So I ran across this article today. The article is about how Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburn have found a number of pork barrel spending items in the amendment to the House's Pentagon spending bill (National Defense Authorization Act FY 2013).
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/287819-mccain-coburn-detail-problems-in-spending-bill (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/287819-mccain-coburn-detail-problems-in-spending-bill)
Quote
From McCain's office, here below is what they say is a partial list of waste in the bill, which must pass by March 27 if the government is to remain open.
...
-- Provides $15 million for the Civil Air Patrol above the amount authorized by the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization bill, paid for by cutting the Air Force’s Operations and Maintenance funding. This is just two days after the Air Force announced that it will reduce pilots’ flying hours by 18 percent because of cuts to its Operations and Maintenance budget.
A few things about this...
- This isn't the first time McCain has gone against CAP
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6ede8511-6f9a-44cd-9cb6-1aeb432a133b&Region_id=&Issue_id=79a48974-2bd4-4888-be97-e8a445366a84 (http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6ede8511-6f9a-44cd-9cb6-1aeb432a133b&Region_id=&Issue_id=79a48974-2bd4-4888-be97-e8a445366a84)
and
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15869.msg285780#msg285780 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15869.msg285780#msg285780)
- The Senate's continuing resolution a $12 million CAP budget increase over the NDA FY 2013, not $15 million over.
- The change covers a $6.8 million increase to our aircraft procurement budget, a $5 million increase to our operating budget, and $932,000 for vehicle procurement (which was non-existent in NDA FY 2013)
- Our budget has been line item appropriations from the AF budget for years, and if the budget didn't dictate what money we get, we couldn't get any.
- $38 million is the largest budget we will have had in at least five years, by about $8 million. The original NDA FY 2013 budget is more along standard lines. The budget does not indicate if CAP has a planned spending increase for it to cover.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY - The AF's flight hours are being reduced because Congress has it's heads up their butts about the budget. Senators implying that CAP is the cause of a reduction of flight hours is scapegoating and wrong.
From the Continuing Resolution (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr933pcs/pdf/BILLS-113hr933pcs.pdf)
QuoteSEC. 8022.
(a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not less than $38,634,000 shall be available for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation, of which—
(1) $28,404,000 shall be available from ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Air Force’’ to support Civil Air Patrol Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving youth programs;
(2) $9,298,000 shall be available from ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’; and
(3) $932,000 shall be available from ‘‘Other Procurement, Air Force’’ for vehicle procurement.
(b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and local government agencies.
Man, I wonder what his legitimate beef is. Maybe in High School a CAP cadet beat him up?
Just what IS his axe to grind with us? >:(
I do not know how they receive their funding, but I will guess that if the NSCC receives any funding from the Navy, he likely does not have a problem with that.
This looks like being 1995 all over again. He almost succeeded in getting us cut loose from the Air Force.
National actually authorised a "write-your-Congressperson" campaign back then.
I did so. At the time, I was represented in Congress by two Republican Senators and a Democratic Representative.
Of the two Senators, one fully agreed with McCain and said so in no uncertain terms. The other said that since he did not sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had little to no input on the situation.
The Representative sent me a multi-page letter. He had really done his homework on CAP, and it showed. He told me that CAP was not only a part of the Air Force (this was before the cockamamie "AUXON/OFF" days) but it was an organisation exemplifying the American spirit of volunteerism and that CAP had his full support.
I wonder if National will go that route again.
Who knows...it might actually be fish-or-cut-bait time to see whether the Air Force is willing to go to the mat for us.
Methinks it's a combination of lack of brand recognition (How many of us here have to drop in "Air Force Auxiliary" when we're explaining CAP -- or resort to the volunteer fire department analogy) and some Air Force vs Navy aviation rivalry. He's a former Navy aviator after all.
A travesty if there ever was one. I was unaware of his previous stance, I'll have to read up on it now.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2013, 05:47:22 AM
Just what IS his axe to grind with us? >:(
I do not know how they receive their funding, but I will guess that if the NSCC receives any funding from the Navy, he likely does not have a problem with that.
Actually it appears the Sea Cadets just got their Navy funding eliminated. They were under the recruiting command.
A RI CAP Squadron looks to be picking up some seniors and a bunch of cadets as without Navy funding the Sea Cadet dues will go to $300 per year.
Haven't there been CBO numbers of how much we save the air force?
Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2013, 05:47:22 AM
Just what IS his axe to grind with us? >:(
His "axe"; the money is going to "non combatant" missions outside of the air force (his comments, not mine). Most in congress disagree with him on this. Quite a few studies have been made showing CAP is an asset well worth the expense. I think there are a few links to the studies on the CAP website.
On a side note; it has been reported Ms. Mcain was a mission pilot for CAP. She had a bad expierience. This may be a contributing factor for the senator's resistance to CAP's funding... ::)
Sen. McCain does not hate CAP.
I've personally asked him the loaded question, "Why don't you like CAP...?" and he said (paraphrasing), "I support CAP. I just don't want the DoD to spend money on noncombat programs...." Sen. McCain is obviously passionate about that principle and because he knows CAP is an example of that principle at work, he wheels us out time and again to help him make his larger point about restricting DoD funding to matters of defense, not miscellaneous worthy or ancillary projects.
For this reason, fifteen years ago or more he proposed placing CAP under the Department of Transportation, which at that time, also owned the Coast Guard. Regardless whether that idea was good or bad, it's evidence that Sen. McCain does in fact support the CAP and its missions by virtue of his wanting us to continue serving versus closing up shop.
Also, when Sen. McCain criticizes CAP funding, it's in regards to the gap between the AF's (president's) proposal and the actual appropriation CAP receives (POMs, CRs, O&M vs. MILPAY, AETC/AU location, etc. are some of the technical factors behind the gap). In recent years there's been a $4 or $6 million gap and CAP has leveraged its Congressional supporters, most notably Sen. Harkin, to get the roughly $5M restored. Sen. McCain and every appropriator knows that when a program gets restored in this manner, the parent department is not granted new money from thin air to cover that increase. Instead, the parent department has to find the funds on its own from other existing accounts, which is a managerial nightmare, so added to the financial increase you have the added hassle upon the parent agency.
What's all this matter to CAP? What's the take-away? Not very much. The AF still loves us very much. Congress loves us. We do good things. What' we're discussing today is that our speck of dust in the AF budget was mentioned by name in one Senator's press release... that's it. As someone here said, the House passed a bill restoring our funding to the 28M (or whatever) we would've normally received if the budget world actually functioned normally, so that's a good sign. The immediate "noise" here from Sen. McCain isn't worrisome.
But don't lose sight of the big picture. What is worrisome is the fact that ~95% of all CAP funding derives from a single source. That problem has plagued us for decades, generating lots of talk about development (fundraising) but negligible results. We need a real development plan -- grants, targeted sponsorships for select activities, an endowment, annual campaigns, planned giving, etc. and the good news is that that need is listed as Goal #1 in the latest Strategic Plan.
If CAP actually had some paid members at the higher levels, things might get done. Fact is, CAP is a full time job requiring full time attention and its being run by retirees or part time volunteers.
Quote from: SamFranklin on March 14, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
What's all this matter to CAP? What's the take-away? Not very much. The AF still loves us very much. Congress loves us. We do good things. What' we're discussing today is that our speck of dust in the AF budget was mentioned by name in one Senator's press release... that's it. As someone here said, the House passed a bill restoring our funding to the 28M (or whatever) we would've normally received if the budget world actually functioned normally, so that's a good sign. The immediate "noise" here from Sen. McCain isn't worrisome.
Spoke too soon. His office blog says he's proposing an amendment to cut us back to $23...
Quote from: SamFranklin on March 14, 2013, 02:08:45 PMBut don't lose sight of the big picture. What is worrisome is the fact that ~95% of all CAP funding derives from a single source.
We're a military auxiliary, where else is it supposed to come from?
The problem is the idea that it should come from anywhere else but the USAF, and in some circles that it already does.
Want to talk about a gap, take a look at the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of
member dollars contributed every year towards accomplishing the full mission. We can argue and joke about whether NHQ is calculating that correctly, but no one would argue that it's not a significant amount.
I'd hazard 80-90+% of the money spent in cadet programs, and 30+% in operations does not come from the USAF, which primarily provides capital dollars for the aircraft and vehicles. The operational training budget is less then $1.5 M
nationally (~25-30K per wing on average), that's nothing. Most agencies spend that on a single training >DAY<, and most encampments spend 1/2 that for one activity.
Personally, I have no issue freezing the fleet at current numbers, let's just maintain what we have and add to the training. If we're not growing the mission, we don't need to grow the fleet, and we can't grow the mission with out more training and...
...wait for it...
MORE.
PEOPLE.
National gets about $2 million/year in dues and about $600k from other NG sources. The money is used to fund cadet programs and training/staffing which we are not permitted to fund with our "grant".
If the Air Force would change their mind about funding AE and CP, there would be a push to increase our funding. So far, this is not happening. Aircraft and Vehicle procurement funds could be used to restore older aircraft instead of purchasing new (the fleet limit is 550 aircraft). However, right now, it's easier to purchase new and refurb some. Besides; "procurement" means buying new...
The $28 million (which has remained constant for many years now) is spent mostly on NHQ O&M, salaries and, "development". Check the financial reports for a breakdown but, I'm pretty sure only a small fraction goes to programs. Unless things change, I agree with SamFranklin that we need to find additional funding streams.
There are a couple things that really get to me about this.
#1. In the overall budget of the government, this is a drop in the bucket, with a HUGE return (no matter how you look at it, it's a big return, dollars to the pennies spent kind of thing)
And
#2. That he treats CAP like someone's pet project. "pork barrel spending" is not CAP. He is treating an organization that (even with our problems) works in every state (plus some) provides selfless thousands of hours to the US without asking for a dime in payment (the members that is) and shows up when honestly, no one else can afford to go. He seemed to be ok with CAP when we did dirt cheap flights during deep water horizon. This is a stunt, a vendetta by someone that honest to god should care less about this amount of money.
I respect his service just as I respect all service to the nation, but the DOD does non-combat things all the time. If this was any other organization that was better known (IE red cross, BSA what have you) people would be up in arms, but now, those who had no idea who or what CAP was will now forever more believe we are someone's pet project and just another "bridge to no where"
I just contacted my 2 Senators to ask them to vote against the McCain amendment. I suggest the rest of you do the same.
I really take exception to the language used by Sen. McCain and Sen. Coburn, at least as it is presented in the article from "The Hill." According to the article both senators are combing through the bill searching for waste. The article also gives examples of the kind of waste they are identifying. Since the senators included CAP in their list of wasteful spending, I can only assume they want us cut like the other pork they are searching for.
While I can understand the points shared by SamFranklin, they don't match Sen. McCain's current words and actions. IF he simply wanted to change the way CAP is funded in order to coincide with his principled stance, he should introduce a bill to accomplish that. Lumping us in with pork barrel spending projects that should be eliminated doesn't inspire any confidence that he respects this organization.
I would also respectfully disagree with the idea that our funding should come from anywhere other than the USAF. Since we are their official auxiliary, our funding should come from the USAF. I understand this is a rather simplistic view of how AF funding is used in CAP, but I think its a better fit than the DOT.
I echo the calls for additional funding from alternative sources, as well as the need for better branding of our organization. We need a much better marketing program, both as a recruiting tool, and a way to increase our utilization in missions coordinated at the state/local level.
This just came across WIWG-Info
.......
Sent on behalf of Mr. Don Rowland:
CAP Senior Leaders and Government Relations Advisors,
Civil Air Patrol has just learned that Senator John McCain, R-AZ, plans to introduce an amendment today (Thursday, March 14th) which would dramatically reduce funding for CAP missions and programs for FY13.
This amendment would reduce CAP operations and maintenance funding now in HR 933, the new funding bill for defense, from $28.4 million to $23.9 million as well as reduce aircraft procurement from $9.3 million to $2.5 million.
The impact on CAP and its operations would be very damaging and, if coupled with a sequestration cut, could be devastating to CAP's future.
Wing Commanders and/or their Government Relations Advisors are asked to contact the offices of their two Senators to ask them to vote against the amendment. The amendment (which is numbered 50) would be made to HR 933, the full-year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 for Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The amendment is attached.
The vote could take place as early as mid-day to mid-afternoon so quick action is required by all who read this email in time.
The possible impact is very bad—CAP will likely run out of maintenance funds before the end of the year as well as have to reduce its aircraft fleet by 75 aircraft and significantly reduce national headquarters staff. In addition, there would be a 21% reduction in overall support for Air Force missions compared to FY12 and a 52% decrease in homeland security and air defense training as well as other negative impacts. If a sequestration cut is added on top of this reduction in funding the impact on CAP could be devastating.
If you have questions contact John Swain, cell (703) 887-1749 or e-mail dcoffice.cap@verizon.net.
Axel Kreimeier
Administrative Assistant to
Chief Operating Officer, CAP
Email: akreimeier@capnhq.gov
Office: (334) 953-7748, Ext. 222
Toll Free: (877) 227-9142, Ext. 222
Fax: (334) 265-9590
Quote from: phirons on March 14, 2013, 01:18:02 PMActually it appears the Sea Cadets just got their Navy funding eliminated. They were under the recruiting command.
The Sea Cadets only get $1-2M a year from Congress, with most of the appropriation going to the summer training program which costs about $2-300 a year.
The rest of their funding is from member dues/fees and similar, so assuming the above is true, their real costs would be in line
with the average CAP cadet who goes to an encampment or similar.
Dan I posted your topic link on our unit FB page, and our wing folks got a head start on the national effort. Thanks for the notice.
Quote from: phirons on March 14, 2013, 01:18:02 PM
A RI CAP Squadron looks to be picking up some seniors and a bunch of cadets as without Navy funding the Sea Cadet dues will go to $300 per year.
Great Bog in Devon!
Unfortunately that means our counterparts in the NSCC look to just become a "rich person's club," which is a shame. My first CAP squadron was co-located with an NSCC unit; they were a good bunch.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 14, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
This is a stunt, a vendetta by someone that honest to god should care less about this amount of money.
Exactly my thoughts.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 14, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
I respect his service just as I respect all service to the nation, but the DOD does non-combat things all the time.
Yes. What about the Coast Guard Auxiliary? Yes, I know the CG is under DHS in peacetime, but there are still connections to DOD. What about MARS?
Quote from: NCRblues on March 14, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
If this was any other organization that was better known (IE red cross, BSA what have you) people would be up in arms, but now, those who had no idea who or what CAP was will now forever more believe we are someone's pet project and just another "bridge to no where"
As if we weren't already the "red-haired stepchild."
Quote from: SamFranklin on March 14, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Sen. McCain does not hate CAP.
I've personally asked him the loaded question, "Why don't you like CAP...?" and he said (paraphrasing), "I support CAP. I just don't want the DoD to spend money on noncombat programs...." Sen. McCain is obviously passionate about that principle and because he knows CAP is an example of that principle at work, he wheels us out time and again to help him make his larger point about restricting DoD funding to matters of defense, not miscellaneous worthy or ancillary projects.
