CAP and the 2012 Federal Budget

[MikeD]

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%

Optimist!

[N Harmon]

Maintenance is done at local FBO(CONTRACT), Most Air Guard bases are co located at local Air Ports.

Not even CAP does maintenance at any given FBO. We require shops with highly qualified mechanics who stand behind their work with a lot of liability insurance. I am quite sure the USAF would require nothing less.

The guard would not need the entire fleet maybe three or four.

Three or four CAP aircraft for the whole USAF CONUS SAR mission? May I ask you what your experience is in regards to CAP operational missions? What happens when your three or four birds are in Maine looking for a lost boy scout, and a mission pops up for a missing aircraft in Colorado?

Even three or four per state is pushing it if you expect to have sufficient capacity when one is in maintenance. And some states are quite large.

Many people are joining CAP these days to find out that they train and when the button is pushed only a few actually participate in the real world mission. Also, many obstacles are in peoples way when it comes to get training.

This is how our organization works. Most of our people have day jobs so we train and qualify a lot of personnel to ensure appropriate coverage. Is this the best way to get the job done? I don't know. But I will say if you are unable to commit the time necessary to attend training, then maybe you should reconsider how available you will be in an emergency.

I remeber a CAP commercial and in the run up it says something like "when disaters strike we are there" from what I have experinced recently it is more like when disaster strikes we will try and get permission to be there but funding is low so we cant make any promises.

Our funding does not stop us from participating in federally assigned missions, because that money comes from a different pot. Non-AFAMs should be looked at as CAP providing mutual aid like any other responding agency would. And in such a case, the jurisdiction requesting aid is on the hook for paying.

But that does not stop us from flying missions pro-bono. My unit has self-funded missions in the past to assist the local Red Cross, and municipalities cleaning up after a storm.

I can not recall a recent major disaster where CAP was not involved in some way. Anybody? Hell, we even provided assistance to Japan after their recent earthquake.

I have even heard from elected officials that they would not support CAP because of the difficulties they have had to go through to get CAP to respond.

Are you willing to give specifics, like names and titles of these elected officials? Because it has never been easier than it is now to request CAP assistance.

We recently had a missing person search where the local Sheriff called a local CAP member, who directed the Sheriff to call AFRCC. Within hours there were USCG and CAP aircraft on scene beginning the search and within 24 hours there were CAP boots on the ground looking as well. And we're talking a fairly remote part of Michigan.

Any government officials complaining that it is "too hard" to request CAP assistance either does not know how, or is finding an excuse to not do so.

[Eclipse]

Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

[JeffDG]

Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

Now, if the House can just get it done...

[Eclipse]

Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

Now, if the House can just get it done...

There seems to be a lot more concern about the detainees than funding a defense force.

[JeffDG]

Senate passed the budget yesterday.  $2.1M for aircraft, $23.3M for everything else.  Exactly as requested.

Now, if the House can just get it done...

There seems to be a lot more concern about the detainees than funding a defense force.

True, true...unfortunately at this point, they're a package deal.

[ProdigalJim]

^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

[PHall]

^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

[ProdigalJim]

That's probably the saving grace!

[JeffDG]

^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

On budgetary matters...yes.

A)  Nothing that spends money can be introduced without a "Royal Recommendation", which means to spend money, it has to be proposed by the PM.  That mean no "every MP gets to tag something on for their constituency"

B)  If an appropriations bill fails, the government falls, Parliament is dissolved, and there is a new election 5 weeks later.

That means there is a very strong incentive to get budgets and appropriations right!

[disclosure:  I once worked on the local staff of a Member of Parliament...so I have learned a bit about the backrooms of how it works in the GWN]

[PHall]

^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

On budgetary matters...yes.

A)  Nothing that spends money can be introduced without a "Royal Recommendation", which means to spend money, it has to be proposed by the PM.  That mean no "every MP gets to tag something on for their constituency"

B)  If an appropriations bill fails, the government falls, Parliament is dissolved, and there is a new election 5 weeks later.

That means there is a very strong incentive to get budgets and appropriations right!

