Senator John McCain claims CAP is Pork Barrel Spending (Again)

Started by ♠SARKID♠, March 14, 2013, 05:08:16 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

♠SARKID♠

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
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...


From the Continuing Resolution
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.

Майор Хаткевич

Man, I wonder what his legitimate beef is. Maybe in High School a CAP cadet beat him up?

The CyBorg is destroyed

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.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Brad

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.
Brad Lee
Maj, CAP
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Communications
Mid-Atlantic Region
K4RMN

Paul_AK

A travesty if there ever was one. I was unaware of his previous stance, I'll have to read up on it now.
Paul M. McBride
TSgt, 176 SFS, AKANG
1st Lt, AK CAP
        
Earhart #13376

Phil Hirons, Jr.

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.

Майор Хаткевич

Haven't there been CBO numbers of how much we save the air force?

FW

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... ::)

SamFranklin

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.


Flying Pig

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. 

SamFranklin

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... 

Eclipse

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.


"That Others May Zoom"

FW

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.

NCRblues

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"
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

keystone102

I just contacted my 2 Senators to ask them to vote against the McCain amendment. I suggest the rest of you do the same.

mwewing

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.
Maj. Mark Ewing, CAP
Commander
West Michigan Group (GLR-MI-703)

♠SARKID♠

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

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

Майор Хаткевич

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.

The CyBorg is destroyed

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.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011