For this reason, fifteen years ago or more he proposed placing CAP under the Department of Transportation, which at that time, also owned the Coast Guard. Regardless whether that idea was good or bad, it's evidence that Sen. McCain does in fact support the CAP and its missions by virtue of his wanting us to continue serving versus closing up shop.
I don't know if you were around during the '95 battle with Senator McCain; I was.
The saying going around CAP then was that if he got his way, CAP as an organisation might still exist, but there's no way it would be CAP as we've known it - there would be no connection to the AF, which is why a lot of people, especially cadets, join.
If he'd get his way, I don't believe we would have viable cadet/aerospace education missions anymore...it would be "all ES, all the time." Of course, some in CAP are very zealous for just that. >:(
I do not believe he supports CAP except as a volunteer SAR/DR organisation, and I am personally suspicious of his motives. There are a lot of other things that DOD does that are non-combat related, but he conveniently omits that.
I called my Senator as well. I understand in the time of sequester that everyone's budget is getting hacked. One of my best friends is currently in the 'Stan (AFRES) and is facing his current DA to the cuts.
What I have the biggest issue, echoing pretty much everyone else in this thread, is Sen. McCain's tone with regard to our worth.
Face it, as long as he's in the Senate, whenever the topic of "wasteful" or "pork-barrel" spending by the military comes up, we're going to be his straw man.
Didn't Sen McCain's wife belong to CAP? What about Sen Harkin?
I think of note is that Thomas lists no co-sponsors for his amendment.
It's all just posturing for constituents.
We just flooded the Hill a couple weeks ago with CAP people during Legislative Days. If we were not able to make
a plausible case for our viability, a few of us calling today won't make any difference, any more then this amendment
will influence people in the other direction.
The unfortunate reality is that even eliminating CAP altogether would have zero net effect on the current crisis.
One would like to think that our legislators would be looking at the high-level impactful numbers instead of
"toaster leavins" at the level of CAP. Interestingly there's never any indication of the real-world cost of replacing
CAP services with at-cost contractors or similar (assuming it's not covered by the military for $$$! )
Maybe we could get a few of those corporations not paying Federal Income tax this year to pop a few buckos our way,
or ask Apple to repatriate some of their mountain of cash.
Quote from: MajorM on March 14, 2013, 07:42:20 PM
I think of note is that Thomas lists no co-sponsors for his amendment.
I cant find the wording of the amendment... help?? Link??
(I contacted both of my Senators)
Quote from: SamFranklinAs someone here said, the House passed a bill restoring our funding to the 28M (or whatever) we would've normally received if the budget world actually functioned normally, so that's a good sign. The immediate "noise" here from Sen. McCain isn't worrisome.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 14, 2013, 07:46:08 PM
We just flooded the Hill a couple weeks ago with CAP people during Legislative Days. If we were not able to make
a plausible case for our viability, a few of us calling today won't make any difference, any more then this amendment
will influence people in the other direction.
The apathy/indifference in the statements above is problematic but also indicative of the trend in our society.
If one believes any potential cut wouldn't be problematic for CAP then fine, do nothing. However, if you believe in CAP's value proposition then anytime a Senator/Representative makes such a proposal for vote, whether posturing or not, you should take the threat seriously and meet it with active resistance (btw, this holds true to any issue you have a strong view on). There are a number of examples of unpopular actions that have taken place over the years largely as a result of an apathetic populace.
The following quote remains relevant for situations like these and it transcends this situation for CAP:
Quote"I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that - then I realized I am somebody!"
So, if no one speaks up, then what? The first cut is always the hard one. Once that gets approved, watch out.
Bottom line: Contact your Senators/Representatives and voice your opinion - it only takes 2 minutes. While it seems that they sometimes forget, they exist to serve/represent their constituents.
Sorry, I disagree that the above is either apathy or indifference, it's reality.
We were walking the Hill, handing out literature that presented our value, etc., etc.
You're going to tell me that having people in their office 2 weeks ago made no impression, but a phone call now will?
I don't see where anyone is saying the cuts wouldn't hurt.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 14, 2013, 09:36:22 PM
Sorry, I disagree that the above is either apathy or indifference, it's reality.
We were walking the Hill, handing out literature that presented our value, etc., etc.
You're going to tell me that having people in their office 2 weeks ago made no impression, but a phone call now will?
I don't see where anyone is saying the cuts wouldn't hurt.
"When we raise objections to the views of others, we call it realistic thinking. When others raise objections to the the views we endorse, we call it resistance."
I know very well what took place in Washington. I also know this...no action definitely will not persuade anyone.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 14, 2013, 08:13:27 PM
Quote from: MajorM on March 14, 2013, 07:42:20 PM
I think of note is that Thomas lists no co-sponsors for his amendment.
I cant find the wording of the amendment... help?? Link??
(I contacted both of my Senators)
Quote
From the Continuing Resolution (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr933pcs/pdf/BILLS-113hr933pcs.pdf)
QuoteSEC. 8022.
(a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not less than $38,634,000 shall be available for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation, of which—
(1) $28,404,000 shall be available from ''Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving youth programs;
(2) $9,298,000 shall be available from ''Aircraft Procurement, Air Force''; and
(3) $932,000 shall be available from ''Other Procurement, Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
(b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and local government agencies.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on March 14, 2013, 09:56:20 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on March 14, 2013, 08:13:27 PM
Quote from: MajorM on March 14, 2013, 07:42:20 PM
I think of note is that Thomas lists no co-sponsors for his amendment.
I cant find the wording of the amendment... help?? Link??
(I contacted both of my Senators)
Quote
From the Continuing Resolution (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr933pcs/pdf/BILLS-113hr933pcs.pdf)
QuoteSEC. 8022.
(a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not less than $38,634,000 shall be available for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation, of which—
(1) $28,404,000 shall be available from ''Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving youth programs;
(2) $9,298,000 shall be available from ''Aircraft Procurement, Air Force''; and
(3) $932,000 shall be available from ''Other Procurement, Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
(b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and local government agencies.
I believe that is just the normal CR and not the "amendment 50" as it still says 9 mill for aircraft. Correct or not?
Quote from: A.Member on March 14, 2013, 09:42:47 PM
I also know this...no action definitely will not persuade anyone.
I also never suggested people not call, but to be realistic about both the risk and the expectations here.
The risk is minimal beyond the fact that we know we're going to see cuts, we already know that.
A handful of members who have a vested interest in the organization's existence are going to have as much effect
on the situation as an online petition about term limits. On these topics, the legislators have their positions set and will be voting
largely along partisan lines. CAP doesn't actually have a voting-block presence large enough in any one state to sway anyone,
at least not directly - the Congressional Medal situation should be indication enough of that. After several years
of lobbying, we still can't get a $35k feel-good medal approved in a time of high appreciation of the military and
even higher nostalgia for WWII. A few phones calls aren't going to change their minds about $9M+.
It's all about ROI, perceived and actual, and
those conversations are happening in meetings with military and
CAP national staffers. At the end of the day, we can either make people believe we are worth the cost, or we can't.
If you want a real impact, have our customers start calling.
Here's his official statement from 1995:
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6EDE8511-6F9A-44CD-9CB6-1AEB432A133B (http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6EDE8511-6F9A-44CD-9CB6-1AEB432A133B)
"McCain Statement on the Civil Air Patrol Program in the Department of Defense
June 10, 1995
Washington, D.C.- Today Senator John McCain released the following statement regarding the Civil Air Patrol Program in the Department of Defense:
The Civil Air Patrol performs a great service to the people of Arizona and to the nation. The primary mission of its volunteer pilots -- to search for and rescue the victims of civilian plane crashes -- is a necessary and noble task which I fully support. In performing its mission, the Civil Air Patrol has in the past drawn on Department of Defense funds for procuring aircraft and vehicles and paying for the training, fuel, aircraft maintenance, and many other costs associated with this mission.
The unfortunate reality of the budget situation is that the military requirements of the Department of Defense are not being met. By 1999, the defense budget will be reduced to nearly half of what it was in 1985. This has led to serious funding shortfalls which have had a negative impact on the readiness of our military forces. I am seriously concerned that lack of funds has caused training exercises to be delayed, needed munitions purchases to be deferred, and modernization programs to be canceled.
Because of these funding shortfalls, the men and women who may very soon be asked to put their lives at risk in Bosnia protecting United Nations peacekeepers may enter the conflict inadequately prepared for the dangers they will face. These are the same men and women who require food stamps to feed their families because the Department of Defense cannot afford to provide them with adequate pay.
In the face of these facts, I have instructed the staff of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee to identify all non-defense and lower-priority programs currently funded within the Department of Defense. One of the many programs which is currently under review is the Civil Air Patrol.
I do not intend to cut the 10 percent of the Civil Air Patrol budget that is used to reimburse the civilian pilots who volunteer their time and equipment to participate in the search and rescue mission of the CAP. It is my current intention to recommend that a small portion of DOD funding for the Civil Air Patrol overhead and administration be reduced in 1996.
This does not mean that the Senate will eliminate the Civil Air Patrol. I hope we can all explore other, more appropriate sources of funding for this important program, whether by the federal government or by financing arrangements with state and local governments. As we seek to ensure continued viability of the CAP's search and rescue mission, it is my intention to gradually phase out the remainder of DOD's CAP budget over a period of years.
Again, it is only the dramatic reductions in the defense budget over the past ten years which requires that we analyze the programs which receive funding from DOD. I will do everything I can to support the search and rescue mission of the Civil Air Patrol and to help in the transition to a non-defense funding source."
I remember that statement...and it was just as much Bravo Sierra then as it is now.
I remember talking with both my squadron and wing CC's at that time.
Pretty much it would shape up as those who want us cut loose from the Air Force, without all that troublesome "rank," "professional development" and "uniform issues" would finally get what they want, or very close.
Let's face it-domestic SAR is not a core mission for USAF. While USAF is stuck with domestic SAR, CAP is a low-cost solution-for $180/flying hour, USAF subcontracts the mission, from the IC down, to unpaid volunteers -- a great deal!
But let's say domestic SAR was moved to FEMA, coincidentally with a required upgrade of ELT's to 406Mhz. ELT false alarm-chasing would go away, just about overnight. CAP's volunteers would not be first on the call list--we wouldn't even be on this list. With the electronic serial number, tied back to aircraft registration, information updated at the aircraft's annual, and the better 'fix' available with 406, the new 'drill' would be call owner (-where's your plane?), call FBO (if signal is at/near airport- is N1234 on ramp ?) and then--if not resolved in first 2 calls--local PD/sheriff/FD (there might be a crash at lat/long...). ALL of this could go on in first 5 minutes-no wait 2 hours for another satellite pass. SAR would get cut down to call and dispatch--if needed.
Now the call center is gonna need new FEMA bureaucrats-but FEMA already has 24/7 coverage--the framework is there. Some of the local jurisdictions will pass ordinances to pass through their response costs to aircraft owners, especially for those avoidable false alarms.
I think every little effort to save our mission counts. Here's the info for CAWG members from the Wing CC.
Quote
Members of the California Wing,
Senator McCain's amendment was not heard today so we all have more time to get our opposition to this amendment expressed. So far, his amendment has no co-sponsors. Below is some text that you can use when faxing and emailing through Senators Boxer and Feinstein's websites.
"I am (Your Name), a California resident. I am also a member of Civil Air Patrol and am asking the Senator to vote NO on Senate Amendment 50 to House Resolution 933. CAP is a valuable service organization staffed by over 60,000 volunteers, who contribute millions of free man-hours each year in direct support our government, by providing extremely cost-efficient Search and Rescue Operations, Aerospace Education Training and Youth Leadership. Not only could millions of dollars worth of valuable volunteer service be lost but there would be a 21% reduction in overall support for Air Force missions compared to FY12 and a 52% decrease in homeland security and air defense training as well as other negative impacts. If a sequestration cut is added on top of this reduction in funding the impact on CAP could be devastating. Please vote NO!"
Their respective fax numbers are:
Senator Dianne Feinstein - (202) 228-3954
Senator Barbara Boxer - (202) 224-0454
Their respective email links are:
feinstein.senate.gov/en/contact
boxer.senate.gov/en/contact
Messages can also be sent via Twitter and Facebook. Let's continue to make our voices heard by our elected officials. Thanks to all that helped today and to all that will tonight and tomorrow.
Regards,
Jon Stokes, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California Wing
Civil Air Patrol, United States Air Force Auxiliary
Quote from: SamFranklin on March 14, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
What is worrisome is the fact that ~95% of all CAP funding derives from a single source.
Same as the National Guards federal/state funding split (though our "state" side includes dues as well as money from states.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 14, 2013, 10:27:34 PM
I believe that is just the normal CR and not the "amendment 50" as it still says 9 mill for aircraft. Correct or not?
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1XePsGb4KTOORKs3Tda63m-7J2vBnAPyswYjmaawA-lpxd3FicLtqnafXOfmf/edit?usp=sharing
According to Thomas, cloture has been filed on the bill so it must be voted on two working days from now (Monday?) and only one or two of the sixty submitted amendments have been voted on. I suspect tomorrow will be amendment house-cleaning day.
From the NHQ Facebook page
Quote
Three online petitions have been created encouraging votes against Sen. John McCain's Amendment 50 (which would cut CAP funding) to HR 933 -- http://bit.ly/12WZmHK (http://bit.ly/12WZmHK), http://bit.ly/WtnX1K (http://bit.ly/WtnX1K) & http://chn.ge/15Rgi07 (http://chn.ge/15Rgi07)
Take a look and compare the Senators voting to cut funding to CAP with which Senators are members of the CAP Congressional Squadron!! Looks like the CAP Congressional Squadron has been a waste of our time, resources and more importantly our money!! The majority of CAP Congressional members serving in the Senate agree with McCain!!
Lets close the Congressional Squadron, reassign that Aircraft and ask our fellow Members in Arizona WHAT THE CRAP ARE YOU DOING TO US?!?! Arizona Wing; get your Senator in line!!
These online petition sites are a waste of time. When you go there after a few days and see them floundering at a couple hundred .. what message is that sending?
Spend your energy on your two state senators. Get the message directly to where it needs to be. In the time you spend waiting for email confirmations, filling out this stuff, you can just get it over with. Who is going to "deliver" this "petition" to the President? What good is that going to do? When is it going to get there. What difference does it make if it's late? Who decides when to do it?
If the same 200 people sent messages to their representatives directly, they might actually be more difference than a fart in a hurricane. "Gee, a lot of people sent me a message on this topic in a short amont of time.. " Maybe.. I better look into this.
In case you don't know who your Senators are or how to contact them:
http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ (http://whoismyrepresentative.com/)
Quote from: Patterson on March 15, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
ask our fellow Members in Arizona WHAT THE CRAP ARE YOU DOING TO US?!?! Arizona Wing; get your Senator in line!!
Nice way to suggest that this is somehow the fault of the 1310 members of AZWG, and how exactly do you suggest we "get our Senator" in line? Do tell.
