OT: Is This Right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


Footslogger -> OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 3:27:28 PM)

The US marines are running out of planes?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-marines-are-running-out-of-airplanes/ar-BBsyvT3?li=BBnbfcL

[sm=sign0006.gif]




tiemanjw -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 5:24:23 PM)

They recently pulled the gear door off a museum piece (from the midway, I believe, but I don't remember for sure) as a spare to get an operational aircraft flying. Yes, it is that bad. Helos are in even worse shape. I won't say anything about the F35 and its costs as I am not involved with them and don't know the story, but what gets me is why are spare parts and such in the "unfunded priorities" list, and not in the base budget?




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 6:16:22 PM)

It would be in a "base" budget , except that the USA hasn't had one since 2008. Every year congress (both houses) have hammered out a budget. Ever year the Chief executive has refused to sign it. We have a continuing resolution passed to fill the place of a budget . A continuing resolution is a "temporary till we get a budget" device , never intended to be long term, or a method of running the government. It's a bare bones, very limited device. It simply can't do the job. Congress can (and is supposed to) create and pass a budget , but until it's signed by the Chief executive , or congress musters a 2/3rd majority , no budget. Right now most people in and around the military are pretty much grateful to have a paycheck. Spare parts? There's some available , but anybody whose ever been in a Naval/Marine squadron can tell you that even in the best of times parts are scarce. And the F-18c is an out of production aircraft , so that makes parts VERY scarce , and exceedingly expensive. The planes on the Midway are loaned by the USN/USMC (as are most ships/planes/equipment in military museums) , loaned with the explicit understanding that any part or all of the loaned item can be recalled at the governments need.

During the 1980's memorial battleships often gave up parts to keep the Iowa class in service , simply because they weren't making them any more. Ships in "mothballs" , unless in "ready reserve" exist primarily as a "parts locker". Same with places like "the boneyard" at Davis Montham.

Think of the parts as "donated organs". If an airplane will never fly again, should it keep a perfectly usable part that's needed when a "mock up" of fiberglass or even wood will do?




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 8:18:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It would be in a "base" budget , except that the USA hasn't had one since 2008. Every year congress (both houses) have hammered out a budget. Ever year the Chief executive has refused to sign it. We have a continuing resolution passed to fill the place of a budget . A continuing resolution is a "temporary till we get a budget" device , never intended to be long term, or a method of running the government. It's a bare bones, very limited device. It simply can't do the job. Congress can (and is supposed to) create and pass a budget , but until it's signed by the Chief executive , or congress musters a 2/3rd majority , no budget.


Nope. Not even close.

The president does a budget first. It's a guideline of what he thinks he needs to run the government, procure, and do new things he thinks would be neat. It's been DOA in Congress for many years. It's not in the Constitution; it's purely statutory.

Congress is supposed to do a budget. Also not in the Constitution per se. From that budget, after hearings, 13 appropriations bills are written that are the legal authorization to the Executive branch to spend money. Appropriations ARE in the Constitution. (Way and Means, raising the money to appropriate, is also on the other side of the leger, with the House required to initiate some of that.) Congress hasn't been able to write a budget for a long time. Didn't this year either, after Ryan made it a centerpiece of his "regular- order" mandate. I don't recall the last time there were 13 appropriations bills passed as required by law. The early 90s? Longer? Have to look it up, but it depresses, so I won't.

Without appropriations bills, for years Congress has just done continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills, which the president has had to sign or shut down the government. Sort of gun-to-your-head time. A CR continues the previous year's approprioati0ons, usually with a flat escalator percentage to everything. An omnibus, which gets them out of the CR, is a massive, stonkeringly huge bill stuffed full of pork that funds the government, or nearly all of it (sometimes a couple of appropriations bills are passed, just never all 13), at one fell swoop. Nobody reads an omnibus bill before they vote on it.

So the flow is from the Executive to Congress and then back to the president for signing. But Article One makes funding the government Congress's job #1. If the president spends money not appropriated (outside certain labeled pots for contingencies) he's in violation of the law and Constitution, and could be impeached.




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 8:41:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It would be in a "base" budget , except that the USA hasn't had one since 2008. Every year congress (both houses) have hammered out a budget. Ever year the Chief executive has refused to sign it. We have a continuing resolution passed to fill the place of a budget . A continuing resolution is a "temporary till we get a budget" device , never intended to be long term, or a method of running the government. It's a bare bones, very limited device. It simply can't do the job. Congress can (and is supposed to) create and pass a budget , but until it's signed by the Chief executive , or congress musters a 2/3rd majority , no budget.


