Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck The Military United States

Sequester Grounds Blue Angels 341

Posted by Soulskill
from the take-that-main-street dept.
SchrodingerZ writes "The Blue Angels squadron, known for their intricate and death-defying aerial demonstrations, has canceled all scheduled air shows for the rest of the year. The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending, due to the 85 billion dollar sequestration given by the federal government. In a statement from the office of the Commander Naval Air Forces in San Diego, the Navy said, 'Recognizing budget realities, current Defense policy states that outreach events can only be supported with local assets at no cost to the governmen.' Currently, the cost of an air show is above $100,000. This story came just a week after the announcement by the Air Force that their Thunderbird shows will also be canceled."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sequester Grounds Blue Angels

Comments Filter:
  • good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @01:27AM (#43409315)

    This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.

    • Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @02:03AM (#43409479)

      This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.

      But how will the US government continue with their policy of bread and circuses without circuses?

  • by jcr (53032) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @01:33AM (#43409345) Journal

    There are no cuts in the so-called "sequester cuts". A cut is when you spend less than you did previously.

    What the Navy's doing here is known in DC as the "washington monument gambit". Any time a bureaucracy doesn't get as much money as they want, they pick out the most popular thing that they do, and claim that they can't do it anymore due to lack of funds, in hopes that this will garner public support for their whole pork barrel. For the department of the Interior, it's closing the washington monument. For the white house, it's cutting off white house tours.

    The truth is, if the navy could afford the Blue Angels last year, they can afford it this year.

    -jcr

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @01:49AM (#43409413)

      Actually, while the federal government as a whole is only slowing the rate of increase, the defense department specifically does have real cuts.

      Of course your point is still correct-- the blue angels are being targetted to make it publicly visible.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The defense department should be cut back, too. It needs to be cut way back.

        • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @08:03AM (#43410863) Journal

          You could cancel the entire defense department and chop out only half a year's deficit.

          Your normal inter-party memefest blaming each other fails, that's how out of control spending is. These idiots are talking about saving a trillion over 10 years, borrowing more than that every year.

          You could tax 100% of the income of the rich and get about $500 billion a year more than now. Assuming they continue to work for 0$ a year. You can't balance without taxing the middle class, which won't happen. And even that won't be enough to begin to cover the $40 trillion in still-unfunded retirement liabilities of all retirement funds from SS to county and city promised pensions -- promised by politicians long gone to buy labor peace, knowing they wouldn't have to deal with it.

          • Jesus Christ! Finally, a sane, rational thought! THANK YOU!!!

          • by ftobin (48814) *

            You could tax 100% of the income of the rich and get about $500 billion a year more than now. Assuming they continue to work for 0$ a year. You can't balance without taxing the middle class, which won't happen.

            In order to make your point effectively, you need to say how much more money than the $500 billion we'd potentially get by taxing the middle class or poor at the similar rate of 100%. (Of course, define the thresholds for rich and middle class as well).

          • (Just talking discretionary here)
            1. Not true. It would actually account for ~70% of the deficit(and 30% of the entire budget)
            2. "One year's deficit" is a completely absurd misnomer. It would affect every fucking year's deficit.
            3. You could cut literally every other agency's discretionary budget to nothing for the less savings. Do the math yourself, please [wikipedia.org]

            Now, I'm not denying that you could cut social security and medicare and medicaid for a lot of savings, but the fact that you're lying ought to be mad

      • Actually, while the federal government as a whole is only slowing the rate of increase, the defense department specifically does have real cuts.

        Of course your point is still correct-- the blue angels are being targetted to make it publicly visible.

        But that doesn't mean they haven't made cuts that are aren't quite so visible to the general public or so likely to garner widespread (national) media attention and aren't prepared go further.

        PSNS [wikipedia.org] is close enough to my house that I can hear Colors

    • by dywolf (2673597)

      There are no cuts in the so-called "sequester cuts".

      Bullshit. Tell that to the people taking a forced 20% pay cut for the rest of the year and likely into the next, via mandated furloughs.
      If there are no cuts then there's no need to change anything, and you can just keep spendign like the year before. No need for furloughs, no need to ground planes, etc.

      This "there are no cuts" BS is just that: BS.

      • by grumling (94709)

        Who are these people and why aren't they protesting/rioting in the streets?

        How bad are their managers if they couldn't at least maintain their department's payroll from one year to the next?

    • by argStyopa (232550)

      I entirely agree with your points, but I'd point out that since the US gov't has been borrowing to cover ongoing budget shortfalls for years, TECHNICALLY there are a lot of things that they "paid for" last year that they actually couldn't afford.