Quote from: Patterson on March 15, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
Lets close the Congressional Squadron, reassign that Aircraft and ask our fellow Members in Arizona WHAT THE CRAP ARE YOU DOING TO US?!?! Arizona Wing; get your Senator in line!!
First off Patterson, while I may be a member of the AZ wing Sen McCain is not nor will ever be my senator. It is not the fault of any member here from the Wing CC to the newest cadet his stance or approach. Check your fire and redirect it to a far more appropriate target and I highly recommend you go sit in a corner and think first before you type.
Quote from: Patterson on March 15, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
Take a look and compare the Senators voting to cut funding to CAP with which Senators are members of the CAP Congressional Squadron!!
Which members of the Congressional squadron are on the "wrong" side here?
Anybody know about the outcome?
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2013, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Patterson on March 15, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
Lets close the Congressional Squadron, reassign that Aircraft and ask our fellow Members in Arizona WHAT THE CRAP ARE YOU DOING TO US?!?! Arizona Wing; get your Senator in line!!
First off Patterson, while I may be a member of the AZ wing Sen McCain is not nor will ever be my senator.
If you live in AZ, then he IS your Senator. Sorry to break it to you. Any constituent issue, and you have 3 people: Your rep, and your two senators.
I don't quite know what you meant by that, but I'm really tired of people saying stuff like "X is not my president", "y is not my problem". Not saying that's how you meant it, but it is what it is.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 16, 2013, 01:54:28 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2013, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Patterson on March 15, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
Lets close the Congressional Squadron, reassign that Aircraft and ask our fellow Members in Arizona WHAT THE CRAP ARE YOU DOING TO US?!?! Arizona Wing; get your Senator in line!!
First off Patterson, while I may be a member of the AZ wing Sen McCain is not nor will ever be my senator.
If you live in AZ, then he IS your Senator. Sorry to break it to you. Any constituent issue, and you have 3 people: Your rep, and your two senators.
I don't quite know what you meant by that, but I'm really tired of people saying stuff like "X is not my president", "y is not my problem". Not saying that's how you meant it, but it is what it is.
I may live in AZ but I do not have residency here in Az. Therefore by not having residency here he is not my senator nor are the representatives my representatives. Nor am I required by law to be a resident of AZ.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2013, 02:02:20 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 16, 2013, 01:54:28 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2013, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Patterson on March 15, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
Lets close the Congressional Squadron, reassign that Aircraft and ask our fellow Members in Arizona WHAT THE CRAP ARE YOU DOING TO US?!?! Arizona Wing; get your Senator in line!!
First off Patterson, while I may be a member of the AZ wing Sen McCain is not nor will ever be my senator.
If you live in AZ, then he IS your Senator. Sorry to break it to you. Any constituent issue, and you have 3 people: Your rep, and your two senators.
I don't quite know what you meant by that, but I'm really tired of people saying stuff like "X is not my president", "y is not my problem". Not saying that's how you meant it, but it is what it is.
I may live in AZ but I do not have residency here in Az. Therefore by not having residency here he is not my senator nor are the representatives my representatives. Nor am I required by law to be a resident of AZ.
Some of us have no representatives at all.
last time McCain pulled this stuff he tried to get us moved to DOT. I may respect him for being a vet but twice is enough.
Quote from: Garibaldi on March 16, 2013, 02:26:20 AM
last time McCain pulled this stuff he tried to get us moved to DOT. I may respect him for being a vet but twice is enough.
It was a crock then and it's a crock now.
I have a Question? What Dept/Funding is High School JROTC under? Do they get cuts also? If Not, cant CAP be put under the same dept/funding as JROTC?
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 16, 2013, 07:23:18 PM
I have a Question? What Dept/Funding is High School JROTC under? Do they get cuts also? If Not, cant CAP be put under the same dept/funding as JROTC?
That's been raised before, and might be fine for the CP side, but doesn't really mesh well with the Senior and operational side, which, IMHO, cannot be separated.
Even if we did get added to the same department that cover's JROTC units. They are being cut as well. The Unit at my Old High School just Closed because the School Board couldn't bridge the funding gap just for the instructors. Let's not even think about that. I think our arrangement is just fine.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2013, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 16, 2013, 07:23:18 PM
I have a Question? What Dept/Funding is High School JROTC under? Do they get cuts also? If Not, cant CAP be put under the same dept/funding as JROTC?
That's been raised before, and might be fine for the CP side, but doesn't really mesh well with the Senior and operational side, which, IMHO, cannot be separated.
AFJROTC funding comes through the Holme Center (just like CAP-USAF). This is an Air Force program. It is an Air Force budget item and, not a grant to a 503c non profit corporation (where CAP's money comes from). It is an "apples and oranges" thing.
That being said, Sen McCain is way off base in arguing CAP's relationship to the DoD makes no sense and, is not worthy of funding at current levels. The $12 million he wishes to cut from the grant would cripple CAP. It would mean the reduction of dozens of CAP jobs and, the absolute reduction of our mission capabilities on all levels. The amendment should not pass the senate. However, if it does, it would still go back to a joint resolution committee for final passage. We'll know on Monday what the results are...
At one time, Sen. McCain was a Congressional Squadron member. I don't know if he still is or not. However, if he is, National should revoke or, at the very least, non-renew his membership at year end out of principle (there are also a couple options under 35-3, Section B, 4(b) - not that these necessarily apply to Congressional memberships).
While he may not care about something like this, our membership does. If nothing else, it let's him know that we're paying attention and that we don't approve. You can't be part of the Congressional Squadron and claim to support the organization while promoting specific legislation to cut the organization. Pfft..politicians.
Quote from: A.Member on March 16, 2013, 10:48:38 PM
At one time, Sen. McCain was a Congressional Squadron member. I don't know if he still is or not. However, if he is, National should revoke or, at the very least, non-renew his membership at year end out of principle (there are also a couple options under 35-3, Section B, 4(b) - not that these necessarily apply to Congressional memberships).
While he may not care about something like this, our membership does. If nothing else, it let's him know that we're paying attention and that we don't approve. You can't be part of the Congressional Squadron and claim to support the organization while promoting specific legislation to cut the organization. Pfft..politicians.
Tit for tat much? He's a politician and he as well as all the rest of are trying though in a piss poor attempt to put together a budget. Cuts are being made across the board and unfortunately now that sequestration is here everyone is going to be feeling it.
^ That's true, and I think we are all willing to accept that there will be cuts. But isn't it a little...odd...that he is specifically targeting CAP which is, as others have pointed out, a more economical solution for the AF's inland search and rescue mission?
Quote from: A.Member on March 16, 2013, 10:48:38 PM
At one time, Sen. McCain was a Congressional Squadron member. I don't know if he still is or not. However, if he is, National should revoke or, at the very least, non-renew his membership at year end out of principle (there are also a couple options under 35-3, Section B, 4(b) - not that these necessarily apply to Congressional memberships).
I totally get the anger behind this statement, but I'm not sure that would accomplish much.
McCain states that he wants to cut funding from DOD and find us funding another way? Sounds Nice Right? Good luck with that.
BTW, not to Grind anybodies Gears, I think they should cut subsidized housing, welfare etc. Im tired of working my but off. Everytime I pass goverment housing I see Brand new vehicles, with rims, big screen TVs new clothes and new shoes. I havnt baught me a pair of shoes, shirts, or pants in years. My newest clothing items are CAP only.
Redistribution of Wealth. Psshh If you dont work or try, you should not get a free ride.
Quote from: SARDOC on March 16, 2013, 08:28:44 PM
Even if we did get added to the same department that cover's JROTC units. They are being cut as well. The Unit at my Old High School just Closed because the School Board couldn't bridge the funding gap just for the instructors. Let's not even think about that. I think our arrangement is just fine.
Uhhhhhm......we are under the same department as AFJROTC units.
The issue with AFJROTC units.....is that their money is already obligated and they can't cut their "discritionary" operations......because they don't have any.
In CAP you can cut back on training and any not required spending.....but you can't really do that in JROTC.....you can close down units.....but that would not take affect until next fall........and even then there is probably some sort of contract that will limit how many units can be closed.
Also........there is still the carry over costs.......if the USAF pulls funding from CAP.........who is going to do the inland SAR mission? It is still cheaper for us to to it than anyone else.
No Money, No Plane
No Money, No Gas
No Money, No Rescue
No Money, No Training
OMG... What will CAP Do?
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2013, 11:13:40 PM
Quote from: A.Member on March 16, 2013, 10:48:38 PM
At one time, Sen. McCain was a Congressional Squadron member. I don't know if he still is or not. However, if he is, National should revoke or, at the very least, non-renew his membership at year end out of principle (there are also a couple options under 35-3, Section B, 4(b) - not that these necessarily apply to Congressional memberships).
While he may not care about something like this, our membership does. If nothing else, it let's him know that we're paying attention and that we don't approve. You can't be part of the Congressional Squadron and claim to support the organization while promoting specific legislation to cut the organization. Pfft..politicians.
Tit for tat much? He's a politician and he as well as all the rest of are trying though in a piss poor attempt to put together a budget. Cuts are being made across the board and unfortunately now that sequestration is here everyone is going to be feeling it.
Cutting budgets are one thing. His actions are something altogether different and cannot be directly tied to sequestration. Don't confuse the two.
You're absolutely correct; he's a politician...and an opportunist. As such, we should in no way endorse his actions nor allow him in any way to indicate he is supportive of us. I'd like to say that we are virtually unregistered on his radar but somehow that doesn't seem to be the case. So, as a politician, he will understand that just as he does not support CAP, he does not have the support of CAP when he is no longer considered a member. It's a message of principle and integrity.
Quote from: CAP4117 on March 16, 2013, 11:27:58 PM
I totally get the anger behind this statement, but I'm not sure that would accomplish much.
It's really not anger. It's simply a reasonable response given the situation.
The Congressional Squadron is an honorary membership created for the purpose of representing support for CAP. Given McCain's action(s), how could one reasonably justify his continued membership? It can't be done.
There should be enough intellectual honesty in the process to only keep those that are truly supportive. Continuing memberships such as McCain's truly dilutes the value of the Congressional/Legislative Squadrons.
Quote from: A.Member on March 17, 2013, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: CAP4117 on March 16, 2013, 11:27:58 PM
I totally get the anger behind this statement, but I'm not sure that would accomplish much.
It's really not anger. It's a reasonable response given the situation.
The Congressional Squadron is an honorary membership created for the purpose of representing support for CAP. Given McCain's action(s), how could one reasonably justify his continued membership? It can't be done. There should be enough intellectual honesty in the process to only keep those that are truly supportive.
So by your logic lets 2b every cadet who is not actively engaged in AE and at the min not a GT trainee and the same for all SMs who are not at least a trainee in something ES related and isn't in the AE specialty track.. Your logic is flawed he can support us and make a choice to have the budget cut to alleviate the budget. And again the AF budget is being cut so we can expect ours to be cut too.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 17, 2013, 12:56:58 AM
So by your logic lets 2b every cadet who is not actively engaged in AE and at the min not a GT trainee and the same for all SMs who are not at least a trainee in something ES related and isn't in the AE specialty track.. Your logic is flawed he can support us and make a choice to have the budget cut to alleviate the budget. And again the AF budget is being cut so we can expect ours to be cut too.
Apples and oranges...and, to be frank, a ridiculous attempt at an analogy.
The Congressional Squadron is an honorary membership. It exists for the sole purpose of symbolic support of CAP.
As for the budget cuts, familiarize yourself with the situation. McCain's proposal is completely seperate from the issue of sequestration.
Quote from: A.Member on March 17, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 17, 2013, 12:56:58 AM
So by your logic lets 2b every cadet who is not actively engaged in AE and at the min not a GT trainee and the same for all SMs who are not at least a trainee in something ES related and isn't in the AE specialty track.. Your logic is flawed he can support us and make a choice to have the budget cut to alleviate the budget. And again the AF budget is being cut so we can expect ours to be cut too.
Apples and oranges...and, to be frank, a ridiculous attempt at an analogy.
The Congressional Squadron is an honorary membership. It exists for the sole purpose of symbolic support of CAP.
As for the budget cuts, familiarize yourself with the situation. McCain's proposal is completely seperate from the issue of sequestration.
McCain's proposal is about cutting waste and do we really need an additional 15 mil over the authorized budget? You propose termination based on your perception of things. He can support us and recommend cutting funds if there is waste even within CAP. At the end of the day if this budget crisis doesnt get sorted there are going to be alot of people not getting paid come the end of the month, not to mention the DOD Civs who are going to have their pay axed by 20% due to the furloughs.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 17, 2013, 01:21:11 AM
McCain's proposal is about cutting waste and do we really need an additional 15 mil over the authorized budget? You propose termination based on your perception of things. He can support us and recommend cutting funds if there is waste even within CAP. At the end of the day if this budget crisis doesnt get sorted there are going to be alot of people not getting paid come the end of the month, not to mention the DOD Civs who are going to have their pay axed by 20% due to the furloughs.
As stated earlier, my suggestion is to actually familiarize yourself with situation rather than make continued assumptions and statements from a position of ignorance.
Open you own eyes and realize what happens to Ma blue happens to us. And if you think you know so much and can do better I suggest you run for the AZ seat and get elected. Again you fail to realize the senator even though I may not agree with him is doing his job and sometimes the right thing to do isn't necessarily the most popular. And I dare you to tell the GI who lives paycheck to paycheck with a spouse and kid to feed that these are two separate actions.
I dont like the bill for the Fact it involves the VA budget. Thats what grinds my gears, cutting the VA budget Really? Seems like it will be cheaper for them if we all committed suicide. I love my country, i love my CAP, i love my Team. Me and the govment aint on the same terms right now.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 17, 2013, 01:39:50 AM
I dont like the bill for the Fact it involves the VA budget. Thats what grinds my gears, cutting the VA budget Really? Seems like it will be cheaper for them if we all committed suicide. I love my country, i love my CAP, i love my Team. Me and the govment aint on the same terms right now.
I'm with ya man, I think is complete babboonary that someone can serve get injured or something and then have to fight for VA benefits especially when everything is documented.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 17, 2013, 01:34:54 AM
Open you own eyes and realize what happens to Ma blue happens to us. And if you think you know so much and can do better I suggest you run for the AZ seat and get elected. Again you fail to realize the senator even though I may not agree with him is doing his job and sometimes the right thing to do isn't necessarily the most popular. And I dare you to tell the GI who lives paycheck to paycheck with a spouse and kid to feed that these are two separate actions.
I will.
Bottom line.......we still have to do SAR.....even if we cut everything else in our budget.....we still have to do SAR and Train for SAR.....and we can still do it cheaper then the USAF or any other government agency.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 16, 2013, 11:47:03 PM
McCain states that he wants to cut funding from DOD and find us funding another way? Sounds Nice Right? Good luck with that.
BTW, not to Grind anybodies Gears, I think they should cut subsidized housing, welfare etc. Im tired of working my but off. Everytime I pass goverment housing I see Brand new vehicles, with rims, big screen TVs new clothes and new shoes. I havnt baught me a pair of shoes, shirts, or pants in years. My newest clothing items are CAP only.
