Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Shipyard.jpg
The budget cuts will cost the Navy $9.6 billion and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is expected to take a $90 million hit. Photo of four decommissioned aircraft carriers docked at the Shipyard in Bremerton courtesy Jelson25.

Defense cuts sink in for Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton

February 6, 2013 @ 5:57 pm (Updated: 5:56 am - 2/7/13 )

"Less steaming, less flying, less training."

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus says that will be the result of deep budget cuts that will kick in if Congress doesn't pass a defense budget by March 1, 2013.

Mabus addressed nearly 1,600 at Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton Wednesday. The budget cuts will cost the Navy $9.6 billion and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is expected to take a $90 million hit.

The Navy Secretary says that would "seriously dent the income and morale of our civilian workers."

Those on active duty will receive the same pay and benefits, but civilian employees may be subject to 22 furlough days. Civilian workers could also see their hours cut from 40 per week to 32, which amounts to a 20 percent pay cut.

Mabus didn't comment about the possibility that the Seafair Blue Angels might be cancelled this summer. (Congress might shoot down Seafair's Blue Angels).

Next week I'll have a story of how military budget cuts are even impacting more than a hundred students at an area high school.

Meanwhile, the show goes on. Thursday, Mabus will join Gov. Jay Inslee at a ship-naming event on the Seattle waterfront.

In April, Mabus announced the naming of five Virginia-class fast attack submarines after states, including Washington. The ceremony will take place now, though the boat won't be delivered until 2016.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (14)


  • Add A Comment

  • Tracy White wrote...
    Correction: We've never had a Submarine named after us.
    February 6, 2013 7:05 pm
    The US Navy used to name its battleships after states and submarines were named after fish. BB-56 Washington was the last ship named after the state.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 2112 wrote...
    Yes it is painful
    February 6, 2013 8:32 pm
    I make 45% of what I did in 2008. The entire Federal Government needs a 30% decrease. We can't keep overspending. We are broke and nobody wants to tell the emperor he has no clothes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    What? No mention of Obama's Executive Order
    February 7, 2013 5:09 am
    giving a $11 billion pay raise to government officials (including those with poor performance reviews)?...

    or Panetta's recommendation to cut military pay?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Military cuts
    February 7, 2013 5:13 am
    The left, aka Dimocrats, are getting what they wanted. A weak, broke, second world nation dependent on high taxes to support a socialist agenda where the makers pay for the takers and there are more takers than makers. Four yrs in to Owebamaland and over 200 yrs of prosperity, leadership and strength....GONE. Congrats.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Still spend more than than the next 10 countries combined
    February 7, 2013 5:46 am
    Even if the full cuts from the sequester kick in, the U.S. expenditures for defense would still be more than the next 10 countries combined. Currently the U.S. defense expenditures equal 43% of the world total. I have a hard time seeing how a 7.3% reduction in spending will make the U.S. a second world nation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Defense cuts.
    February 7, 2013 5:49 am
    All just to pay for welfare bums and illegal aliens who re immaced the Dear Leader King Obama!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    It's just too, too, funny...as well as sad
    February 7, 2013 7:06 am
    The same voices that insist we can't spend too little on school lunches for starving children are seen in this forum lamenting that the military doesn't get carte blance to spend as much as possible.

    God, no. Don't give some single mother with a mini-wage job and two babies to feed a helping hand with a few pounds of surplus cheese- but double down on military spending!

    Give these people kudos for consistency, however. Remember the Romney/Ryan campaign? Their platform was to gut government spending at all levels, except for a substantial increase in military spending.

    All branches of the government need to be substantially smaller than at present. We can't tax our way out of this mess. But, cutting other government expenses simply to shift the savings to increased military expenditures (as Romney/Ryan somewhat proposed) would not solve our fiscal problems.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    Chuck, there are many reasons our cost have skyrocketed....
    February 7, 2013 8:17 am
    First we must understand that America's politics have pushed our military into a global defense roll just not a roll to protect our own. Futher we have spent our way into a nuclear deterent while mcuh of the world continues to use conventional weapons......finally our roll has significantly changed into buying and using very expensive weapons to minimize colateral damage to those we wage war upon. In other words Chuck, much of the expense is due to the fact we like to wage war using a sort of civilized rules when much of the anti- American nations prefer just killing everyone. it's cheaper that way.............in regards to the liberal agenda of taking care of everyone that needs assistance, I find that a nice attempt but permitting those that are CAPABLE to take responsibility for their actions is not benifiting anyone, you are just allowing them to feed off the teat of government longer.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    The Navy is about to break ground on a 760 Million dollar wharf
    February 7, 2013 7:24 am
    Stop the wharf, it is too expensive. It is not needed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Orderly transition and Economic Methadone can prevent ex-military ghost towns...
    February 7, 2013 7:41 am
    Every time Congress takes a look at reducing our military expenses through increased efficiencies and reducing the number of military bases and personnel, all hell(o) breaks loose. Understandably so.

    We know we can't justify having as many bases as we do, but by the same token it is always possible to make a compelling case for retaining almost any individual base.

    Look at a community like Bremerton, for example. Or, Oak Harbor, also in the news today. And literally hundreds of other small and medium size cities across the country where the local economy is directly dependent on military employment and payroll. Pull the plug on the military base, and scores of shops, restaurants, auto dealerships, theaters, and service providers are almost instantly out of business. A localized depression is almost inevitable in such a case, with a lot of human suffering.

    Rather than just furlough thousands of workers in these military dependent towns, we should consider phasing them out over a three to five year period. For example, they could be put to work on public infrastructure projects if they are no longer employed in the defense industry.

    We wouldn't realize all the savings right away, but such a program might prevent the destruction of local economies and give these military-dependent towns more of an opportunity to attract other employers.

    I think we need to look for a lot more efficiency within the military, but we have to realize there's a risk in just cutting off a lot of people "cold turkey". Close or reduce the size of bases where we have excess capacity or redundancy, but do so in a way that minimizes any economic hardship and gives small communities a fighting chance to survive.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    When there are reductions in military spending.....
    February 7, 2013 8:18 am
    There is no delayed draw down, it happensquickly unless spending is gradual as well.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Chuck
    February 7, 2013 9:27 am
    Great post & great idea!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DesertRez wrote...
    Cuts
    February 7, 2013 12:18 pm
    I am no Democrat but cuts must be made across the board including Defense. Sequestration will most likely happen because obama has no leverage over the R's now. It's a good thing even though it may cost me my job. After I get canned I plan on walking the Earth.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }