If I'm reading the quote right there Chris, it says employees.  Much as the article does.  Just like... ohhh every employee of the airforce.. isn't a jet pilot... and every employee of the police deparment.. isn't a beat cop, not every employee of the organization in the article, or in my post, was prospected to be a cyberwarrior.  And I am glad you already quoted it there so I didn't have to. 

From what I've heard, the info sharing between just the NSA and CIA are pretty muddled waters as well.  And info shared between the branches here in the DOI is often much less than what it could be.   I agree that getting people to work together better is a key to accomplishing anything, and a good use of money.  My perception of the air force's goal was to have a grouped network of people working together in that organization.  A bit more... 'organized'.  God only knows what that will look like in the government though, as it is getting an ip address opened up on the router takes sending the request through 5 inboxes.  Perhaps cutting some of the BS out of it might make things run better.  One quote in the article that struck me was:

"The important thing, the Air Force says, is that under a unified command, decisions about how to use all the pieces -- and control of the budget, more than $2 billion the first year -- will be in the hands of a single commander instead of being spread out as they are now.

"It makes us nimble," says Elder. "It means we can react quickly to change." But, he cautions, there's no plan to consolidate all those pieces in one location. Such a move would run counter to Air Force policies of decentralized commands."

So, who knows what will come of it.  Obiously they're not going to have everyone in 1 place... but at least it looks like they're hoping to keep things a bit more simple than some of the other organizations (like my own) work things.  Whether that will have a desired effect of quick response to change, or to abuse of funds and power are yet to be seen. 

As for pay, I look at the NPS sub-branch of the DOI.  They have a budget of around 2.5 billion, distributed over thousands of miles of parks through 50 states, with roughly 25k worth of employees.  Obviously not all the 'employees' of the NPS are rangers mind you, quite a number are computer specialists, managers, procurement personel, HR, training specialists, cartographers, and so forth.  Infact the number of 'face men' or Park Rangers for that organization is minute compared to the varied support personel contributing to them.  I used the NPS as a comparison earlier to projected budget vs personel numbers.  Taking that into account, with an appearently similar budget being applied to 1/5th the employees, and lacking vast quantities of money for historical site upkeep, I'm sure that salaries are looking rather pleasant.  That is what struck the NPS's Chief System's Officer when I linked him to the article, the amount of money going into the project vs the number of employees and 'sites'.  His perspective in our discussion of it, is what prompted me to make a post about it in the first place.