Redistribution of Wealth. Psshh If you dont work or try, you should not get a free ride.
Yes, because if there's one thing this country needs, it is to roll back social welfare and cut the budge to programs that keep people feed and housed.
For what it's worth, this is what I wrote my senator.
Sir
My name is JT. I'm a paramedic working in the New York City and Long Island region. Working in the Emergency Medical Service requires a number of skills besides those needed to place an IV catheter, draw up medication, or insert an endo-tracheal tube. It requires skills such as critical thinking, leadership, studying, and courage. I believe that the knowledge of these skills are sorely lacking in much of our youth today. I had the fortune to learn these skills while serving as a cadet in the Civil Air Patrol, the Auxiliary to the United States Air Force. The Cadet Program has produced a lengthy roster of civilian executives, high ranking military officers and NCO's, members of the medical field, firefighters, police officers, EMS Paramedic's and EMT's, other other important and valuable citizens. While I am no longer an active member, I can say for certain that it has made me the man I am today. In addition to the leadership and personal skills taught in the cadet program, CAP is also responsible for much of the inland Search and Rescue in the country. Without CAP, Search and Rescue would have to be tasked to already overworked and understaffed public service agencies who lack the institutional knowledge and training that CAP possess on this subject, or tasked to the military or private organizations who's costs are astronomical compared to CAP. Also, the aerospace education mission of CAP is a vital part of maintaining this nations strong history of civil aviation and aeronautics. I understand that the Honorable Senator John McCain from Arizona has proposed certain cuts to the Congressional controlled budget to CAP. I would urge you as my Senator to oppose these cuts, and realize the impact on countless lives they would have. I realize this nation still faces difficult economic ties, but CAP is simply too valuable to face the axes.
Very Respectfully
JT, BA, NREMT-P
Quote from: JayT on March 17, 2013, 02:35:09 AM
Yes, because if there's one thing this country needs, is to roll back social welfare and cut the budge to programs that keep people feed and housed.
Yes. Absolutely. The kind of needless spending that kept my mother and I from having to sleep in our car too much after my birth father threw us out when I was four years old in 1970, without which I probably would not be here today. Once you've been homeless, you don't forget it.
Such an attitude is even more shortsighted than John McCain's slash-and-burn attitude toward CAP, as I see it.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 17, 2013, 01:34:54 AM
Again you fail to realize the senator even though I may not agree with him is doing his job and sometimes the right thing to do isn't necessarily the most popular.
John McCain having an axe to grind against CAP is not what I would call "doing the right thing," especially given the myriad of other noncombat tasks DOD does that he is leaving alone.
http://www.403wg.afrc.af.mil/ (http://www.403wg.afrc.af.mil/)
Hurricane hunting...
http://www.youngstown.afrc.af.mil/units/aerialspraysquadron/index.asp (http://www.youngstown.afrc.af.mil/units/aerialspraysquadron/index.asp)
Using C-130's for aerial spraying...
http://www.920rqw.afrc.af.mil/units/943rescuegroup/index.asp (http://www.920rqw.afrc.af.mil/units/943rescuegroup/index.asp)
Using Pave Hawks to rescue CIVILIANS?!
Not to pick on the Air Force Reserve, but I didn't want to cite any Air National Guard units to avoid making the faux-pas of not recognising the State funding they get.
He is doing the right thing by identify what he believes is wasteful spending across the board. And if we as CAP have it then we need to cut it. I can think of plenty of things that can be cut but again that is all way above my pay grade. And nothing has happened yet hell I would be far more worried about a potential govt shutdown that's around the corner.
^ I'm not worried about a government shutdown. In fact, I think it would be more beneficial.... >:D
Think of how a person outside of CAP would feel given the information that is presented and the current socio-economic culture. I'm betting that if you were a person of limited means, you would probably say that CAP rescues rich people because the majority of the population cannot afford to fly and being a pilot is seen as a rich person's "sport." As such, I am sure that they wouldn't bat an eye if CAP funding were completely cut.
As to the statement that we need to cut some of our social spending, I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be some adjustment. There are people in this country who are abusing the welfare system. There are people in this country who are abusing the unemployment and disability systems. There are people in this country who are too lazy to hold a job. There are undocumented immigrants who are abusing the healthcare system. There are families who abuse the food stamp programs. If you don't believe this, you are quite simply a fool. You can come to my neighborhood and see how rampant it is and I live in the middle of nowhere. The people next door draw Section 8 funds to rent a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house. The problem is that there are SIX families living in the house (a total of 22 people). I've watched people in line at the grocery store who pull out three or four Oregon Trail cards (food stamp credit card). There are farmers in this area who are paid to NOT grow anything! There are people who need assistance, I will admit that, however there appears to be a whole lot more rotten apples than there are people who actually need government assistance.
The lazy people in this country need motivation to get off their rears and get jobs. That motivation should include reducing their entitlements until they reach the magical zero. If you are stubborn, stay lazy, and refuse to get a job (any job), then you deserve to starve. Don't expect to make 100k a year if you only have a high school diploma. If you have a job and can't afford all of your bills, you need to learn to BUDGET. You don't need a cell phone to survive and you don't need to go to the ER when you get a headache. If you live in an urban area with a good transit system, you don't NEED a car. Eventually, you will earn money and be able to afford the stuff you WANT.
I know we are headed towards socialism and it scares the heck out of me. We are headed that direction because our culture is becoming increasingly less educated and lazier by the minute. I don't have the answer and neither do the politicians so we will simply have to see where we end up after Obamanation.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 09:15:20 AM
^ I'm not worried about a government shutdown. In fact, I think it would be more beneficial.... >:D
So you would support the govt shutting down and allowing families to go in more debt and or potentially go homeless because the govt can't get their act together?
In short, yes I would support the government shutting down. I understand that government furloughs are not going to help the debt situation at all. Even if we shut down the whole government for a month, it wouldn't do anything to help our current debt situation. Having said that, we all know that the whole government is NOT going to shut down thus my lack of concern. There are critical areas of the government that will continue to run. Shutting down the ENTIRE government would quite simply cause chaos and wreak havoc upon the economy.
If there are government families accruing more debt because their salaries are reduced by furloughs, perhaps they are living beyond their means. Like I said, there are things that people NEED (food, shelter, water) and there are things that people WANT (cell phones, big screen TV's, cable/satellite dishes, internet access, boats). Reducing your expenses to meet your income is part of balancing your budget.
There are lots of government workers who are simply WAY overpaid for their services. The government needs to perform an audit on itself and see where the waste is. We need to eliminate portions of the government that are not necessary. Most of us can name a bunch of government programs that could be put on hold or eliminated in an effort to restore us to a manageable financial situation (F-35...). Government spending is beyond WAY out of control. Our social and economic policies have led to expenses that are not necessary or prudent (i.e. the war on drugs, government funding for abortions, fruit fly research). For the most part, our politicians deserve far less than what we are paying them. If we do not get a handle on our spending, this country will fall when China comes asking for their money....
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 10:54:56 AM
In short, yes I would support the government shutting down. I understand that government furloughs are not going to help the debt situation at all. Even if we shut down the whole government for a month, it wouldn't do anything to help our current debt situation. Having said that, we all know that the whole government is NOT going to shut down thus my lack of concern. There are critical areas of the government that will continue to run. Shutting down the ENTIRE government would quite simply cause chaos and wreak havoc upon the economy.
If there are government families accruing more debt because their salaries are reduced by furloughs, perhaps they are living beyond their means. Like I said, there are things that people NEED (food, shelter, water) and there are things that people WANT (cell phones, big screen TV's, cable/satellite dishes, internet access, boats). Reducing your expenses to meet your income is part of balancing your budget.
There are lots of government workers who are simply WAY overpaid for their services. The government needs to perform an audit on itself and see where the waste is. We need to eliminate portions of the government that are not necessary. Most of us can name a bunch of government programs that could be put on hold or eliminated in an effort to restore us to a manageable financial situation (F-35...). Government spending is beyond WAY out of control. Our social and economic policies have led to expenses that are not necessary or prudent (i.e. the war on drugs, government funding for abortions, fruit fly research). For the most part, our politicians deserve far less than what we are paying them. If we do not get a handle on our spending, this country will fall when China comes asking for their money....
So what what about those families who are doing the best they can and don't have a big screen tv or name brand products who are simply trying to survive. I am sure you know diapers, formula, clothes for kids are not cheap by any means. And even though some aspects would be open per say those employees would not be getting paid like they should.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 09:15:20 AM
The lazy people in this country need motivation to get off their rears and get jobs. That motivation should include reducing their entitlements until they reach the magical zero. If you are stubborn, stay lazy, and refuse to get a job (any job), then you deserve to starve. Don't expect to make 100k a year if you only have a high school diploma. If you have a job and can't afford all of your bills, you need to learn to BUDGET. You don't need a cell phone to survive and you don't need to go to the ER when you get a headache. If you live in an urban area with a good transit system, you don't NEED a car. Eventually, you will earn money and be able to afford the stuff you WANT.
I know we are headed towards socialism and it scares the heck out of me. We are headed that direction because our culture is becoming increasingly less educated and lazier by the minute. I don't have the answer and neither do the politicians so we will simply have to see where we end up after Obamanation.
Lazy people? Not the mentally ill who have no ability to get the proper follow up treatment and medication due to a lack of family support and a skeletal crew staffing public social service agencies? Not minority populations who after centuries of oppression were expected to suddenly become a fully productive segment of society? Not people who lost there jobs due to the culture of corporate greed that lead to a society where the CEO of a company can make up to 400 times as much as the average worker? Not people who had the simple misfortune to be born in economically depressed area's and never learned many of the life lessons you and I take for the granted? Those are the people that are causing the nations woo?
I'm curious which urban area has a 'good transit system.' Oh, and let's not forget that many of the people who abuse the ED (the bulk of my patient population) don't have access to healthcare any other way. The fact that you reference 'fruit fly research' as an example of pork barrel spending shows you lack a complete understanding of how research, science, and educations works in the world.
Mega thread drift...enough already.
I'm all for cutting spending where it makes sense. If there is waste in CAP, lets eliminate it and perform our missions as efficiently as possible. Any proposal that redirects critical CAP missions to more expensive assets is misguided, is even more wasteful, and deserves to die in committee.
Hey, im not bashing the Needy. When my parents divorced when I was 5 and my sister 3. We lived on Reduced/free lunches, foodstamps.etc. My mom also worked 2 to 3 jobs, made sure we always had what we needed. We were also taught it is only to better yourself, once my mom got back on her feet numerous times, we got off welfare. I know there a people whoare truly needy. Im just saying the Welfare/Foodstamps program is abused. I know the economy is bad right now, but when I hear people say they rather stay on unemploymeny than work, something is twisted.
The government is actually doing a Board on all government employees, to try to reduce the pay. I can tell you this, the UNION is why you get High Paid, Lazy Government employees. Trust me there are numerous employees that barely skate by because they know with a governmwnt job they are set, and will not get fired because of the UNION. IMO Unions in the Government is an Oxy Moron.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 17, 2013, 11:12:33 AM
So what what about those families who are doing the best they can and don't have a big screen tv or name brand products who are simply trying to survive. I am sure you know diapers, formula, clothes for kids are not cheap by any means. And even though some aspects would be open per say those employees would not be getting paid like they should.
Those families have to live with their decisions. I know how much diapers, formula, and clothes cost because I made the decision to have kids. My family has been going about it on our own with NO government assistance. I've had to make hard decisions based on my budget. We live and we learn. I have gone without so that my kids could have what they needed. If those government workers believe that they are not making enough, then perhaps they should choose a different occupation or a different organization to work for.
That having been said, I challenge you to show me a government worker who works for minimum wage. Just one. Even the DOT guys who hold a sign on the side of the road are making twice the minimum wage. A private (E-1) in the Army makes about $18,000 a year in salary with room/board and medical covered for free. Each of these workers made a choice at some point. There is a reason why people work for the government: they get paid more than their civilian counterparts.
Quote from: JayT on March 17, 2013, 11:14:52 AM
Lazy people? Not the mentally ill who have no ability to get the proper follow up treatment and medication due to a lack of family support and a skeletal crew staffing public social service agencies? Not minority populations who after centuries of oppression were expected to suddenly become a fully productive segment of society? Not people who lost there jobs due to the culture of corporate greed that lead to a society where the CEO of a company can make up to 400 times as much as the average worker? Not people who had the simple misfortune to be born in economically depressed area's and never learned many of the life lessons you and I take for the granted? Those are the people that are causing the nations woo?
I'm curious which urban area has a 'good transit system.' Oh, and let's not forget that many of the people who abuse the ED (the bulk of my patient population) don't have access to healthcare any other way. The fact that you reference 'fruit fly research' as an example of pork barrel spending shows you lack a complete understanding of how research, science, and educations works in the world.
Since you speak from an emotional reaction to my statements, I will respond logically and factually:
I was speaking to the lazy people alone, you know the ones who are too lazy to wake up every morning and go to work. Those who refuse to work at a fast food joint because it is "below them."
The mentally ill are considered disabled and as such are treated that way and I do not consider them lazy.
The minority populations were fully productive segments of society (actually more so than the people who were oppressing them) before so I don't know where you are going with that argument (regardless, I do not consider them lazy rather the opposite because most work harder than the average American).
There were two types of people who lost their jobs due to corporate greed: those who went looking for new jobs and those who did not. My uncle was a carpenter and when he was laid off from his job, he refused to go back to work because he was making more money on unemployment than by going back to work (I consider him lazy and a drain on society and told him as such).
Those who were born in economically depressed areas tend to be hard-working and hardy folks and I do not consider them lazy either.
If you have not seen a good transit system, try taking a trip to Portland or Seattle. Let's not forget either that most transit systems will put you within walking distance of your workplace. Oh, and so you don't forget the people that abuse the ED (also the bulk of my patient population), they don't need to go to the ED for the common cold or because they have a hangnail.
Now, you want to attack me personally by saying that I lack a complete understanding of how science and research work: the government spent almost $1 million dollars to determine that male fruit flies are attracted more to younger female fruit flies. How about $350,000 on research showing that golfers putt better when they imagine the hole to be larger than it actually is? How about the research into WoW and its effect on old people? The list goes on and on. Are you honestly telling me that that is valid research that we need to be conducting right now? Do we need to be spending this money at all?
We need to get away from our culture of have all you want and someone else will pay for it. We also need to have everyone pay their fair share. Unfortunately, this system is corrupt and broken and so we will probably see things just continue to get worse. C'est la vie....
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 10:54:56 AM
In short, yes I would support the government shutting down. I understand that government furloughs are not going to help the debt situation at all. Even if we shut down the whole government for a month, it wouldn't do anything to help our current debt situation. Having said that, we all know that the whole government is NOT going to shut down thus my lack of concern. There are critical areas of the government that will continue to run. Shutting down the ENTIRE government would quite simply cause chaos and wreak havoc upon the economy.
If there are government families accruing more debt because their salaries are reduced by furloughs, perhaps they are living beyond their means. Like I said, there are things that people NEED (food, shelter, water) and there are things that people WANT (cell phones, big screen TV's, cable/satellite dishes, internet access, boats). Reducing your expenses to meet your income is part of balancing your budget.