Nope. Not even close.

The president does a budget first. It's a guideline of what he thinks he needs to run the government, procure, and do new things he thinks would be neat. It's been DOA in Congress for many years. It's not in the Constitution; it's purely statutory.

Congress is supposed to do a budget. Also not in the Constitution per se. From that budget, after hearings, 13 appropriations bills are written that are the legal authorization to the Executive branch to spend money. Appropriations ARE in the Constitution. (Way and Means, raising the money to appropriate, is also on the other side of the leger, with the House required to initiate some of that.) Congress hasn't been able to write a budget for a long time. Didn't this year either, after Ryan made it a centerpiece of his "regular- order" mandate. I don't recall the last time there were 13 appropriations bills passed as required by law. The early 90s? Longer? Have to look it up, but it depresses, so I won't.

Without appropriations bills, for years Congress has just done continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills, which the president has had to sign or shut down the government. Sort of gun-to-your-head time. A CR continues the previous year's approprioati0ons, usually with a flat escalator percentage to everything. An omnibus, which gets them out of the CR, is a massive, stonkeringly huge bill stuffed full of pork that funds the government, or nearly all of it (sometimes a couple of appropriations bills are passed, just never all 13), at one fell swoop. Nobody reads an omnibus bill before they vote on it.

So the flow is from the Executive to Congress and then back to the president for signing. But Article One makes funding the government Congress's job #1. If the president spends money not appropriated (outside certain labeled pots for contingencies) he's in violation of the law and Constitution, and could be impeached.



Sorry Moose , I didn't realize you were a constitutional scholar[:D] and I was trying 1) simplify and 2) not get political. The president DOES submit a "proposal for a budget". NEVER , ever has congress said "yeah , that looks good, let's pass it and go play golf". It's seen as a "wish list" , and the two houses , the two+ parties and every body's "special friend" get together and hammer out a "camel". That's a horse that was designed by committee. No budget has ever been , or will be , satisfactory to all parties. But budgets have always been passed , until the last 7 years. CR's are as I said TEMPORARY stop gaps. Or at least they are supposed to be. And as far as money being spent improperly, and presidents being impeached , all I can say is "yeah right". Apparently you and I have spent the last 50 or so years in different countries. Of course you are absolutely right IN THERORY. Glad that you were paying attention to your Civics teacher (for those of you under 50, civics was a class that used to be mandated in most high schools that actually had the totally weird idea that in order to be good citizens people should know something about how their country worked. Things like their duties , as well as their rights as citizens.) [:D]




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 8:49:57 PM)

My main objective was to communicate that the money is Congress's job. The Executive takes what it gets and spends it. In recent times the public has somehow come to believe that presidents do everything and are to blame for everything. Both parties. Congress has contributed by shirking its duty for so long that few remember when it all worked. With compromise, statesmanship, and deals, but it worked. Now it does not.




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 9:53:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

My main objective was to communicate that the money is Congress's job. The Executive takes what it gets and spends it. In recent times the public has somehow come to believe that presidents do everything and are to blame for everything. Both parties. Congress has contributed by shirking its duty for so long that few remember when it all worked. With compromise, statesmanship, and deals, but it worked. Now it does not.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Considering half the country agrees with you, and the other half with me, I'd say we are both par for the course. But besides our different opinions , what is YOUR answer to the gentleman who asks why the US Marines are scavenging parts? That was the real question. [&:]




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 10:15:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

My main objective was to communicate that the money is Congress's job. The Executive takes what it gets and spends it. In recent times the public has somehow come to believe that presidents do everything and are to blame for everything. Both parties. Congress has contributed by shirking its duty for so long that few remember when it all worked. With compromise, statesmanship, and deals, but it worked. Now it does not.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Considering half the country agrees with you, and the other half with me, I'd say we are both par for the course. But besides our different opinions , what is YOUR answer to the gentleman who asks why the US Marines are scavenging parts? That was the real question. [&:]


I don't know. I green buttoned him.

Edit: And it's not a political question. It's mechanical at its base. The current budgetary process was set up in 1972 to "cure" the Executive abuses in the Vietnam era. I looked it up and I was wrong about 13 appropriations bills. There are only 12.

