if the work being contracted is work that must be done. If the answer is yes, you then determine if it is essential to have that work done by military personnel. If the answer is no, you determine what it will cost to do the work with in-house civilian employees. Then you put the work out to bid to see if an "ouside service contractor" can do the work for less money. If the answer is yes, you hire the contractor. It's really that simple.
David461 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 9:20 AM
There are several problems with this; such an approach has been tried many times in the past. First, there is no way that a "fair" competition can be conducted. Overhead costs are apples and oranges - the government typically does not include the costs for the buildings, utilities, communications, the cost of retirement, etc. Second, such competitions typically discount the differing levels of expertise, simply asserting that government employees can do the job(s) without the proof or justifications required of contractors. Third, why is it the job of the government to compete with private industry? Where is that in the Constitution? "Providing for the common defense, does not mean competing (unfairly at that) with private industry."
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 10:00 AM
What are you talking about competing with Private Industry?

I think you are not at all understanding his post. It is the Job of the Gov to determine how to best meet the demands of the Military. Whether that is by hiring a contractor to work in the Kitchen or using Soldiers, whether using Soldiers to run a technical training site or a contractor.

That is clearly an important and constitutional RESPONSIBILITY of Gov
Marie150 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 10:07 AM
I agree. The government should never compete with private industry. Using our tax dollars for their advantage. BOOOOOO on the government.
Beverly143 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 9:14 AM
Govt contracts, especially in DOD, tend to be granted on who is friends with whom. The oversight on DOD contracts is negligent in determining whether the work is getting done legally. I know first hand about working for an unscrupulous defense contractors. The work that was contracted for and the work that is being done are not even in the same room much less on the same page. As long as the work (whether contracted for or not) is getting done and the contractor is getting paid, the contractor could care less about the people actually performing the work. All I can say is Never Again.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 9:56 AM

I think you are talking apples and oranges.

Rocky is talking about a contract job for a position, like a technical expert on a satellite communication system from the company that sold the Army the system. Soldiers operate the systems but there will be a contractor or two assigned to the area.

Or the actual worker on a technical computer system (not just a regular Windows/Office computer) might be a Soldier but a Contractor with more detailed technical knowledge will be there to help.

The same with many non-technical jobs, A contractor to clean portable latrines in a field or deployed site can free up Soldiers to focus on combat duties.

Not sure what you did, but contractors save money, and perform to standards
Republicans, and many Democrats, are upset by the prospect of so-called sequestration cuts to the nation's defense budget. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is so alarmed that the day before the Senate took up what became the "fiscal cliff" agreement, he called a key Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, to express deep concern that the cuts might go into effect. As it turned out, Congress put them off for two months.

Sequestration would force the government to reduce discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Roughly half of that, or $600 billion, would come from defense -- a...