There are lots of government workers who are simply WAY overpaid for their services. The government needs to perform an audit on itself and see where the waste is. We need to eliminate portions of the government that are not Constitutionally mandated. Most of us can name a bunch of government programs that could be put on hold or eliminated in an effort to restore us to a manageable financial situation (F-35...). Government spending is beyond WAY out of control. Our social and economic policies have led to expenses that are not necessary or prudent (i.e. the war on drugs, government funding for abortions, fruit fly research). For the most part, our politicians deserve far less than what we are paying them. If we do not get a handle on our spending, this country will fall when China comes asking for their money....
FIFY ;D
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 17, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
I can tell you this, the UNION is why you get High Paid, Lazy Government employees. Trust me there are numerous employees that barely skate by because they know with a governmwnt job they are set, and will not get fired because of the UNION. IMO Unions in the Government is an Oxy Moron.
Then you are sadly misinformed.
At the risk of further drift, I can tell you that years ago I
was one of those UNION employees at the State level.
I was an intake counsellor for a state welfare agency. I was the first person that people off the street talked to. For every one gaming the system, I saw a heck of a lot more people who are truly needy.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Those families have to live with their decisions. I know how much diapers, formula, and clothes cost because I made the decision to have kids. My family has been going about it on our own with NO government assistance.
YET.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
That having been said, I challenge you to show me a government worker who works for minimum wage. Just one.
Does $7 and change an hour about 20-odd years ago count? BTDT.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Since you speak from an emotional reaction to my statements, I will respond logically and factually:
It is not possible for a human being to speak completely logically and factually, because none of us can detach from our emotions and preconceptions. Your use of the word "lazy" shows that.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
The mentally ill are considered disabled and as such are treated that way and I do not consider them lazy.
Thanks for your largesse...I struggle with such an "unseen illness" every day of my life, and when someone tries an "armchair diagnosis" of me I am often not pleasant.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
(I consider him lazy and a drain on society and told him as such).
I'm sure that did wonders for you and your uncle's relationship. Had I told one of
my uncles that, I probably would have been searching for new dental work.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Unfortunately, this system is corrupt and broken and so we will probably see things just continue to get worse. C'est la vie....
Which nicely brings me back to CAP, thank you! ;D
I have been struggling with whether or not to
remain in CAP, for a myriad of personal reasons, among them being the fact that I am disabled and on a fixed income, and my wife does not make a mint at her job. The "Come And Pay" aspect is getting harder to fulfill, so I don't know where it's going to go.
If McCain were
really serious about rooting out waste in DoD, and personally I doubt that he is except for his vendetta against CAP, maybe we would have
less "Come And Pay."
McCain is just a typical politician. I do not care if he is a Veteran I have disliked him since 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five)
Just left the ALWG Conference. BG Vasquez was there. He gave a very interesting briefing on the possibility of future opportunities for CAP. One that I think this forum would be interested in SECAF would like to see the part time USAF Aux gone. He wants us full time Aux. He wants us utilized more. Lots of potential missions coming up including something similar to the JROTC and the middle school program but in high schools.
While I agree that some unions do breed "slugs," there are a wide variety of good and poor unions (I work for one). The poor unions have a political agenda and focus mostly on making money for their members. This is not what the unions were originally created for and business has done a very good job of twisting the unions into money-hungry organizations.
As for more pork: In my town, they recently built "low-income housing" off of a government grant for minority farm workers. These apartments are much nicer than any other apartment units in the area by far. One of my friends (a local firefighter) applied for an apartment there and was told he did not qualify because he made too much money ($25,000). So, he had to settle into a rental house paying $750 a month versus the $300 a month apartments. To make things worse, shortly after these apartments opened, satellite dishes appeared everywhere on the property with the new tenants who (oh by the way) are driving BMW's, Hummers, Excursions, and Escalades.
CyBorg, in 1993 the federal minimum wage was $4.61 so at $7 and change, you were making almost twice the minimum. I use the term "lazy" for those who are that: lazy. Like the guys who stand at the side of the road and panhandle for beer money. Like the women who keep popping out kids so they can have a steady government check coming in and they don't have to work (presumably because they have to "take care of their children" who are later arrested for violent crimes because they weren't taught any better.) As for my uncle, he needed a kick in the butt to motivate him to find something other than public assistance.
As for McCain, he is not a typical politician. He grew up with a silver spoon in his rear. His father was an Admiral which allowed him to walk on to a commission from the Naval Academy. He spent time as a POW in Vietnam which I can assure you altered his mental status. I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw him but if you read his statements, it appears less a personal vendetta as it is a move to fund CAP through other means, kindof like shifting the shells around. I think everyone needs to stop overreacting to things that we simply cannot affect. If Congress wants to remove our funding, they will do so whether we like it or not. Just like they shoved a healthcare bill down our throats.
Quote from: stillamarine on March 17, 2013, 08:01:44 PM
One that I think this forum would be interested in SECAF would like to see the part time USAF Aux gone.
Interesting, but I have a hard time seeing them fight to get that federal law changed. From a practical point of view I never saw anything of consequence happen after the current status was implemented anyway.
Quote from: stillamarine on March 17, 2013, 08:01:44 PM
Just left the ALWG Conference. BG Vasquez was there. He gave a very interesting briefing on the possibility of future opportunities for CAP. One that I think this forum would be interested in SECAF would like to see the part time USAF Aux gone. He wants us full time Aux. He wants us utilized more. Lots of potential missions coming up including something similar to the JROTC and the middle school program but in high schools.
That is some very interesting information. I wonder what the BOG thinks of the SECAF's preferences....
Quote from: Fubar on March 17, 2013, 08:31:04 PM
Quote from: stillamarine on March 17, 2013, 08:01:44 PM
Just left the ALWG Conference. BG Vasquez was there. He gave a very interesting briefing on the possibility of future opportunities for CAP. One that I think this forum would be interested in SECAF would like to see the part time USAF Aux gone. He wants us full time Aux. He wants us utilized more. Lots of potential missions coming up including something similar to the JROTC and the middle school program but in high schools.
That is some very interesting information. I wonder what the BOG thinks of the SECAF's preferences....
Well I know the CV was excited about it. I felt like I was at church the way he was preaching.
Quote from: Fubar on March 17, 2013, 08:31:04 PM
Quote from: stillamarine on March 17, 2013, 08:01:44 PM
Just left the ALWG Conference. BG Vasquez was there. He gave a very interesting briefing on the possibility of future opportunities for CAP. One that I think this forum would be interested in SECAF would like to see the part time USAF Aux gone. He wants us full time Aux. He wants us utilized more. Lots of potential missions coming up including something similar to the JROTC and the middle school program but in high schools.
That is some very interesting information. I wonder what the BOG thinks of the SECAF's preferences....
Technically, it doesn't matter what the BoG thinks. The BoG is a creature of the federal law authorizing CAP and they could be eliminated or changed in the same manner as AuxOn/Off.
Realistically though I can't see the AF trying to make any major changes on this front so soon after the BoG has asserted real control over CAP for the first time.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 17, 2013, 08:24:51 PM
Interesting, but I have a hard time seeing them fight to get that federal law changed.
Especially given the "corporate" element within us who like us as distant from the AF as possible.
Quote from: stillamarine on March 17, 2013, 08:01:44 PM
Just left the ALWG Conference. BG Vasquez was there. He gave a very interesting briefing on the possibility of future opportunities for CAP. One that I think this forum would be interested in SECAF would like to see the part time USAF Aux gone. He wants us full time Aux. He wants us utilized more. Lots of potential missions coming up including something similar to the JROTC and the middle school program but in high schools.
AUX.... ON?
No OFF?
I just felt an odd disturbance in the Force...
Quote from: CyBorg on March 17, 2013, 04:12:09 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 17, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
I can tell you this, the UNION is why you get High Paid, Lazy Government employees. Trust me there are numerous employees that barely skate by because they know with a governmwnt job they are set, and will not get fired because of the UNION. IMO Unions in the Government is an Oxy Moron.
Then you are sadly misinformed.
At the risk of further drift, I can tell you that years ago I was one of those UNION employees at the State level.
I was an intake counsellor for a state welfare agency. I was the first person that people off the street talked to. For every one gaming the system, I saw a heck of a lot more people who are truly needy.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Those families have to live with their decisions. I know how much diapers, formula, and clothes cost because I made the decision to have kids. My family has been going about it on our own with NO government assistance.
YET.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
That having been said, I challenge you to show me a government worker who works for minimum wage. Just one.
Does $7 and change an hour about 20-odd years ago count? BTDT.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Since you speak from an emotional reaction to my statements, I will respond logically and factually:
It is not possible for a human being to speak completely logically and factually, because none of us can detach from our emotions and preconceptions. Your use of the word "lazy" shows that.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
The mentally ill are considered disabled and as such are treated that way and I do not consider them lazy.
Thanks for your largesse...I struggle with such an "unseen illness" every day of my life, and when someone tries an "armchair diagnosis" of me I am often not pleasant.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
(I consider him lazy and a drain on society and told him as such).
I'm sure that did wonders for you and your uncle's relationship. Had I told one of my uncles that, I probably would have been searching for new dental work.
Quote from: Duke Dillio on March 17, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Unfortunately, this system is corrupt and broken and so we will probably see things just continue to get worse. C'est la vie....
Which nicely brings me back to CAP, thank you! ;D
I have been struggling with whether or not to remain in CAP, for a myriad of personal reasons, among them being the fact that I am disabled and on a fixed income, and my wife does not make a mint at her job. The "Come And Pay" aspect is getting harder to fulfill, so I don't know where it's going to go.
If McCain were really serious about rooting out waste in DoD, and personally I doubt that he is except for his vendetta against CAP, maybe we would have less "Come And Pay."
Cyborg, I am not knocking ALL Unions. At my place of governemt employment, we are in the news just about once a week. I can tell you, i have been here almost 2 years, and have seen it all. How can someone were I work, be here 15+ Years, and constantly dosnt work, skate, and does not care about the job but for a paycheck, how are they still here? I tell you why, the UNION. You tell me how Unions are good for the work place, and i will tell you how they are bad. IMO Unions are pointless, they have there own agendas, and unless your buddy buddy with them, you left out cold.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 18, 2013, 02:27:31 PM
Cyborg, I am not knocking ALL Unions. At my place of governemt employment, we are in the news just about once a week. I can tell you, i have been here almost 2 years, and have seen it all. How can someone were I work, be here 15+ Years, and constantly dosnt work, skate, and does not care about the job but for a paycheck, how are they still here? I tell you why, the UNION. You tell me how Unions are good for the work place, and i will tell you how they are bad. IMO Unions are pointless, they have there own agendas, and unless your buddy buddy with them, you left out cold.
I am not going to convince you, so it is pointless to do so.
Perhaps the fact that I am the son of a Teamsters steward and grandson of a UAW steward, both of whom worked HARD at what they did, colours my perception ever-so-slightly.
To agree to Disagree, If you look in Modern Society, it shows that Unions do not have the pull they used to. Yes Teamsters and UAW are very good unions. In fact, they are the classic example of great unions. As a government employee, why do we need a union? Most of the Union has there own agenda, makes decisions, and does things without your agreement, so how do they help me? It is a known fact, that the UNION is the reason why the government is is disrepair. You have a SO and SO who been working for 15 plus years, knows there set because they have a govnt job, buddy buddy with the union, they can get away with murder. Then you have Mr. New Guy, works 3 times as hard, willing to learn, smiles, nice to everybody, Part of the Union, but not buddy buddy. Comes late to work once, then gets fired? How is that justice?
McCain is talking on C-SPAN 2 right now.
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/)
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 18, 2013, 06:51:09 PM
To agree to Disagree...
This is why I usually keep mum about my political leanings in a CAP context.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kGcpy79X06E/Tnn_WznHprI/AAAAAAAAAQE/Sbz_2Pm5gP8/s1600/amor-shut-up.jpg)
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on March 18, 2013, 07:39:09 PM
McCain is talking on C-SPAN 2 right now.
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/)
Copy of the audio
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2eEV9kYf19lVU9obzFnLTNhX3c/edit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2eEV9kYf19lVU9obzFnLTNhX3c/edit)
In my opinion, McCain is die-hard pro-military, but I'm not sure if he understands how to really attack wasteful spending. Perhaps he failed to read the GAO report citing CAP as an efficient resource that should be used *more* as a solution that would otherwise require expensive military resources. Hurricane Sandy?
Oh wait... actual cost-savings for the taxpayer might go against a prime directive of preserving at any expense the military brigade exercises, helicopter maintenance, 17000 weapons, tuition assistance, submarines, etc.
He couldn't even get the name of the "Pork Program" correct. "Civil Air Program"? How embarassing. Does this guy know what he's talking about?
In my opinion McCain seems like the type of guy to eliminate, for example, funding of American Red Cross and Salvation Army, and then transfer those duties to the military/guard. He is an old school 'military solution' thinker. He trots out the old whipping horse when convenient. He doesn't understand the new world of using local volunteer and local community spirit to provide services to local communities. If McCain had his way, the military would take care of all things good and right, we would receive our room and board from military assignment, and be eating MRE rations issued to us. And we would be thankful to our masters.
Actually, I prefer a society where military/big government has its role, and community-based volunteer organizations have their role, and there is balance.
Cutting the differential in funding requested for CAP (what was it, $11 million or something?) is shortsighted on McCain's part.
I just listened to the audio of McCain speaking and good lord his speech made no sense. Closing of 2 ATC towers around Luke afb. Ok...and? Our budget would not run a major ATC tower for very long. Our budget won't pay the salary and benefits of those controllers for very long.
His statements about us clearly show a lack of understanding of what we even do. What the heck is a "junior youth program" anyway? He can't say "cadet program" because other senators will disagree then, because most of them like young men and women serving and learning.
What a crock this man is.
Lets do some math here for a minute. McCain is talking about taking 15 mill or so away from us to put back into the ops budget of the AF to keep our pilots in quals right?
Ok, so while stationed at whiteman afb, right after the b2 crash on Guam, we had an all call with the bomb wing commander. He stated with power point slides that the cost of the b2 per hour was around 130,000 per hour of flight time. He also stated that for the pilots to stay current they had to fly the b2 six hours a month ( well he said every 30 days). So, there is a fleet of 20 bombers with corresponding pilots for all of them. They all need to be current to bomb so, 20 times 6 is 120 hours. 120 hours at 130,000$ is... 15,600,000 and the budgets gone....in a month....
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on March 18, 2013, 08:15:36 PM
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on March 18, 2013, 07:39:09 PM
McCain is talking on C-SPAN 2 right now.
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ (http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/)
Copy of the audio
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2eEV9kYf19lVU9obzFnLTNhX3c/edit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2eEV9kYf19lVU9obzFnLTNhX3c/edit)
Didn't see it, can't hear it. Did Amendment #50 go to vote for inclusion in HR 933? If so, what was the outcome?
