'Sequester' at Pentagon: why furloughs may not be as harmful as predicted
| Washington
The Pentagon has long warned of a devastating impact from the 鈥渟equester.鈥� So just how dire will the impact be from furloughs of the Defense Department鈥檚 civilian employees?
The answer may be that the furloughs 鈥� which began Monday 鈥� are simply not as calamitous as the Pentagon has been warning.
Under the furlough plan, some 680,000 of the DOD鈥檚 800,000 civilian employees worldwide will go on mandatory unpaid leave for 11 days per worker through September.
Roughly 120,000 civilian employees, including political appointees, will be exempt from the temporary layoffs.
There are some areas where the impact of civilian furloughs will be felt immediately, 鈥渨ith work not getting done that is absolutely essential,鈥� says Todd Harrison, senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.
This includes a potential backlog of contracting projects and a 鈥済umming up鈥� of the programs to buy weapons systems.
What鈥檚 more, 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to see a slowdown in maintenance for sure,鈥� as well as a decided decrease in base services, Mr. Harrison says.
But there will also be areas where furloughs 鈥渨ill not have much of an impact.鈥�
Discovering where civilian employees won鈥檛 be missed 鈥渨ill make for an interesting natural experiment for the DOD in terms of finding where there is excess capacity in the workforce,鈥� he adds. 鈥淲here are the areas where you can cut down staffing by essentially 20 percent and not see much of an impact?鈥�
The answer, according to Harrison, will probably be found in the halls of the Pentagon itself, which is alternately hailed and reviled as the world鈥檚 largest office building.
鈥淚 imagine a lot of it will be in the Pentagon, where there are many areas that seem to be overstaffed,鈥� he says. 鈥淭here are a lot of people who are constantly writing reports and doing analysis, and if that work just doesn鈥檛 get done, does anyone care? Does anyone notice? I suspect a fair amount of that work is not essential.鈥�
That raises a conundrum of sorts for the Pentagon, given its dire warnings about the sequester.
To avoid being accused of crying wolf, might defense officials encourage civilian employees to slack off, to demonstrate just how damaging the cuts are?
That鈥檚 what some critics accused the White House of doing when it issued guidance that furloughed employees are prohibited from working more than 32 hours per week, even if they normally work 50 rather than 40 hours during a normal workweek.
鈥淭he question will be, can they still get the job done in 32 hours?鈥� Harrison says. If the answer is yes, then lawmakers could be tempted to make the cuts permanent or ask for even more 鈥� a prospect that is not likely to please turf- and budget-conscious Pentagon officials.
As a result, he warns, 鈥淭here is pressure building to show that there actually are some consequences to furloughs.鈥�
