CAP and the 2012 Federal Budget

[Turk]

There's a rumor going around that that CAP is not mentioned in the proposed 2012 federal budget.  And yes, I've considered the source, and I'll add that even his harshest detractors concede that he's occasionally... right.

Is this "omission" of CAP in fact a normal occurrence (ie, CAP is not a separate line item but handled under USAF). Or is there genuine cause for alarm? Federal funds do constitute a lot more support to CAP than, say, membership dues and state appropriations.

Clock's ticking... FY 2011 money will evaporate in two weeks...     I don't know whether to fret or shrug.

[PHall]

CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

[JeffDG]

That presupposes there will be a FY11-12 Federal Budget.

The odds of that happening by October 1:  nil
March 1:  30%
September 30, 2012:  50%

[FW]

I have no idea where we stand in the budget for FY 2012.  However, if I've read the April 2011 National Finance Committee minutes correctly, CAP does seem to be zeroed out.  If true, it will be the first time this has happened; even if only temporally. 

This is the reference in the minutes:

FY12 Corporate Financial Plan. Col Vest presented the FY 12 Corporate Financial Plan, which everyone received early and hopefully has had a chance to review the issues. Ms. Easter stated the importance of looking at FY12 Appropriated unfunded items as a whole when the reviewing the Corporate budget because of the long term outlook for appropriated funding is not good. There is a strong possibility that we will not get restored in FY12 on the appropriated budget. Many of the cadet activities that are funded with appropriated dollars will no longer have appropriated funds and must be funded on the corporate budget. She stressed the importance of looking forward and prioritizing the programs and desires of the organization. Basically, just be prepared for the possibility of a greater

strain on the corporate budget in the future.

[lordmonar]

CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

We are NOT at the mercy of the USAF once the act is passed.....but what may happen between now and then is that the USAF may try to ax us to support something else.

I will say......I really, really, really, really, don't see that happening.

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).
2.  The USAF (specifically ACC) has spent too much money on us to pull out now.
3.  25,000+/- cadets out on the street would not look good on any politician's resumes.
4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to disolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710

[NCRblues]

CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

We are NOT at the mercy of the USAF once the act is passed.....but what may happen between now and then is that the USAF may try to ax us to support something else.

I will say......I really, really, really, really, don't see that happening.

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).
2.  The USAF (specifically ACC) has spent too much money on us to pull out now.
3.  25,000+/- cadets out on the street would not look good on any politician's resumes.
4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to disolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710

and if i may add to your amazing list...

#5. The AF has made it abundantly clear they use CAP in areas they can not get a JROTC in. They like the CP portion alot.

[lordmonar]

CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

We are NOT at the mercy of the USAF once the act is passed.....but what may happen between now and then is that the USAF may try to ax us to support something else.

I will say......I really, really, really, really, don't see that happening.

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).
2.  The USAF (specifically ACC) has spent too much money on us to pull out now.
3.  25,000+/- cadets out on the street would not look good on any politician's resumes.
4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to disolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=61e9d0d1-581b-4204-ba0e-f601878bc710

and if i may add to your amazing list...

#5. The AF has made it abundantly clear they use CAP in areas they can not get a JROTC in. They like the CP portion alot.

At a third of the cost.

[FW]

^All very true however, unless congress agrees, we may not get the funding we need to continue as we have.

I'm sure our leadership is working the issue.  Of course, there is no prohibition on calling your local rep. and, making your desires known...

[N Harmon]

^All very true however, unless congress agrees, we may not get the funding we need to continue as we have.

I'm sure our leadership is working the issue.  Of course, there is no prohibition on calling your local rep. and, making your desires known...

Given the way NHQ has been hounding members to vote Civil Air Patrol for the 2011 Lightspeed Aviation Grant, I think if our funding were in any real danger we would be getting a barrage of e-mails telling us to call our reps and senators.

[ProdigalJim]

There's a rumor going around that that CAP is not mentioned in the proposed 2012 federal budget.  And yes, I've considered the source, and I'll add that even his harshest detractors concede that he's occasionally... right.

Is this "omission" of CAP in fact a normal occurrence (ie, CAP is not a separate line item but handled under USAF). Or is there genuine cause for alarm? Federal funds do constitute a lot more support to CAP than, say, membership dues and state appropriations.

Clock's ticking... FY 2011 money will evaporate in two weeks...     I don't know whether to fret or shrug.

Shrug.