I hope it does not happen. I mean the cadets is my units are lining up the door to get in. This would be detrimental (sp) to them. If he does cut it. Can he find another way to fund us? Like under FEMA? Redcross etc? He sure is cutting the budget the wrong way.
So far, it was 63 Yay, 34 no. I think it passed.
Where are you seeing that?
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 18, 2013, 10:53:29 PM
So far, it was 63 Yay, 34 no. I think it passed.
That was for HR 933. However, prior to that there should've been a vote as to whether it will include Amendment #50 (McCain's Amendment).
I can't find anything on it at all...
I dont believe anything has been voted on yet.
They are doing debates, then they vote.
They voted on cloture to limit the number of amendments to HR 933. We still have not gotten to a floor vote on the amendment we care about.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm)
Nothing has been voted on yet today.
Ahh, sorry didnt think they would drag stuff on that much, lol
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 18, 2013, 10:31:32 PM
I hope it does not happen. I mean the cadets is my units are lining up the door to get in. This would be detrimental (sp) to them. If he does cut it. Can he find another way to fund us? Like under FEMA? Redcross etc? He sure is cutting the budget the wrong way.
While I agree 1000% on the importance of CAP, it does not need to go underneath Dept. Homeland Security (FEMA needs to go back to a cabinet level position outside DHS).
Just as an FYI the American Red Cross exists on public support, donations, and internal funding mechanisms NOT government funding. We are congressionally mandated to exist but unfunded. We utilize internal funding from biomedical and health and safety revenues to pay salaries, overhead, etc. When people donate to disaster relief, 91 cents of every dollar is put into direct services for clients and we start every disaster spending monies already raised through the disaster relief fund that we quickly use and raise more.
This is why we can't cut the budget. Everyone's program has to have funding. Sometimes things are cut. Thats life.
If CAP goes away just find something else to join.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 18, 2013, 11:44:56 PM
This is why we can't cut the budget. Everyone's program has to have funding. Sometimes things are cut. Thats life.
If CAP goes away just find something else to join.
Tell that to cadets like myself. Tell that to the man who's spent 50 years in the program. Even if I did find another group to join, who would take over the Inland SAR mission? Counties that are financially stressed as it is?
Im part of the Red Cross, Also. Yes, I do know there not government funded, it was just an example. Why dont they put CAP in the DOT budget? Something else to join is not the answer. Just wait till planes start going down and we start charging the county, that will be chaos.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 19, 2013, 12:58:32 AM
Just wait till planes start going down and we start charging the county, that will be chaos.
Or, wait for inland SAR to go to FEMA. Domestic SAR is not part of the military core business, and a user/beneficiary pays scheme could get traction in a time of budget austerity. The state and/or counties will pursue and get authority to bill for the emergency response. With 406 ELT's, a lot of the search could be over, and the activation that doesn't wrap up in ten minutes and three phone calls gets a billable FD/PD/SD response to the presumed crash site. A lot faster response than Gee-we need another sattellte pass in 90 minutes!
We could lose SAR as One of CAP's core businesses. We have one major customer, one major funding source.
We wonder why congress can't get anything done...
4 motions for quorum call, one vote on an amendment to limit the amount of amendments, some talking, and motion to adjourn for the night.... Wow...
I think the NB got more work done at a meeting than congress does... And that's saying something
Quote from: That Anonymous Guy on March 19, 2013, 12:36:35 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 18, 2013, 11:44:56 PM
This is why we can't cut the budget. Everyone's program has to have funding. Sometimes things are cut. Thats life.
If CAP goes away just find something else to join.
Tell that to cadets like myself. Tell that to the man who's spent 50 years in the program. Even if I did find another group to join, who would take over the Inland SAR mission? Counties that are financially stressed as it is?
I'm a cadet, and I'd gladly tell anyone you want, just give me their contact information. I'd rather something be cut than nothing. Applying basic economic theory, the US won't be around much longer at this rate.
Sequestration only slows the inevitable.
Can somebody pass me a mai tai? 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on March 19, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
Can somebody pass me a mai tai? 8)
Out of rum. Can I sub popcorn?
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 19, 2013, 03:38:36 AM
I'd rather something be cut than nothing.
Right...lets cut something that leads to more expenditures. That type of "action" led to this problem in the first place.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 19, 2013, 03:38:36 AMApplying basic economic theory, the US won't be around much longer at this rate.
Clearly, you know nothing of the not-at-all-basic economic REALITY of the world economy. Just because you took a 101 course in econ, doesn't mean you just wrote an intelligent sentence.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 19, 2013, 03:38:36 AM
Sequestration only slows the inevitable.
Sequestration is dumb. Period. It does absolutely nothing one way or the other besides screwing working folks and causing mass confusion.
Just the term "Sequestration" or "Sequester" is dumb, to me. That means "to isolate" or "to seize", so you're saying "you dollars, go over here. you can't be spent. You have been seized".
The only thing that has seized is, like you say, many working people's livelihoods, in theory.
Political stroking and finger pointing, what do they care. They get paid. By election day the voters will forget it. If the voter registration people don't claim they can't afford to put out the ballot boxes first. ;)
Something has to be cut. If it is CAP, I'm cool with that. If not, I'm cool with that, too. If CAP is needed the free market will step up and create something.
Need to do: laffer's curve. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)
Don't do: Keynesian economic theory. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)
And don't do: Central planning. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning)
And don't come back with "you just took a 101 course." Prove I'm wrong.
I agree on sequestration. It is a stupid media label.
There's not much to prove. The US is the richest country in the world, China does not own us, we've had worse "debt" situations in the past. This is all part of the typical US cycle. We're in the middle of it right now, but we'll bounce back just fine.
Well,
I understand that you use Wikipedia Economics class, but this is 'Merica!! Sequestration is dumb. They are "Sequestering" the wrong stuff. They are looking at the wrong things to budget. How about Budget what the Parks Service Budget is? Salaries of the President, VP, Congress, Senate? There is many Departments that they can budget from, there is no need to risk the lives of Cadets/Senior Memebers for a budget.
Tribalelder, You really think the PD/FD/SD FEMA wants to do Inland SAR? They will only agree if they get more funding, which is quess what more expensive than funding CAP. We have Local Yokals respond to SAR/Crashes in this state. Around 24-48 hours, there begging CAP to come take over, bcause they do not have the manpower to cover the scene. They also what the Latest High Speed Low Drag Gear, which cost more money. Training, Gear, Manpower, Vehicles, Radios, funding all of that will be more expensive to Fund CAP for another year.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 19, 2013, 02:11:25 AM
4 motions for quorum call, one vote on an amendment to limit the amount of amendments, some talking, and motion to adjourn for the night.... Wow...
Lemme guess, this is your first time tuned into CSPAN-2, right? :)
Them having an actual substantive vote on an amendment is significant progress for the Senate.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 19, 2013, 12:24:04 PM
Well,
I understand that you use Wikipedia Economics class, but this is 'Merica!! Sequestration is dumb. They are "Sequestering" the wrong stuff. They are looking at the wrong things to budget. How about Budget what the Parks Service Budget is? Salaries of the President, VP, Congress, Senate? There is many Departments that they can budget from, there is no need to risk the lives of Cadets/Senior Memebers for a budget.
You know, except for the VP, none of those salaries can be touched until 2015 for Congress/Senate and 2017 for the President, right?
I believe that applies to raises...not sure on cuts.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 19, 2013, 01:12:39 PM
I believe that applies to raises...not sure on cuts.
Nope, the language is quite clear:
President:
QuoteArticle II, Section 1:
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Congress/Senate:
QuoteAmendment XXVII:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Well, look at that bs...
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 19, 2013, 05:27:02 AM
Something has to be cut. If it is CAP, I'm cool with that. If not, I'm cool with that, too. If CAP is needed the free market will step up and create something.
The "market" is not infallible, nor is it the answer to every situation. Adam Smith never claimed it to be, and Ayn Rand was a kook as far as I'm concerned. She would have scoffed at the entire idea of CAP. Why so many pols worship these two I do not know.
Just "cutting" so you can say you did is not a workable solution. The "scalpel v. hatchet" analogy is good, but I would prefer using laser microsurgery as a better one.
And the day that John McCain quits rolling us out as his straw man for DoD "waste" and actually comes up with other, concrete, examples of DoD "waste" and states those publicly is the day I will take him seriously.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2013, 03:04:47 PM
And the day that John McCain quits rolling us out as his straw man for DoD "waste" and actually comes up with other, concrete, examples of DoD "waste" and states those publicly is the day I will take him seriously.
So you feel it's perfectly acceptable for the AF to cut 15 mil from their O&M budget for ops and send it to us?
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 19, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2013, 03:04:47 PM
And the day that John McCain quits rolling us out as his straw man for DoD "waste" and actually comes up with other, concrete, examples of DoD "waste" and states those publicly is the day I will take him seriously.
So you feel it's perfectly acceptable for the AF to cut 15 mil from their O&M budget for ops and send it to us?
Yes.
If we assume for a moment that the $15M is going to be spent on something that is really needed (such as new aircraft in this case IIRC). If we don't have those aircraft, then the USAF is the one who is going to have to fill the gap. We are still cheaper then the USAF in doing inland SAR.
Having said that............personally I would like to see the "budget process" go like this.
The departments submits their budgets to the White House who approves them and then they go to congress......for approval or disapproval. No amendments, no riders, no pet projects, no crossing the streams (i.e. tieing a new road or gun control in with the department of educations budget).
Yes or No......if no then the adminstration either makes the changes or works the politics.
All these "pork barrel" stuff either need to be their own bills voted on indivdually (so we don't need to give the president Line Item Veto Power).
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 19, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2013, 03:04:47 PM
And the day that John McCain quits rolling us out as his straw man for DoD "waste" and actually comes up with other, concrete, examples of DoD "waste" and states those publicly is the day I will take him seriously.
So you feel it's perfectly acceptable for the AF to cut 15 mil from their O&M budget for ops and send it to us?
Yes I do. THE subject matter experts on the AF budget and funding cap, which is shockingly the USAF, has said that 15 million is better spent on keeping us flying than the AF blowing through it in a month or less.
The standing rules of the senate state that when funds are removed by amendment to a funding budget, the amendment must designate an area to return the money to. As of today, unless changed in the past 10 minutes since I read it, mcCains amendment does not return it to the AF. So, if it passes, it just returns to the treasury...
A fail in almost every regard. In every shape and form, this simply does not pass the legitimate sniff test. This is mcCain taking advantage of the fear and heartburn over the whole budget situation to take out a vendetta.
More on the Amendment from CAWG FB Page.
Quote
With 126 amendments now being considered for HR 933, the Senate was forced to invoke cloture in its consideration of the bill yesterday. This means that the time the Senate has to consider this bill is limited to 30 hours for votes, quorum calls, reading of amendments and things like responses to the Chair. It also means that there cannot be a filibuster of the bill.
It is unclear how the Senate will handle the large number of amendments or what method they will use, if any, to limit the number of amendments that will be discussed. The McCain amendment is germane to HR 933 so it could still be brought up for consideration.
It is important that we don't let up our efforts on this issue. Those CAWG members who have not yet done so, but who want to let their Senators know how they feel about this issue, should still make that call. Your opinion will count. Those who have already contacted their Senators do not need to do so again, your concern has been heard. Please refer to SenatorMcCain's proposed amendment #50 to HR 933, the full-year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 for Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. A no vote will ensure that CAP's budget is not reduced for the rest of FY 2013.
Today Col John Swain, CAP's Government Relations Consultant, visited most of the Senate offices and it was clearly noted in a majority of the offices that CAP members had voiced their concern and had been heard. Everyone who called, faxed, emailed or communicated using Facebook and Twitter should be very proud of their efforts.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 19, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
The standing rules of the senate state that when funds are removed by amendment to a funding budget, the amendment must designate an area to return the money to. As of today, unless changed in the past 10 minutes since I read it, mcCains amendment does not return it to the AF. So, if it passes, it just returns to the treasury...
McCain's amendment doesn't remove the funds from the USAF, it simply reduces the amount of those funds earmarked for CAP, or at least that's how I read it.
Quote from: JeffDG on March 19, 2013, 04:09:33 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on March 19, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
The standing rules of the senate state that when funds are removed by amendment to a funding budget, the amendment must designate an area to return the money to. As of today, unless changed in the past 10 minutes since I read it, mcCains amendment does not return it to the AF. So, if it passes, it just returns to the treasury...
McCain's amendment doesn't remove the funds from the USAF, it simply reduces the amount of those funds earmarked for CAP, or at least that's how I read it.
Right, but since it is earmarked for CAP from the USAF it becomes its own potential budget line item. By reducing the funds going to CAP, he is removing a line item and inserting another one with a different number. So, the funds he takes will automatically go back to the treasury and not automatically return to the AF O&M budget.
( I'm getting my information from an aide to senator Blunt, so I trust what she is saying)
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 19, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
So you feel it's perfectly acceptable for the AF to cut 15 mil from their O&M budget for ops and send it to us?
Yes. It has been stated many, many times on this board and elsewhere how much of a "force multiplier" we are for the USAF for so little actual monetary investment.
Investing $15M in CAP has a pretty good ROI in the long run.
$15M is barely enough to gas up an F-22 for a short time.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 19, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2013, 03:04:47 PM
And the day that John McCain quits rolling us out as his straw man for DoD "waste" and actually comes up with other, concrete, examples of DoD "waste" and states those publicly is the day I will take him seriously.
So you feel it's perfectly acceptable for the AF to cut 15 mil from their O&M budget for ops and send it to us?
If spending that $15m saves the AF $60m that they would have needed to spend to fulfill the missions that CAP handles on their behalf, that's excellent value for money.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2013, 03:31:07 PMWe are still cheaper then the USAF in doing inland SAR.
Doesn't this make the presumtion that inland SAR will be done? We are not cheaper than the USAF not doing any SAR.
Quote from: bflynn on March 19, 2013, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2013, 03:31:07 PMWe are still cheaper then the USAF in doing inland SAR.
Doesn't this make the presumtion that inland SAR will be done? We are not cheaper than the USAF not doing any SAR.
In that case. People get lost then people die. You might be okay with that but I'm not.
We can all simply join the US Ranger Corps. I hear they honor CAP ribbons.
I know in CA and Az SAR is handled by the state and the Sheriff's office. And when I hear SAR I hear go find someone/s and extract if needed, last time I checked outside of rendering basic first aid our hands were tied. And let's be honest we don't extract anyone from anywhere. So it's more of a search and contain aspect than anything.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 19, 2013, 07:38:09 PM
We can all simply join the US Ranger Corps. I hear they honor CAP ribbons.
LOL. You know who founded the organization right?
Quote from: bflynn on March 19, 2013, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2013, 03:31:07 PMWe are still cheaper then the USAF in doing inland SAR.
Doesn't this make the presumtion that inland SAR will be done? We are not cheaper than the USAF not doing any SAR.
Really? Think how that will go over in the news. :P
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2013, 08:17:38 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 19, 2013, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2013, 03:31:07 PMWe are still cheaper then the USAF in doing inland SAR.
