The Navy has more admirals than ships.

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,632
27,395
898
Seattle
#1
Enlisted sailors forced out while Navy has more admirals than ships

Posted on: 4:55 pm, May 2, 2013, by Mike Mather, updated on: 09:56am, May 3, 2013


Norfolk, Va. - In World War II, there were 30 Navy ships for every admiral. Now, the Navy has more admirals than ships.

That’s a point not lost on Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner.

“I want to see the Pentagon cut back on some of this “brass creep” both in terms of numbers and some of these perks,” Warner said.

Not long ago, the Navy forced out 3,000 mid-career sailors. Military budget cuts have scrapped air shows, delayed deployments, and threatened civilian contractors with two-week furloughs. Craig Quigley, a retired rear admiral who heads the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, says the cuts — while not as bad as first feared — will ripple past the local bases.

“You’re not going to buy the new car, you’re going to fix up the old one. You might cancel the family vacation. You are going to have to adjust your own household finances to accommodate 14 days without pay,” he said. “If you are a small business with only a handful of employees, you might not survive.”

At the same time, the Pentagon has added admirals and generals. There are now nearly a thousand. Many of those top officers are surrounded with entourages including chauffeurs, chefs and executive aids. Top flag officers have private jets always at the ready. They live in sometimes palatial homes and frequently travel in motorcades. Former Democratic Senator Jim Webb asked the Pentagon why the Air Force has more four-star generals than the Army, even though the Army has almost twice the manpower. Across all service branches, Warner said, the number of people at the bottom has shrunk while the number of generals and admirals has swelled.

Investigations have shown some in power misuse these perks. General Wiliam “Kip” Ward was demoted for using his staff and military vehicles to take his wife shopping, to spas and on vacations in $700-a-night suites, all at taxpayer expense.

“If you’re a four-star, and you’ve got a G-5 aircraft waiting for your private use, or governmental use, 24/7, that doesn’t make sense to me,” Warner said. “That all adds up, and it just sends the wrong signal, when we are cutting back on the number of troops, and soldiers, sailors and airmen, yet we are increasing the number of generals and flag officers.”

Slate.com estimated that the perks and entourages afforded flag officers cost a million dollars for every admiral and general.

Rear Admiral John Kirby, speaking from the Pentagon, says he understands Sen. Warner’s concerns.

“I can’t say honestly that there aren’t some generals or admirals who perhaps surround themselves with more people than they need,” Kirby said. “That is certainly a fair argument, a fair criticism to make. But I don’t think it is the norm. I don’t think it is taken advantage of by the great majority of them.”

Kirby added that many of the admirals and generals have labored for years under massive wartime burdens, and need skilled officers and aides to help manage their workloads.

To Tiffany Waterfield, that doesn’t make sense.

“You’re getting your steak dinner while we don’t know if we’re going to eat Ramen or eat at all,” she said. “So it hurts. It definitely makes me angry.”

Waterfield’s fiance served 12 years when he was told he was no longer needed. He became one of the 3,000 sailors dismissed from service by the Enlisted Retention Board. Waterfield said he was on track to be a chief, and now they are facing the possibilty they’ll be homeless.

“We’re on food stamps,” she said. “I have never in my life needed help or handouts for things like that. So it is hard. I don’t know what to do.”

http://wtkr.com/2013/05/02/enlisted-forced-out-while-navy-has-more-admirals-than-ships/
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,911
3,848
373
#2
People won't address the issue directly. Deflect, make a random point, deflect, deflect. Carry on.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,075
16,688
839
Your house, behind the couch
#3
My brother wanted to make the Navy his career years ago
but ended up getting forced out after 8 years of service.
This shit's been going on a long time. The Navy is very top heavy.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,653
36,769
628
In a porn tree
#5
Over 80% of the officers in the Navy are rated Above Average on their annual evaluations.
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
Jan 14, 2002
32,840
4,566
898
Land of misfit toys
#7
My brother wanted to make the Navy his career years ago
but ended up getting forced out after 8 years of service.
This shit's been going on a long time. The Navy is very top heavy.
My friend was an XO on a nuke sub a few years ago..they said he couldn't go any higher...he left and works for a private contractor at 4 times the pay.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,898
15,280
303
#9
Is it a problem of too many Admirals or too few ships?
America has more carriers than almost the rest of the world combined and routinely spends more on its navy than almost every country spends on its entire military, so I'm gonna go with "No."
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
Jan 14, 2002
32,840
4,566
898
Land of misfit toys
#11
Casey Ryback....??????
And I think Starfleet had this problem a few times...
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#13
Over 80% of the officers in the Navy are rated Above Average on their annual evaluations.
It's part of the problem in the military. If any evaluation doesn't blow the guy in question, if it so much as mentions a minor weakness in that candidate's profile, they're passed over for promotion.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,653
36,769
628
In a porn tree
#14
It's part of the problem in the military. If any evaluation doesn't blow the guy in question, if it so much as mentions a minor weakness in that candidate's profile, they're passed over for promotion.
It's a "problem" everywhere... not just the military. Teachers, cops and firefighters, and even in the corporate world too.