Two funding lines affect CAP. Operations of the HQ, Wing and Region reps, and the overall "grant" funding for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation are funded through USAF Operations and Maintenance account, specifically in a line for Administration and Other Servicewide Activities. That's one line. The other is the aircraft procurement, which is funded on Line Item 23, Other Aircraft, in the AF's Procurement request.

In February, the Obama Administration requested $23.338 million for the "grant" amount in the FY2012 O&M budget request, and $2.19 million in Line 23 procurement funds for six Cessna 182Ts.

The House Appropriations Committee acted first, and in the final Full Committee markup of that bill, in May, House Appropriators restored money that fell out during subcommittee markups. The HAC report out on the bill says "Section 8023 has been amended and provides funding for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation." the bill itself (HR 1540) includes the full $23.338 million requested.

The House Armed Services Committee, which writes the National Defense Authorization Bill, also passed that amount, untouched. The Senate Armed Services Committee blessed it as well.

The Senate DID make a cut of a couple of hundred million dollars from the AF's overall $1.8 billion Administration & Other Servicewide Activities request for FY2012, from which the $23.338 million is drawn. But both the House and Senate bills have language specifying that Civil Air Patrol should be funded.

Obviously, it's up to the AF to "peanut-butter spread" the cost cut from the O&M accounts as it sees fit, and CAP could, theoretically, help be a "bill-payer" for that cut. But the politics mitigate against it right now.

The bigger question, as posted earlier, is whether we get a budget bill on time at all, and if history is a guide (as in the past eight or so budget cycles) that answer is "nope."

A CR, or continuing resolution, has the effect of "freezing" spending at current levels...in other words, you can keep paying the bills you already have, but can't obligate new money. Thus, Cessna would have to wait to start building those six new airplanes, and Nat HQ couldn't use its money...likely at last year's $22.8 million level or thereabouts...to do anything new.

Oh and one last point. Except in extraordinary circumstances, it's the Appropriators who count. The Authorizers (Armed Services committees) set policy, sorta, but there have been times when money gets appropriated and not authorized. The program lives on.

[AirDX]

Both the House and Senate versions of the FY12 defense appropriations bill (S.1253 and HR.1540) include the same 2.2 million for CAP A/C aquisition and 23.3 million for CAP operations.

[RADIOMAN015]

CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to dissolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

The issue is there's too many so called "drop in the bucket" so to speak programs and IF you cut money out of all of these you will achieve overall savings.  EVERYONE is going to have to experience some pain in reducing the federal debt and CAP is of no exception.

Frankly I don't think we need as many aircraft as we have and we need to take a critical looks at the number of aircrews (pilots) we realistically need.  If we have members that are always just "proficiency flying" and never participate in any sort of  mission (ES or cadet support flying support), we don't need them putting hours on the planes that than have to get their 100 hour checks, which cost us taxpayers needless money and volunteer time ferrying the aircraft to the consolidated maintenance locations.

The other thing that needs to be reviewed is the cost of administering this entire CAP cooperative agreement.  Also ensuring the volunteers time is being used efficiently & effectively for direct mission support instead of on mumbo jumbo regulatory compliance.

I also question what the 'real' cost is for a flying hour when you add in all the administrative oversight costs (national HQ & USAF, regional USAF, wing USAF).
RM   
     

[FW]

Both the House and Senate versions of the FY12 defense appropriations bill (S.1253 and HR.1540) include the same 2.2 million for CAP A/C acquisition and 23.3 million for CAP operations.

It's good to know CAP is still in the bill.  They are basically the same numbers as for FY11 which, is $4.8 less than FY10 for operations and $7 million less for A/C acquisition.  Last year we did get the operations grant raised however, it doesn't look so good this year.

[Capination]

http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY12_Defense_rev9_xml.pdf

Page 55

[Al Sayre]

CAP is not a seperate line item on the budget. We're part of the Air Force's budget request.
There will probably be a Continuing Resolution passed that will keep the government moving.

We have two seperate line items on the House Defense Authorisation Act bill.

4.  The $25M is a drop in the bucket in the big schemes of things we have too much support in the USAF and Congress for them to dissolve us (and that is what would happen if they did not fund us).

The issue is there's too many so called "drop in the bucket" so to speak programs and IF you cut money out of all of these you will achieve overall savings.  EVERYONE is going to have to experience some pain in reducing the federal debt and CAP is of no exception.