Doesn't this make the presumtion that inland SAR will be done? We are not cheaper than the USAF not doing any SAR.
Really? Think how that will go over in the news. :P
Especially with hikers and outdoorsy folks.
The USAF administers the CAP appropriation, what we get is not "USAF" money. If CAP closed tomorrow, the USAF does't have a bunch "extra" nor are we eating their O&M budget, though we are, demonstrably, saving the USAF serious money.
Clearly the esteemed Senator doesn't understand that.
But since this is all partisan politics aimed at stalling real progress on actual issues, facts aren't likely very useful. When this country gets tired of its elected officials acting like Facebook drama kids, things might actually get done. Right now it's all just rhetoric aimed at making the other side look bad, with very little ramifications for manufactured "facts".
Quote from: That Anonymous Guy on March 19, 2013, 07:25:33 PMIn that case. People get lost then people die. You might be okay with that but I'm not.
Why would you say that? Do you think there is anyone in CAP that wants to let people die? It's a ridiculous statement.
What I was saying is that all of this starts from the presumption that SAR is needed. With the new 406 ELTs and especially with the new FAA proposal to ban ELTs that only use 121.5, the need for SAR services of any kind is greatly diminished. An ELT will either tell the AFRCC Lat/Lon of a downed airplane or nobody will go looking. Our value as a mission multiplier to the AF goes away if the AF mission changes. The choice is not between CAP and the AF doing SAR, it's between CAP, Local LE or nobody doing SAR.
Hence the big shift of ES into Emergency Management. Which the AF has little use for, so why should the AF spend 15m a year for something they don't need?
If you want to continue that model, alignment with customers would probably be better served by allocating the money either directly to CAP, to CAP through FEMA and/or to CAP through state EM offices.
There is a bigger question as to whether or not there is a place for CAP in the future. We certainly want to change and perform an important role, but that role has to have value or nobody is willing to spend any money on it.
Quote from: bflynn on March 19, 2013, 09:00:20 PM
Hence the big shift of ES into Emergency Management. Which the AF has little use for, so why should the AF spend 15m a year for something they don't need?
I so beg to differ the AF is heavily active in Emergency Management, in fact they have their own AFSC 3E9X1 for it. 15m would go along way for training those folks.
Quote from: That Anonymous Guy on March 19, 2013, 08:13:52 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 19, 2013, 07:38:09 PM
We can all simply join the US Ranger Corps. I hear they honor CAP ribbons.
LOL. You know who founded the organization right?
Why don't you tell me...
http://usrangercorps.us/ (http://usrangercorps.us/)
The founding members of the USRC are all Honorably Discharged and/or retired US Military veterans who have served in the different branches of the US military services in time of war as well as in peacetime.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 19, 2013, 09:33:20 PM
http://usrangercorps.us/ (http://usrangercorps.us/)
The founding members of the USRC are all Honorably Discharged and/or retired US Military veterans who have served in the different branches of the US military services in time of war as well as in peacetime.
That's not even half a truth...
Basically the man who was the main founder was a former CAP National Commander who awarded himself a questionable Medal of Valor and was then deranked and forced to resign.
Quote from: That Anonymous Guy on March 19, 2013, 09:45:01 PM
Basically the man who was the main founder was a former CAP National Commander who awarded himself a questionable Medal of Valor and was then deranked and forced to resign.
Who and when? >:D
Former National Commander Maj. Gen. Tony Pineda? Also Former AZ Wing Commander Col. bill Lynch?
http://www.allmilitary.com/board/viewtopic.php?id=13518 (http://www.allmilitary.com/board/viewtopic.php?id=13518)
Got it from here.
Quote from: bflynn on March 19, 2013, 09:00:20 PM
There is a bigger question as to whether or not there is a place for CAP in the future. We certainly want to change and perform an important role, but that role has to have value or nobody is willing to spend any money on it.
This is a topic/question I have thought a lot about, especially in recent years, and not in the context of John McCain's grandstanding.
Others here have talked heavily about the ES side of things. I haven't been involved directly with ES for a good number of years, so I'll leave others to that.
I am playing devil's advocate here.
With our other two missions...
CP? Alright, this
may be apples and oranges, but what is there in our Cadet side of things that is not done by AFJROTC, which is directly-supervised, and, I would argue, better respected, by the Air Force?
AE? This hits me personally as I am heavily involved in AE. With the advent of the Internet, what can we teach young people, or educators, that isn't available at the click of a mouse?
It's been argued back-and-forth for at least 15 years about how our relationship with the Air Force is. It may be good at the top levels, but it is really YMMV locally, ranging from a good partnership to indifference to hostility. We are as much to blame as the Air Force is, because we have had people in the organisation who have wanted to move us away from the Air Force by degrees...some more successful than others.
My experience with Air Force personnel who
do have a positive view of CAP, including some LO/SD's, is that they are only interested in us as a recruiting tool.
I am reminded of a line in the Kansas song "Dust In The Wind"..."nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky." OK, at the rate we're going, the earth and sky may not last all that long, but I think the point is made.
For decades, Britain's Royal Observer Corps was an integral part of the Royal Air Force. These were hard-working volunteers. But with the end of the Cold War and the advent of new technology, they found themselves without a raison d'etre and were stood down in 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Observer_Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Observer_Corps)
We have to face the possibility that it may be time for
us to stand down.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 19, 2013, 09:47:48 PM
Former National Commander Maj. Gen. HWSRN? Also Former AZ Wing Commander Col. bill Lynch?
Fixed.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 19, 2013, 09:33:20 PM
http://usrangercorps.us/ (http://usrangercorps.us/)
The founding members of the USRC are all Honorably Discharged and/or retired US Military veterans who have served in the different branches of the US military services in time of war as well as in peacetime.
In one person, HWSRN, who was supposed to be a founder, that is really funny.
HWSRN? Im lost
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 19, 2013, 09:57:30 PM
HWSRN? Im lost
He Who Shall Remain Nameless...an informal(?) protocol on this board for referring to the former National CC who caused a lot of trouble for CAP.
Personally, I think it's a bit silly, especially given that most know who is being referred to. It's kind of like the name of Sauron not being spoken by many in
The Lord Of The Rings books.
Don't know about most....it has been 6 years? Many new members since then.
Quote from: That Anonymous Guy on March 19, 2013, 09:45:01 PM
Basically the man who was the main founder was a former CAP National Commander who awarded himself a questionable Medal of Valor and was then deranked and forced to resign.
There were some other shady dealings to go along with those, too. Do a search on here for "He who shall not be named", or "HWSNBN", and after grabbing a snack and beverage, read all the dirt. There's a big, stinky pile of it.
I don't thing its mud, Dave...
Sorry wasnt trying to name names, But yes, i did find some Dirt on this HWSRN. Ive only been a member for almost 8 months now. All I wanna know, is what it with all this God Complex with these former Leaders?
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 19, 2013, 10:10:54 PM
Sorry wasnt trying to name names, But yes, i did find some Dirt on this HWSRN. Ive only been a member for almost 8 months now. All I wanna know, is what it with all this God Complex with these former Leaders?
The smelliest turds tend to float to the top of the bowl. ;)
First, don't flame the AZWG members on here. Mc(turd)Stain, IMHO, has worn out his veteran and POW status and is little more than your typical wormy politician. His own political party at the state level has censured him a number of times yet he keeps doing whatever is politically expedient for him. If his own party leadership cannot keep him in line you can bet there's no one in AZWG who can.
I'd love to know what this clown's beef is with CAP.
Quote from: bflynn on March 19, 2013, 09:00:20 PM
What I was saying is that all of this starts from the presumption that SAR is needed. With the new 406 ELTs and especially with the new FAA proposal to ban ELTs that only use 121.5, the need for SAR services of any kind is greatly diminished. An ELT will either tell the AFRCC Lat/Lon of a downed airplane or nobody will go looking. Our value as a mission multiplier to the AF goes away if the AF mission changes. The choice is not between CAP and the AF doing SAR, it's between CAP, Local LE or nobody doing SAR.
The 406 isn't the cure all everyone thinks it is. Yes, it's a great technology that will aid in the search and rescue. That doesn't mean Search and Rescue are going away. The 406's aren't fool proof and have been known to broadcast incorrect locations at times (not all the time, but just on occasion) and that it's one of the less than 35% that actually survive impact.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 20, 2013, 12:29:59 AMI'd love to know what this clown's beef is with CAP.
We didn't rescue him when he was shot down in North Vietnam! >:D
A Person shot Down in North Vietnam, Hes mad because CAP did come come rescue him? Hes lucky he made it out alive. There is actualy some controversy how he made it out alive :-X
Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2013, 09:49:30 PM
CP? Alright, this may be apples and oranges, but what is there in our Cadet side of things that is not done by AFJROTC, which is directly-supervised, and, I would argue, better respected, by the Air Force?
In theory, CAP has a longer reach than AFJROTC as we can spin up a unit ANYWHERE with very minimal funding. We also reach a larger audience with the inclusion of middle school and homeschool cadets.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2013, 09:49:30 PM
AE? This hits me personally as I am heavily involved in AE. With the advent of the Internet, what can we teach young people, or educators, that isn't available at the click of a mouse?
We can give them what the internet cannot...opportunities to EXPERIENCE AE in a hands-on way.
Quote from: Devil Doc on March 20, 2013, 01:22:40 AM
A Person shot Down in North Vietnam, Hes mad because CAP did come come rescue him? Hes lucky he made it out alive. There is actualy some controversy how he made it out alive :-X
Guess the satire went right over your head. What do you think the >:D is for...
Navy guys, can't live with them, can't keelhaul 'em. >:D
Sent over our Wing-Info
QuoteALCON,
The following was taken from the Senates website Tuesday evening after they adjourned for the day:
The Senate stands in adjournment until 9:30am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013.
Following any Leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R.933, the continuing appropriations bill with the time until 11:15am equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees.
At 11:15am, there will be 3 roll call votes in relation to the following:
Toomey amendment #115 (CONUS)
Adoption of the Mikulski-Shelby amendment #26, as modified (substitute) and
Motion to invoke cloture on H.R.933, as amended, if amended.
If cloture is invoked on H.R.933, the thirty hours post-cloture will run as if cloture was invoked at 1:00am on Wednesday, March 20th.
Now if you are like me, half of this is foreign as to what it means. (Who said we don't get an education in CAP in how our legislative branch works.) I did the next best thing and contacted Col John Swain, CAP's government relations consultant, and asked him what this means in simple terms. Does the Senate vote on this bill as a whole or do they vote on each amendment if the cloture is invoked? Here is how he explained it to me:
"If the amendments are not brought up for discussion I don't believe that they will be included as a whole—they need to vote on amendments separately. This means that each Senator under cloture has up to one hour to speak on their amendment."
There are approximately 125 amendments and if you do the math there is no way that each amendment be will discussed for one hour each. Some may not be discussed at all. We can all hope that Sen. McCain withdraws his amendment, but we cannot predict that. We also have no idea in which order the amendments would be voted on either.
I trust these daily updates help you understand where we are at in this process. As I am sure you have already noticed, the process is constantly changing.
If you have not contacted your Senator, please do so ASAP. If you have already done so, thank you. Please do not contact them again, but encourage others to do so. I am monitoring the Senate floor when I can and as soon as we get the official word of the outcome to Amendment 50, we will pass the information along to you.
Thank you for your help in this critical matter. Your voices are being heard and greatly appreciated.
Next week, we will be discussing the Congressional Gold Medal again. As an FYI, Congressman Sean Duffy is the only representative from Wisconsin who has co-sponsored H.R. 755 thus far. Overall we have 109 of the 290 required co-sponsors for Congressional bill H.R. 755 and 19 of the 69 needed co-sponsors for the Senate version – S. 309.
Best regards,
Jeri Gonwa, Capt, CAP
Public Affairs and Historian, GLR-WI-001
I love the sound of a Pork Barrel, sounds yummy
PorK Barrell.
Round Ham, Laced with Honey Hickory Bacon, filled with Brats, Sausage, and Cheese. MMMMM Doughnuts.
Quote from: bflynn on March 19, 2013, 09:00:20 PM
With the new 406 ELTs and especially with the new FAA proposal to ban ELTs that only use 121.5, the need for SAR services of any kind is greatly diminished. An ELT will either tell the AFRCC Lat/Lon of a downed airplane or nobody will go looking.
Sorry, but this isn't close to reality.
First, the adoption of 406 ELTs amongst GA aircraft is still low. Even with the FCC (
not the FAA) looking to ban 121.5-only ELTs, expect AOPA to lobby hard against it due to cost to owners.
Second, not all 406 ELTs have GPS (extra cost, you see - and I can tell you that I've had maybe ONE out of dozens of 406 beacons I've found to have a GPS). Therefore, they still have an average 3 sq. mi. error when Doppler-estimated by satellite. Once you get 2-3 merges or so, you still have a large area to search.
Third, 406 ELTs are not currently REQUIRED to be registered as 406 EPIRBS are, and many aren't, which means that a search is still required since the owner cannot be contacted. FLWG, by my count, has had 7 searches for 406 beacons so far this year. That's a little less than one per week.
Fourth, even the registered beacons (including ELTs, EPIRBs, and PLBs here) are not always RE-registered when purchased by a new owner. Those, again, require a search.
The whole notion of having a GPS-provided LAT/LONG from a registered 406 beacon each and every time is pure fantasy right now, and will be for quite some time to come. Meanwhile, FLWG has had five 121.5-only missions this month alone. AFRCC has had over 100 missions for CAP this year already. We are still needed.
Somebody always pays in the end. Transfer the costs to the counties and they will pay. If they start billing the crash victims/actors then their insurance will pay. Those who operate equipment that can lead to such events will inevitably have higher premiums. How much higher? Who knows. Enough to push some number out of flying? Maybe. There are then downwind economic impacts of that.
That isn't an argument saying flying generates that much economic impact; it's simply an example.
The argument isn't necessarily that CAP shouldn't be cut, it's why start with CAP? I work in the non-profit world operating a host of grant funded programs. Some are great and critical, some I wonder why they exist. But they exist because they have a constituency somewhere. Google "mohair subsidy" or "International Fund for Ireland" and you can see an example of the challenge in curtailing the budget. Those are but two examples of programs that could be eliminated and save more money than CAP's proposed cut.
This is a hit job pure and simple. Somewhere along the line someone in CAP ticked off the senator and we became a target. It's also why McCain can't get traction with his fellow senators.
Don't think personal vendettas effect politics? Think again.
I've been trying to avoid this sub-thread to prevent hi-jacking, but:
QuoteFirst, the adoption of 406 ELTs amongst GA aircraft is still low.
As of the end of January 2013, there were 65,899 registered 406 ELTs in the US. NOAA estimates there are close to 250,000 121.5 ELTs still in use.
QuoteSecond, not all 406 ELTs have GPS...
True, nor do all 406 PLBs or EPIRBs. Sarsat registration and manufacturer stats show only 41% of ELTs, 26% of EPRIBs and 98% of PLBs are GPS capable (i.e. location protocol beacons).
QuoteThird, 406 ELTs are not currently REQUIRED to be registered...
