Pentagon's budget nightmare: How each branch would handle sequester cuts

With the threat of a mandatory, across-the-board series of cuts known as sequestration looming over the Pentagon, each of the services has begun its worst-case-scenario planning. Here is where the cuts stand now:

2. Navy

Lockheed Martin/PRNewsFoto/File
The Fort Worth sets sail from Marinette Marine Corporation's Marinette, Wis., shipyard in 2012. The sequester could hit shipyards hard.

Should Congress fail to avert the threat of sequestration by March 1, the Navy’s top officer warns that the naval fleet will be forced to put an end to “nearly all non-deployed operations.”

This could “ultimately prevent” carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups from deploying, added Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of Naval Operations, in a memo issued earlier this month.

Navy commanders have also been ordered to cancel repair of nearly all piers, runways, buildings, and other facilities through September, as well as most ship maintenance at private shipyards except for critical repairs “for safety and security.”

Like the Army, the Navy is terminating temporary employees and implementing a temporary hiring freeze, reducing the Navy’s shipyard force by some 10 percent.

“This is a big deal for all those yards that have been hiring,” Craig Quigley, executive director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, told the Virginian-Pilot. “This completely pulls the rug out from under them.”

Commanders have been ordered to curtail all temporary travels as well as “duties and professional training not deemed mission essential, to include attendance at conferences and seminars,” according to Admiral Greenert's memo.

He pointed out that little expenditures add up, too, and directed his officers to “reduce utilities consumption to the maximum extent possible” and “stop minor purchases that are not mission-essential, such as furniture, information technology, and unit equipment.”

No more parties, either. “Ceremony expenses shall be similarly limited,” Greenert said.

2 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.