Frankly I don't think we need as many aircraft as we have and we need to take a critical looks at the number of aircrews (pilots) we realistically need.  If we have members that are always just "proficiency flying" and never participate in any sort of  mission (ES or cadet support flying support), we don't need them putting hours on the planes that than have to get their 100 hour checks, which cost us taxpayers needless money and volunteer time ferrying the aircraft to the consolidated maintenance locations.

The other thing that needs to be reviewed is the cost of administering this entire CAP cooperative agreement.  Also ensuring the volunteers time is being used efficiently & effectively for direct mission support instead of on mumbo jumbo regulatory compliance.

I also question what the 'real' cost is for a flying hour when you add in all the administrative oversight costs (national HQ & USAF, regional USAF, wing USAF).
RM   
   

Proficiency flying serves 2 purposes. It helps keep the pilots proficient, and it helps to keep the aircraft in mission ready status.  The worst thing you can do to an aircraft is let it sit on a ramp or in a hangar and rot, waiting for that once in a blue moon mission or a monthly SAREX where it might get 4 hours on it.  The USAF wants us to fly the aircraft 20 hours a month, and they really don't care how we do that if they aren't paying for it, and we comply with our regulations. 

Proficiency flying is done under a C mission, funded by the pilot, and USAF oversight on those is almost non-existant.  USAF oversight costs are built into the maintenance cost and do change annually.  Without the proficiency flying, the maintenance costs would actually increase and aircraft readiness would decrease... Costing us taxpayers more rather than less money.

[JeffDG]

The issue is there's too many so called "drop in the bucket" so to speak programs and IF you cut money out of all of these you will achieve overall savings. 

Sorry, made me think of a great motivational poster:

[Persona non grata]

I would not be surprised if it got real tight ,Congress mandates that the AC fleet be turned over to the USAF, they can use the AC for light transport and proficiency flying and take over the air mission(DF, PHOTO RECON .ECTC...)  More attention could be directed towards AFJROTC instead of CAP cadet programs.  CAP could be a after thought with the way the budget is.  The USAF would save MONEY by pulling AD folks away from CAP and putting them back to the AF mix.  In the past week I have questioned our disaster relief capabilities and response and I dont believe it what it was back in the day.  The monies for ES could be better spent on more technical rescue organizations and relief societies.  We might want to re-evaluate are role in the over all picture and possibly look for more viable missions.

[ProdigalJim]

the USAF, they can use the AC for light transport and proficiency flying and take over the air mission(DF, PHOTO RECON .ECTC...) 

I guess I know why you'd think that, but I don't buy it. The USAF would not save money doing it that way, nor would the taxpayer, thanks to the opportunity cost of re-directing the efforts of highly trained, expensive rated officers towards DF, photo-recon, and so forth. The investment in each active-duty USAF pilot comes to over $1 million; using that asset to do the work we do for, essentially, the price of gas and some administrative oversight would represent wild OVERspending, in a way that I as a taxpayer (let alone a CAP member) would not support.

Also, USAF would have to invest in maintenance facilities, tooling, parts inventory, etc.; the entire "tail" for the 550+ aircraft it would inherit.

Warts and all, we remain a bargain.

What's likely to happen politically (based on my conversations this week with staff on the Hill) is:

1) we get a CR at the end of the fiscal year.
2) everyone works really, really hard to get an Omnibus Appropriation (essentially a mashup of all the separate appropriations bills) into the pipeline to get done before the end of the calendar year. Everyone on the Hill is giving that outcome better than 60% odds as of today.
3) the Omnibus bill includes efforts to restore cuts, rather than make more of them. That's what all of them are scurrying around right now to do.

[RiverAux]

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).

All they are required to do is coordinate.  The AF isn't obligated to go send people out to look for missing airplanes or any other inland SAR mission.  Note that they have to have an MOU with the state to use CAP to do such SAR. 

[Eclipse]

1.  It would cost too much for the USAF to pick up the inland SAR mission. (and no they cannot palm it off onto someone else).

All they are required to do is coordinate.  The AF isn't obligated to go send people out to look for missing airplanes or any other inland SAR mission. 

I agree to the letter, but the practical is more difficult.  Telling cash-strapped states that they need to add to their missions by becoming the primary resource for mission aircraft, especially then when it will replace a "free" resource in the CAP would not be popular.
That would be one of the things we'd need to get in front of governors should it ever be an issue - a real-world estimate of the
money each respective state would have to pay to have professional ES resources respond to the mission we perform today.

Note that they have to have an MOU with the state to use CAP to do such SAR.

Not all states have an MOU with CAP - mine hasn't had one for probably a decade or more.  Some states are simply not interested in the conversation.