[disclosure:  I once worked on the local staff of a Member of Parliament...so I have learned a bit about the backrooms of how it works in the GWN]

And yet, depending on who you're talking to, the Canadian Budget process is as messed up as ours is and there's fraud and waste everywhere!
Unless you're a member of the ruling party.

[JeffDG]

^^^^^

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

It's a truly messy business, and having watched it up close for the past 25 years I'm astonished we've managed to keep from getting annexed by the Canadians by now.

Have you watched how the House of Commons works up in Ottawa? It isn't any better.

On budgetary matters...yes.

A)  Nothing that spends money can be introduced without a "Royal Recommendation", which means to spend money, it has to be proposed by the PM.  That mean no "every MP gets to tag something on for their constituency"

B)  If an appropriations bill fails, the government falls, Parliament is dissolved, and there is a new election 5 weeks later.

That means there is a very strong incentive to get budgets and appropriations right!

[disclosure:  I once worked on the local staff of a Member of Parliament...so I have learned a bit about the backrooms of how it works in the GWN]

And yet, depending on who you're talking to, the Canadian Budget process is as messed up as ours is and there's fraud and waste everywhere!
Unless you're a member of the ruling party.

Oh, I'm not saying that government spending isn't inefficient, but they don't have threats of shutdowns and people holding their breath until they turn blue over it!

One advantage, with the fact that all spending has to be approved by the government of the day (ie. the Cabinet), there is more accountability.  The PM can't just say "well, some MP put an earmark in there for a bridge to nowhere."  The old saying "One back to pat, one throat to choke." responsibility is there.

[Major Lord]

There is no "Federal Budget", and has not been one for several years, as is required in Article 1, Section 9, Clause, 7, or the Constitution, and 31 USC 1105. The Congress has just issued " Continuing Resolutions". This is occurs in much the same way we wage war without actually declaring war, by essentially disregarding that pesky old Constitution that gets in the way of so many good things that could be done to spread the wealth, make high income earners pay their "fair share", and make people understand that the Bill of Rights is supposed to give the Government the power to determine whats fair to the people without infringing on the Governments right to confiscate private property for the greater good. Cuba is more fiscally responsible than the Congress.....Yay, we got out money.


Major Lord

[JeffDG]

There is no "Federal Budget", and has not been one for several years, as is required in Article 1, Section 9, Clause, 7

Due respect, but Article 1, Section 9 Clause 7 does not require a "federal budget" in any way:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

A "Continuing Resolution" is a Joint Resolution of the House and Senate, and presented to the President (per Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2) just like any other law.   It is an appropriation made by law.

[RRLE]

Yup. I think if the average American paid close enough attention to how little any spending measure in Congress is related to the actual merits versus favors and " horse trading" between members looking for floor votes, committee actions, etc., they'd barf.

To the average American spending measures are like tax deductions. If it benefits the 'other guy' it is a loophole, if it benefits me it is a valid and needed deduction.

If the spending benefits the 'other guy' it is pork barrel spending. If it benefits me it is a necessary federal expenditure, vital to national security etc etc etc or so we tell our Congress Critters to tell the other Congress Critters.

While Congress as a whole is held in low esteem by most voters, the voter also tends to rate their own Congress Critter very highly and usually (about 80%) return them to Congress.

"We have met the enemy and he is us". Pogo

[ProdigalJim]

So I'm attaching an image here that I thought my CT friends would find interesting. It comes from the webinar I produced today in which we ventured some projections and discussion about the upcoming new fiscal year defense budget request...which will reflect the change in strategy that President Obama announced last week at the Pentagon. When the Fiscal 2013 request is dropped, probably around Feb. 6, it will happen against a backdrop in which the congressionally passed Budget Control Act is mandating deep defense cuts, and the "automatic triggers" will kick in because the congressional "super committee" this summer couldn't agree on how to cut.

The chart comes from one of our guests at the webinar, Todd Harrison at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. It was commented on extensively by our second guest, Steve Grundman, principal at Grundman Advisory and a former DOD Comptroller official. I took the liberty of annotating the chart just for the purpose of showing it to my fellow CAPTalkers.