  • by Chewbacon (797801) on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @01:34AM (#43409349)
    My town has 2 Blue Angels shows a year and its huge for business, especially the show on our beach. It's one of the busiest weekends on the beach as people will try to get out there but end up sitting in traffic all day and some miss the show doing it. I hope all businesses who benefit from air shows are coming up with other events to support themselves. I'd actually still go just for a civilian air show (don't get me wrong, the Blues are cool) since you see different planes, pilots and stunts every year.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      From the rest of us: You're fucking welcome we have been paying for this so your businesses can make a profit for their PRIVATE companys.

      Lets stop doing that shit now. because socialisim is bad m'kay.

      • From the rest of us: You're fucking welcome we have been paying for this so your businesses can make a profit for their PRIVATE companys.

        Lets stop doing that shit now. because socialisim is bad m'kay.

        So... You want a bunch of little guys to come together and collectively fund an air show for the good of all.... Yet you're against socialism. I think you need a dictionary, son.

        Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.

        Socialism and Capitalism work hand in hand. One without the othe

      • by grumling (94709)

        The term you're looking for isn't socialism, it's Fascism.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlKJmE4gVE [youtube.com]

  • by luckymutt (996573) on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @01:39AM (#43409375)
    The last link that purports to be about the Thunderbirds is really an article about the Blue Angels. With the exception of one line at the end saying: btw, the T-Birds are also cancelling shows.
    Here is (was) their performance schedule. [airshow.com]
    • Human error. I couldn't find a good link just about the Thunderbirds, so I opted for one that refereed to it.
      • by luckymutt (996573)
        I couldn't find a good article either...just passing mentions.
        I guess they don't have the same draw as the Blue Angels.
        Still, it was kind of a bummer to see the canceled list. I've seen them here at Nellis several times.
  • by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @02:09AM (#43409511)
    The Daily Show said congressmen have given themselves immunity to the sequester so their salaries are not affected. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/look-whos-not-taking-a-pay-cut/ [nytimes.com]
    • Well, duh...

      Be honest, if you could set your income yourself, and decide where to cut spending, while at the same time neither being in any way accountable for the expenses nor having to be in any way cost efficient, where'd you make the cut? Your salary?

  • yeah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @02:25AM (#43409585)

    Yeah don't stop the trillion dollar wars.
    Don't stop the money printing.
    Don't stop the money wasting.
    Stop the stupid air shows, close down airport towers..
    Austerity for all except the bankers, the war mongers blah..

  • by Meneth (872868)
    You know, the Wonderbolts would be a lot cheaper to operate...
  • by kurt555gs (309278) <(kurt555gs) (at) (ovi.com)> on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @02:40AM (#43409655) Homepage

    What they really need to do is end the F-35 and F22 Raptor programs. That will free up "assloads" of money.

    • or they could allow the F-22 to be sold abroad - OR EVEN JUST WITHIN NORAD - where it would be a far better fit for Canada's Arctic Patrol requirement than the single engine F-35 - after all that's what USAF themselves fly out of Alaska to intercept pesky Russian varmints flying too close to Sarah Palin's house. (Although RCAF would probably want a probe and drogue refuel which would complicate matters)

    • by starX (306011)
      Do you mean a "butt load?" [blogspot.com]
  • by therealkevinkretz (1585825) * on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @04:50AM (#43410161)

    The sequestration portrayed in the press as reckless budget slashing is anything but. In actuality, it's a slightly lower rate of increase.

    For 2013, the announced 'sequestration' is $84B in a $3600B budget which is an increase of about $140B over last year's. So by the official numbers, the 'cuts' are actually an increase of ~$56B. To go on, half of that $84B decrease actually doesn't take place until later years but is represented in 2013 via accounting sleight-of-hand. So in the end those crazy sequestration cuts - closing air-traffic towers, grounding the Blue Angels, and ending White House tours - are really a $100B increase over last year.

    • by dywolf (2673597)

      Bullshit. Tell that to the people taking a forced 20% pay cut for the rest of the year and likely into the next, via mandated furloughs.
      If there are no cuts then there's no need to change anything, and you can just keep spendign like the year before. No need for furloughs, no need to ground planes, etc.

      You are conflating one whole pie with another whole pie, and ignoring the changes to all the little pieces.
      This "there are no cuts" BS is just that: BS.

      • there's no need to change anything, and you can just keep spendign like the year before. No need for furloughs, no need to ground planes, etc.

        Yes, when you get MORE money, there's no NEED to furlough anyone. Furloughs can, however, be great political theatre for politicians who want to get even more of your money next year.

      • by fredrated (639554)

        The cuts are being made because they are great theater.

  • The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending ...

    Defense spending outlays (including "overseas contingency operations" for Iraq and Afghanistan) will be reduced from $670.3 billion in 2012 to approximately $627.6 billion in 2013, a decrease of $42.7 billion or 6.4%.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Sequestration [wikipedia.org]

    Definition of Massive (adj)
    1.bulky: large, solid, and heavy
    2.comparatively large: large in comparison with what

Ma Bell is a mean mother!

Working...