Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buy and Sell Signals, and Other Market Perspectives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (40876)	11/27/2012 4:45:37 PM
From: PJr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218816

Everyone hired by the Feds after 1987 has been paying into Social Security. It wouldn't be a bad idea though to make Feds responsible for their own "pensions" by discontinuing the Federal pension system for newly hired employees and letting them use the existing "Thrift Savings Plan" which is essentially the civil service equivalent of everyone else's IRA option. Private industry is doing that. Why not the Feds? While eliminating some bases in friendly countries is a good idea, there might be a cost in terms of logistical readiness when losing staging capabilities close to the areas for potential conflicts. There are some benefits to having personnel and equipment much closer to the usual suspects for flashpoints .... though some could argue that we don't seem to be bothering to react to flashpoints lately in spite of having capabilities nearby. It sure seems like a cost-benefit analysis could easily be accomplished to compare the cost of full deployments directly from the US or from places like Germany, Kuwait, etc. Obviously maintenance is more cheaply accomplished when major items don't have to be sent home. The savings from eliminating housing, overseas allowances, family support, DoD schools, etc. might neutralize those costs though. I'm guessing the big detriment to closing many of the bases is the perceived advantage (real or imagined) of being unable to "display" our power presence .... the "Big Penis Principle" as you call it <G>. Couldn't agree more about foreign countries sharing the cost of our defense efforts on behalf of foreign countries if they want our bases there. We even pay a disproportionate share of the NATO costs. Why? Even our lopsided contributions to the UN are another source of cost cutting if anyone in DC is really interested .... and the UN seems to be effective only in issuing an occasional written condemnation months and years after debating even an obvious atrocity to death, and providing lavish travel junkets for the ambassadors. To use the military vernacular, cost cutting is a "target rich environment" if anyone was really interested. Pat