Not true. 47CFR87.199
(e) ''WARNING '' Failure to register this ELT with NOAA before installation could result in a monetary forfeiture being issued to the owner.'
(f)To enhance protection of life and property, it is mandatory that each 406.0–406.1 MHz ELT must be registered with NOAA before installation...
This is the same wording used for EPIRBs and PLBs.
The US Sarsat program has endorsed elimination of the 121.5 homing signal on the next generation of 406 beacons, scheduled to begin hitting the market in 2016.
Mike
Quote from: SARDOC on March 20, 2013, 12:46:29 AM
The 406 isn't the cure all everyone thinks it is. Yes, it's a great technology that will aid in the search and rescue. That doesn't mean Search and Rescue are going away. The 406's aren't fool proof and have been known to broadcast incorrect locations at times (not all the time, but just on occasion) and that it's one of the less than 35% that actually survive impact.
Of course it doesn't. Sometimes you won't get a 406 signal. But when you do, you know the lat/lon. Isn't it better to dispatch a EMT team to a known location that can treat and transport survivors than someone who's going to fly over in an airplane and say "yup, that's where they are"?
We've already seen the demand for SAR services go down, but not all airplane owners have replaced their 121.5 ELTs...a lot of people have the attitude "if it goes off, come find me and write me a ticket for it". But now the FAA is taking the step to sunset 121.5 ELTs for good and every airplane that goes down will either send a 406 signal or it will be unknown because no signal was sent and it will take hours or even days before any search is even started.
That pretty much says that the AF will not be in the business of doing SAR in the future, so why would they pay CAP to do it? All we really do for them is as a kind of auxillary junior AFROTC program, which compared to fuel for airplanes and weapons to drop on America's enemies, is clearly of a lesser importance.
My main point - there has been a stragetic shift in the landscape from even just 5 years ago. That shift has changed CAP's relationship with the AF. Because of that change, we should expect that the funding aspects will change.
Quote from: bflynn on March 20, 2013, 02:34:11 PM
Of course it doesn't. Sometimes you won't get a 406 signal. But when you do, you know the lat/lon.
Only if it's attached to an optional GPS, otherwise, it's DFing a signal.
Quote from: JeffDG on March 20, 2013, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 20, 2013, 02:34:11 PM
Of course it doesn't. Sometimes you won't get a 406 signal. But when you do, you know the lat/lon.
Only if it's attached to an optional GPS, otherwise, it's DFing a signal.
Yes but even with straight DF you get a tighter fix and it only requires one pass.
We survived!!
Amendment 50 will not be considered into HR 933, as just agreed to by the senate!!
Quote from: NCRblues on March 20, 2013, 05:01:58 PM
We survived!!
Amendment 50 will not be considered into HR 933, as just agreed to by the senate!!
Also...it is not like CAP was going to completly grounded if this amendment passed. We would not get any new aircraft and would have cut back on some things......but we were going to survive anyways.
Here's the final list of amendments to be considered in the vote-a-palooza at 1415 EDT:
http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/03/20/agreement-on-h-r-933-continuing-appropriations-series-of-votes-at-215pm/ (http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/03/20/agreement-on-h-r-933-continuing-appropriations-series-of-votes-at-215pm/)
Quote
- Coburn #69 (prohibits Urban Area Security Initiative Grants not improving homeland security);
- Coburn #93 transfers appropriations from National Heritage Partnership Program to fund White House public tours, Maintenance at public parks/monuments);
- Coburn #65, as modified with the changes that are at the desk (National Science Foundation funding);
- Coburn #70, as modified with the changes that are at the desk (Authorizing Committees to receive information from Homeland Security);
- Inhofe-Hagan #72, as modified with changes that are at the desk (requires Secretaries of Military Departments to carry out tuition assistance programs);
- Mikulski-Shelby #98, as modified with changes that are at the desk (technical corrections); and
- Leahy #129, as modified with changes that are at the desk (cluster munitions);
- Pryor-Blunt #82 (meat inspectors);
- Toomey #115, as modified with changes at the desk (bio-fuels)
- Mikulski-Shelby #26 (Substitute) (majority vote threshold);
- Cloture on H.R.933, as amended; and
If cloture is invoked all post-cloture debate time will be yielded back
- Passage of H.R.933, Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (majority vote threshold).
Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2013, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on March 20, 2013, 05:01:58 PM
We survived!!
Amendment 50 will not be considered into HR 933, as just agreed to by the senate!!
Also...it is not like CAP was going to completly grounded if this amendment passed. We would not get any new aircraft and would have cut back on some things......but we were going to survive anyways.
Since it no longer matters, the cut would have cost the fleet 100 aircraft "in service" and the loss of around 30 employees. Not devistating, just real bad... :o
How does that work, in service? Meaning keep them, just not fly them, or forced to sell them? For the military/government, they just send them to Davis-Monthan or similar and they get 'foil' on the windows with minimal attention. For our level, that means tie down still needs to be paid, you can't just send them someplace.
The Air Force "owns" the aircraft. CAP could relocate them at AFBs around the country for storage. If they were sold, the cash can only be used for aircraft upgrades, maintenance and purchase of new.
I doubt NHQ would require the membership to deal with the issue financially.
Quote from: MajorM on March 20, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
Somebody always pays in the end. Transfer the costs to the counties and they will pay. If they start billing the crash victims/actors then their insurance will pay. Those who operate equipment that can lead to such events will inevitably have higher premiums. How much higher? Who knows. Enough to push some number out of flying? Maybe. There are then downwind economic impacts of that.
There's a big problem here - the counties aren't any better funded than the feds. We have a county here in CA that almost one-third the size of your whole state. They're just as broke as everyone else. (They also happen to be one of the counties who cooperate well with CAP.)
Quote from: SarDragon on March 20, 2013, 08:01:24 PM
There's a big problem here - the counties aren't any better funded than the feds. We have a county here in CA that almost one-third the size of your whole state. They're just as broke as everyone else. (They also happen to be one of the counties who cooperate well with CAP.)
LA, San Bern, or Riverside?
Probably San Bernadino: they are one of several that are going broke in the state. San Bernadino also happens to have one of the largest SAR organizations in the state.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 20, 2013, 08:03:11 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 20, 2013, 08:01:24 PM
There's a big problem here - the counties aren't any better funded than the feds. We have a county here in CA that almost one-third the size of your whole state. They're just as broke as everyone else. (They also happen to be one of the counties who cooperate well with CAP.)
LA, San Bern, or Riverside?
SB, biggest county in the lower 48. Riverside is 4th in CA, and LA is 11th.
Quote from: FW on March 20, 2013, 07:24:34 PM
The Air Force "owns" the aircraft.
How so? I thought that they were assets of CAP the corporation. Are they actually owned by USAF and somehow loaned to CAP?
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 20, 2013, 12:29:59 AM
I'd love to know what this clown's beef is with CAP.
Rumour is that his wife was a member years ago and had a bad experience - cannot confirm/deny that.
Other than that...I have no idea, except that we are his favourite target for straw man arguments regarding "wasteful" DOD spending.
Basically, he wants us moved out of DoD and, by extension, any association with the Air Force. He views us as more or less SAR/DR/ES and believes DoD should only drop bombs and break things, and we don't fit in with that.
Back in 1995 he wanted us moved to the Department of Transportation.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 20, 2013, 05:19:09 PM
Also...it is not like CAP was going to completly grounded if this amendment passed. We would not get any new aircraft and would have cut back on some things......but we were going to survive anyways.
That's as maybe, but I wonder what we would be expected to do: fly our current aircraft until they start augering into the ground, and what would we have had to "cut back?"
Quote from: bflynn on March 20, 2013, 02:34:11 PM
That pretty much says that the AF will not be in the business of doing SAR in the future, so why would they pay CAP to do it? All we really do for them is as a kind of auxillary junior AFROTC program, which compared to fuel for airplanes and weapons to drop on America's enemies, is clearly of a lesser importance.
My main point - there has been a stragetic shift in the landscape from even just 5 years ago. That shift has changed CAP's relationship with the AF. Because of that change, we should expect that the funding aspects will change.
Which is why I raised the "devils' advocacy" earlier regarding our necessity, or lack thereof, to the Air Force, and used the example of the RAF's Royal Observer Corps as an example of a once-essential supplement to a military service that was judged to be no longer needed.
I would really like for us to be closely integrated with the Air Force and be essential to their functioning, but wishes and reality too often aren't the same thing.
So, I dont have to worry about my Training this weekend? I dont wanna be flying around in the CAP plane taking pictures with the fear of it going down, because, oh we had to cut back, and something was left in or off the engine. lol
OK, can we now please get back to the digitals?
"Why, what's the matter,
That you have such a February face,
So full of frost, of storm and cloudiness?"
Quote from: FW on March 20, 2013, 07:24:34 PM
The Air Force "owns" the aircraft. CAP could relocate them at AFBs around the country for storage. If they were sold, the cash can only be used for aircraft upgrades, maintenance and purchase of new.
I doubt NHQ would require the membership to deal with the issue financially.
What do you mean, the AF "owns" the aircraft? The titles to them are sitting at NHQ with "Civil Air Patrol" written on them. CAP "owns" the airplanes.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on March 21, 2013, 01:26:23 AM
Quote from: FW on March 20, 2013, 07:24:34 PM
The Air Force "owns" the aircraft. CAP could relocate them at AFBs around the country for storage. If they were sold, the cash can only be used for aircraft upgrades, maintenance and purchase of new.
I doubt NHQ would require the membership to deal with the issue financially.
What do you mean, the AF "owns" the aircraft? The titles to them are sitting at NHQ with "Civil Air Patrol" written on them. CAP "owns" the airplanes.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 20, 2013, 09:34:13 PM
Quote from: FW on March 20, 2013, 07:24:34 PM
The Air Force "owns" the aircraft.
How so? I thought that they were assets of CAP the corporation. Are they actually owned by USAF and somehow loaned to CAP?
Very true however, the Air Force has
always taken the position that anything purchased with government dollars belongs to the government. It is also true about vehicles, computers and anything else we "get" from our grant. If we ever had to stand down any part of our fleet, the Air Force would most likely "ask" to take them for storage until we could "reactivate" them.
Nice part of this conversation; we don't have to worry about it now... ;)
Well, they can ask all they want, but unless it is part of the grant agreement or some obscure federal law (neither of which I'd rule out), CAP wouldn't have to comply.
The FAA registrations have Civil Air Patrol on them, meaning they are owned by the corporation, even though the AF might have paid for them.
^Sure guys, sure... :angel:
I can say as a wing DC, if the feds put a $ into buying something, or hell, if you cannot substantiate how CAP acquired an item (Found-on-Base equipment), it all goes back to the feds when we're done with it, via DRMO.
Reference:
CAPR 174-1
2-29 (a)
QuoteAny property received from GSA, DRMO or any DoD or other Federal government
agency including National Guard or Reserves, is to be treated as Federal excess property and
disposed through a DRMO. Found on base (FoB) property is to be disposed in the same manner.
No, that says if we get fed stuff it goes back to the feds. Doesn't say anything at all about things we buy with federal money. Big difference.
Now, I in my real life I actually buy a lot of stuff with federal money received through a grant and there aren't any restrictions on what we do with it or that allow the feds to take the property if they feel an itch to do so. Possibly the grant that CAP operates under has different rules.
Well, what if the planes Mysteriously Disappear and get rebadged? Better yet, what the heck would DRMO do with Cessnas? Theyd be better off giving to the "Corporation" as a tax write off. Maybe
Does DMRO pay taxes?
For the actual answer to this question, look to where the funds go when we occasionally sell an aircraft, or scrap one that is bent.
However why would we concern ourselves with where the aircraft would go if they have to be turned in? If we can't use it, I don't care who gets it, so long as it doesn't
become personal property of anyone through a "buddy sale", since ultimately we all paid for them.
Quote from: sardak on March 20, 2013, 02:28:22 PM
I've been trying to avoid this sub-thread to prevent hi-jacking, but:
QuoteThird, 406 ELTs are not currently REQUIRED to be registered...
Not true. 47CFR87.199
(e) ''WARNING '' Failure to register this ELT with NOAA before installation could result in a monetary forfeiture being issued to the owner.'
(f)To enhance protection of life and property, it is mandatory that each 406.0–406.1 MHz ELT must be registered with NOAA before installation...
This is the same wording used for EPIRBs and PLBs.
I stand corrected.. Obviously that has changed.
Quote from: sardak on March 20, 2013, 02:28:22 PM
The US Sarsat program has endorsed elimination of the 121.5 homing signal on the next generation of 406 beacons, scheduled to begin hitting the market in 2016.
Bad idea, IMHO.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 21, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
For the actual answer to this question, look to where the funds go when we occasionally sell an aircraft, or scrap one that is bent.
When we scrap or sell an aircraft, the money must be used for the purchase of a new one or, the improvement of an existing one. The Air Force has decided it would be a violation of our S.O.W. to do otherwise. We don't "own" aircraft procurement funds. They are "obligated" funds by congress.
If CAP were to "deactivate" aircraft because of funding issues, nothing can stop the Air Force from taking them (for storage?). Had we lost the $5 million for O&M, it would have been the best thing. Why would we need to spend our money for storage and upkeep of unused assets? If the funds (the extra grant money) became available, the Air Force would have (hopefully) returned them. If the Air Force sold the aircraft, the proceeds would (hopefully) be returned to CAP to purchase more. These are issues that may never surface however, anything is possible.
Quote from: FW on March 21, 2013, 02:58:46 PM
If CAP were to "deactivate" aircraft because of funding issues, nothing can stop the Air Force from taking them (for storage?).
Citation please.
FW, given your history with the organization, you may very well be right about this, but these are the sort of statements that can become "CAP lore" very easily so cannot be taken at face value from anyone without proof.
From the Statement of Work:
5.4.2. CAP Responsibilities. CAP has an operational and legal responsibility
to protect and account for all materiel, services, or facilities furnished by any
source. CAP may not resell any federally appropriated or screened materiel,
vehicles or aircraft without the written permission of the HQ CAP-USAF
Commander. When approved, funds derived from such a sale will be deposited
in the CAP Aircraft Modernization Account (AMA), Aircraft Procurement Account
(APA) or CAP Support Program accounts and will be spent in accordance with
DoDGARs.
5.4.3. CAP Control of Resources. In the event the Air Force determines that
CAP has inadequate control over its resources, the Air Force may freeze or
suspend CAP Wings from receiving the following federally funded items:
acquisition of equipment/supplies from DRMO and the National Technology
Center (NTC), vehicles, aircraft, communication equipment, computers, upgrades
to aircraft, all new or used equipment, aircraft, and vehicles...
The statement of work gives the Air Force the final say in our resources coming from federal funds. After all, we are the Air Force Auxiliary (ok, on..off...; I get it)... I could probably find more references but, I need to make a living. 8)
Okay, still not seeing anything that allows USAF to take CAP planes (or anything else) back.
True, we can't sell planes on our own and use the money for other purposes and they can stop us from spending funds from our federal grant on buying new planes, but that doesn't give them any ability to take things back.