The red arrows mark when each of our recent Presidents were inaugurated. The three green arrows point out what the legend box may not make clear...the budget level that President Obama proposed in the most recent Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), the budget level that would result from the Budget Control Act, and the budget level that comes after the "automatic cuts" from sequestration.

I'm making no political argument here, one way or the other. I thought it would be interesting perspective as we all talk about what's likely to happen to defense funding, Air Force funding, and our relative worth/non-worth to the U.S. Air Force as an auxiliary. The chart shows the context in which those debates are taking place.

The webinar can be replayed for the next 11 months, and it's pretty interesting stuff (if I do say so myself! :-)) If anyone wants, I'll post a link to it. It's free, but the marketing folks will make you part with your email address to watch the webinar (so they can pester you for a few months to subscribe to Aviation Week & Space Technology).

(And for whatever reason I haven't figured out how to make it display inline with my post. I'm open to instruction!)

[JeffDG]

(And for whatever reason I haven't figured out how to make it display inline with my post. I'm open to instruction!)

[lordmonar]

In the context of "CAP's reletive worth"...you still have to figure in the basic fact that someone is going to have to do SAR.

If CAP were to close down today.....who is ready to take on the mission?  Counties.....a lot of counties don't have any air assets.  States?  Okay...maybe the State Troopers can do it...but that is increasing their work load with out any increase in their funding.
ANG?  Sure...but same argument.  Federal Government?  DoD has the assets to do it.....but their per hour cost will quickly eat up any savings they get from axing CAP.

Bottom line is that unless states are ready to start up some home grown SAR organisations where members fund the missions....someone is going to have pay a LOT of money to do what CAP does for $30M+/- now.

One way for CAP to cut costs quick and dirty is to get rid of the corporate fleet.  Member owned aircraft/member paid maintenance with USAF paid flighing for SAR and training.

Down side of this...is we lose the communications equipment, we loose the ability to monitory readiness states, the ability to deploy assets at will.  So the Fosset Search/Katrina/New Horizon missions would not have happened.

Add the other costs saveings CAP aircraft brings to the USAF.....the Surrogate Predator program is bringing HUGE saveings to the military!

CAP is NOT IMHO doomed to fade away anytime soon.  Even with automatic cuts and a drastic reduction in the size of the military.  $30M is simply too small a drop in the bucket and it has too many strings attached that would make it worse for the military in the long run.

[dbaran]

In the context of "CAP's reletive worth"...you still have to figure in the basic fact that someone is going to have to do SAR.

If CAP were to close down today.....who is ready to take on the mission? 

I doubt there even is a mission for CAP at this point, in terms of ES.  In CAWG, we went from 400 missions a year to probably 20/year.  Plus our big CD activity disappeared.  In CA, the local county SAR teams do a great job, and their ground team members are capable of actually doing things like high angle rescues or providing medical care beyond what a Boy Scout is allowed to do.     

Some of this is the "market."  Fewer people are flying these days, so we've got fewer crashes to search for.  But not chasing ELTs is the big thing.  Our crews don't have any way to stay nearly as proficient and our airplanes are flying a lot less.  If this were a corporation, there would have been a big layoff corresponding to the loss of business.

But not all of it is due to external factors.  I see no signs that Wing or National is putting sufficient effort into attracting ops business.  Look at the minutes from National...they spend more time discussing uniforms and awards than they do about the ops side.  They're perfectly fine with a 3 bladed prop that chucked one of the blades.

After 20+ years in it (from MP to almost done IC-T), I really wish CAP were still relevant in ES or CD.  But it isn't, and it was an easy but sad decision to not renew this year to be able to devote my time to another organization that actually needs it.

[RiverAux]

At worst that chart shows the AF going back to funding levels similar to what they were 4 years ago or in the medium term projection what they were just a couple of years ago.  Big deal.  Neither represent large spending cuts and considering the fact that there is one less country that we're flying massive number of transport and air support missions over than we were then, may have very little actual impact on the AF, much less us.