When I worked for GE they used to have annual reviews... the reviews were done by lazy managers(most of which were incompetents themselves) who would just pencil whip 99% of their evaluations as all "outstandings". If you had a problem child that you were looking to get rid of or shut down any chance of him getting a raise... just one "needs improvement" was all it took on an evaluation and that was the kiss of death.

So what you ended up with was the vast majority of employees who looked like golden gods on their evaluations, and a handful of guys who had one tiny ding that actually extrapolated out to branding the guy as a complete and total fuckup.

Chalk it up to lazy and incompetent HR work. The military is no different.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#15
America has more carriers than almost the rest of the world combined and routinely spends more on its navy than almost every country spends on its entire military, so I'm gonna go with "No."
America also has a volunteer military that you can't just round up for free, and the biggest economy in the world. If you look at US military spending as a percentage of total resources at Americans' disposal, it's about average. Certainly not among the highest in the world.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,898
15,280
303
#16
Fine way to sugar coat it. Of course a country with a 16 trillion dollar GDP will be spending a smaller percentage.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#17
Fine way to sugar coat it. Of course a country with a 16 trillion dollar GDP will be spending a smaller percentage.
Looking at what percentage of your resources you're spending to defend your life and resources isn't sugar coating. It's a basic common sense way to look at the issue.

On the other hand, suggesting that a country with a big economy shouldn't have a bigger military than a country with a small economy is just retardation.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,898
15,280
303
#18
It has military spending roughly equivalent to taking the military expenditures of China (1.35 billion people) and India (1.25 billion people) and Russia (150 million people)
combining them and tripling it. Also, the U.S. Navy is unquestionably the largest and mightiest and most expensive in mankind's history. Why would you build more ships?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,653
36,769
628
In a porn tree
#19
Military spending is absolutely beneficial for a/our country, and should never be compared to entitlement/welfare spending.

Military spending is mutually beneficial... it gives our citizens discipline and training and marketable job skills... it basically makes our citizens better, more responsible and capable people... and it makes our nation more powerful and secure in the process.

Military spending funds R&D that's makes our nation more technologically advanced, secure, powerful, capable, etc...

Welfare/entitlement spending makes our citizens lazy, fat, worthless, dependent, entitled... in a self-perpetuating and ever-growing vicious cycle... it basically makes our nation less powerful, poorer, less capable and less secure.

More military spending = more better. More entitlement spending = more worser.

It's that fucking simple.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,898
15,280
303
#20
Military spending is welfare now. It provides unneeded jobs in this country
and lets the rest of the world skimp out secure in the knowledge that the Fuck Yeah World
Police will bail them out with "naval supremacy" and our "nuclear umbrella."
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,653
36,769
628
In a porn tree
#21
It has military spending roughly equivalent to taking the military expenditures of China (1.35 billion people) and India (1.25 billion people) and Russia (150 million people)
combining them and tripling it. Also, the U.S. Navy is unquestionably the largest and mightiest and most expensive in mankind's history. Why would you build more ships?
Because of the stuff I said in my last post... plus ships are awesome... and because we're going to need ships to beat back the dirty yellow Chinks... soon.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,653
36,769
628
In a porn tree
#22
Military spending is welfare now.
But it's constructive welfare with a beneficial rewards and a real purpose. As opposed to actual welfare which is just a money sump that drags our citizens and our nation down like a millstone around our necks.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,898
15,280
303
#23
Is it constructive, though? Any money put to the military is confiscated money taken out of the general economy.
It is a gargantuan misallocation of resources to have a 700+ billion (more like 1 trillion after interest on war debt, veteran's spending, etc)
per year standing military.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,653
36,769
628
In a porn tree
#25
Is it constructive, though? Any money put to the military is confiscated money taken out of the general economy.
It is a gargantuan misallocation of resources to have a 700+ billion (more like 1 trillion after interest on war debt, veteran's spending, etc)
per year standing military.
All of those people who you kick out of the military, or don't recruit in the first place... and all those workers who aren't going to be building ships, jets, tanks, etc... where are they going to go?

Yes... that's right... to the welfare/entitlement side of the equation.

I'm not saying that military spending is wonderful... I'm saying that it is most certainly the lesser of two evils.