The general and political press confuse the public by conflating "budget" with "appropriations." Budgets are resolutions, not laws. They're wish lists, plans, hopes and dreams. The congressional budget, if there is one, is not approved by the president. He has no input. He submits his own to start the whole process. Congress routinely ignores it.

Appropriations are laws. The president signs them after they pass both houses. This is supposed to happen before October 1 of each year. As I said, twelve of them in the current budget law.

How many times has Congress gotten its job done and passed all twelve before the deadline, avoiding the need for a CR?

Four times since FY1977. Four.




geofflambert -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/3/2016 11:54:24 PM)

The House of Representatives writes the checks. It is also their job to balance that with revenue acquirements in whatever manner they see fit. The Executive executes the laws with in some cases a certain amount of discretion from the people who write the laws (the House of Representatives). The Executive is not required to present budgets for ratification (although they do anyway), that responsibility lies with the House. The Senate either concurs or not with the House on legislation. The Senate also confirms (or not) certain Executive nominations. The Senate also keeps an eye on the Executive in the area of foreign affairs and may intervene to some extent. The Senate ratifies treaties which makes them laws that are not subject to repeal by the Executive. If the Senate fails to ratify a treaty the Executive may still enforce it unless the Senate explicitly objects. The Federal Courts including The Supreme Court breaks up fights between the others. The Executive is a repository for various persons who make promises they cannot keep. That is not to say there are no such people in the other branches of government.

I have heard that we have been blowing through certain munitions (such as the Hellfire Missle) and are approaching a crisis point for air-to-ground tactics that have developed greatly since 9/11. I happen to agree with those tactics in the context of more complex plans. I don't think there is a specific political problem with beginning to solve this particular problem except that politics is slowing everything down (as usual) but at least we still have a democracy (more or less). I think we'll get it done, later than is optimal.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/4/2016 12:00:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The House of Representatives writes the checks. It is also their job to balance that with revenue acquirements in whatever manner they see fit. The Executive executes the laws with in some cases a certain amount of discretion from the people who write the laws (the House of Representatives). The Executive is not required to present budgets for ratification (although they do anyway), that responsibility lies with the House. The Senate either concurs or not with the House on legislation. The Senate also confirms (or not) certain Executive nominations. The Federal Courts including The Supreme Court breaks up fights between the others.


The House is only constitutionally restricted in the area of revenue:

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


The Senate routinely initiates its own appropriations bills.




geofflambert -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/4/2016 12:04:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The House of Representatives writes the checks. It is also their job to balance that with revenue acquirements in whatever manner they see fit. The Executive executes the laws with in some cases a certain amount of discretion from the people who write the laws (the House of Representatives). The Executive is not required to present budgets for ratification (although they do anyway), that responsibility lies with the House. The Senate either concurs or not with the House on legislation. The Senate also confirms (or not) certain Executive nominations. The Federal Courts including The Supreme Court breaks up fights between the others.


The House is only constitutionally restricted in the area of revenue:

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


The Senate routinely initiates its own appropriations bills.


As frequently the Executive does as well.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/4/2016 12:11:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The House of Representatives writes the checks. It is also their job to balance that with revenue acquirements in whatever manner they see fit. The Executive executes the laws with in some cases a certain amount of discretion from the people who write the laws (the House of Representatives). The Executive is not required to present budgets for ratification (although they do anyway), that responsibility lies with the House. The Senate either concurs or not with the House on legislation. The Senate also confirms (or not) certain Executive nominations. The Federal Courts including The Supreme Court breaks up fights between the others.


The House is only constitutionally restricted in the area of revenue:

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


The Senate routinely initiates its own appropriations bills.


As frequently the Executive does as well.


Put down the bong.




geofflambert -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/4/2016 12:21:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58






Put down the bong.



I really can't stand the stuff. Made me Żber-paranoid way back when, before I had earned my scales.




wdolson -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/4/2016 1:37:38 AM)

This is getting pretty close to political, so maybe we should leave it be.

If this were another forum, I would probably opine at length on the situation, but Matrix doesn't want current political discussions on their forums. In any case, the Marines are having trouble keeping their F/A-18 fleet up to strength due to the aircraft wearing out and that is a problem, politics of why aside.

Bill




Reg -> RE: OT: Is This Right? (5/4/2016 11:10:18 AM)


Actually I find the discussion on how things work quite interesting though the posters should stay on topic.

Interestingly Australia has a (much smaller) fleet of F-18s about the same age and also slated for replacement by F-35 but we don't have this as a significant issue.....





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125