Posted on 09/22/2005 6:14:11 AM PDT by pabianice
A group of House Republicans have proposed a plan to offset the costs of relief and rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina that includes trimming military quality-of-life programs, including health care. Possible sources of funding cuts to free up money for Katrina relief include reduced health benefits, consolidation of the three military exchange systems and the closure of the military’s stateside school system.
The House Republican Study Committee, headed by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., is not singling out the military as it tries to raise the estimated $200 billion that the federal government will need for various Katrina-related spending.
Their proposal includes freezing congressional pay, charging federal workers for parking and cutting back on legislative earmarking — items added to agency budgets by lawmakers — as ways of raising money.
They call their effort “Operation Offset,” and hope to get spending cuts considered before Congress approves any more money devoted to Katrina relief and recovery operations.
Their offset list includes three provisions aimed at military quality-of-life programs:
• Service members would be offered cash if they are willing to accept reduced health care benefits for their families. “The less comprehensive plan would encourage individuals to be more cost-conscious when purchasing health care products by including deductibles, co-payments and a maximum annual out-of-pocket expenditure limit,” according to a written explanation provided by the study group. Reduced health care benefits could save $2.4 billion over 10 years.
• The three separate military exchange systems could be consolidated, saving up to $1.9 billion over 10 years, the study group says. The Army and Air Force share an exchange system, AAFES, while the Navy and Marine Corps have their own systems. “Consolidating … would eliminate inefficiencies from duplicative purchasing, different personnel departments, warehouse and inventory systems and management headquarters while retaining the current ability for service embers and their families to receive a wide selection of goods at a low price,” the statement says.
The Pentagon has studied the idea of exchange consolidation for years but has been unable to overcome bureaucratic obstacles and opposition from some service officials and industry groups. Several studies of the issue also have raised questions about how much money would be saved.
• The stateside system of elementary and secondary schools for military family members could be closed, saving $788 million over 10 years, the study says.
“This provision would phase out these domestic schools over time and shift these military children into the local public school systems,” the study group says.
The Pentagon also has been studying this idea, but has faced strong opposition from parents of children attending the schools because public schools are seen as offering lower-quality education.
So far, the Bush administration has not endorsed any plan to pay for hurricane relief, although President Bush has suggested that reducing spending is one obvious option.
At the administration’s request, Congress already has approved $62 billion in Katrina spending by simply adding it to the national debt, because other money is not available and no offsets were approved as part of the legislation.
White House budget officials met Tuesday with Senate Republicans to talk about Katrina relief plans but provided no recommendations on possible offsetting cuts in other programs to cover costs, according to senators who attended the closed-door meetings.
The leader of the House of Conservatives. Who knew? LOL
This is a self-named title or a made up title by the MSM.
And I agree -- these kind of cuts will NEVER happen to pay for Katrina.
And as God is my witness - if they do occur and Republicans endorse the cuts to the military benefits to pay for Katrina - they have permanently and forever lost my vote.
I'd just like to know WHO else is in on this with Spence.
I don't know who else is in on it, but we know that not just the media reads here but also legislators.
And let them read this -- I am DONE with them if they do this. DONE.
I doubt this is going to happen and think the sourcing is ridiculous. But this is just my shot across the brow to conservatives to tell them "FORGET ABOUT IT".
I never heard of Mojave County in Cali, is it new?
I think that will make a LOT of us who are "done." This is what I'd expect from a 'Rat, but not from a Republican.
President Bush at the Pentagon and taking questions.
Let's see if the press asks him about Able Danger.
Soldiering is not a normal job. Men take the job expecting to be, possibly, killed in action. In return they expect their families to cared for.
They don't expect high salaries, and they don't get them. They do expect "quality of life" matters to be covered for their families. Health care and schools for their kids is all a part of that.
When a man signs on as a soldier, he is making a bargain. He is willing to risk the life of his family's primary bread-winner, if you promise to take care of his family. Break that promise, short-change that promise, and he will have to guarantee his family's well-being himself.
Political office members would be offered cash if they are willing to accept reduced health care benefits for their families
So, you're arguing that that promise must then be fulfilled in the most wasteful manner possible. I see.
"Service members would be offered cash if they are willing to accept reduced health care benefits for their families. “The less comprehensive plan would encourage individuals to be more cost-conscious when purchasing health care products by including deductibles, co-payments and a maximum annual out-of-pocket expenditure limit,” according to a written explanation provided by the study group. Reduced health care benefits could save $2.4 billion over 10 years."
That sounds optional, not mandatory, and it sounds like a way to get service personel to cut their medical costs by not using services when they don't need them.
"• The three separate military exchange systems could be consolidated, saving up to $1.9 billion over 10 years, the study group says. The Army and Air Force share an exchange system, AAFES, while the Navy and Marine Corps have their own systems. “Consolidating … would eliminate inefficiencies from duplicative purchasing, different personnel departments, warehouse and inventory systems and management headquarters while retaining the current ability for service embers and their families to receive a wide selection of goods at a low price,” the statement says."
Consolidating redundancy in the exchange system isn't a benefits cut.
"The stateside system of elementary and secondary schools for military family members could be closed, saving $788 million over 10 years, the study says."
This one might be considered a benefits cut. However, it's a small percentage of the military that is benefiting from it. Most stateside children of military families go to public schools.
The title of this article is misleading at best.
Not that I ever liked farm subsidies, at least under the price support system there had to be something grown in order to collect. Of course that led to surpluses that had to be stored or given away as foreign aid.
I'm arguing that the promise must be fulfilled.
Be careful what you call waste. If you save a few dollars, but you can't get the kind of men and the numbers of men you are looking for, you haven't saved any money. If you save a few dollars, and senior NCOs won't re-up, or younger NCOs aren't sticking around long enough to become senior NCOs, you have not done yourself any good.
I'm all for letting the smart guys come up with better and more effective benefits for the soldiers. The emphasis has to be on "better" if you want to recruit and retain good people. Better doesn't have to be more expensive, if smart people can do it another way. But it has to be, at the very least, "plenty good enough".
Right now the services are paying serious bonuses to get their people to re-up. Its war-time, and all of them have a serious decision to make in accepting a job that risks the primary breadwinner for their family. Making sure their families are cared for is not waste, its part of the equation that allows these men to risk themselves.
"No, it's with merit."
Damn! I just finished a letter to my senator, now I have to write another. They should be ashamed. I think we should start a "Bridge to Nowhere Alert". There is so much pork to cut before looking at military benefits. This is just wrong!
The cash offered has to be less than the service they are forgoing, or there would be no cost savings.
"Be careful what you call waste. If you save a few dollars, but you can't get the kind of men and the numbers of men you are looking for, you haven't saved any money. If you save a few dollars, and senior NCOs won't re-up, or younger NCOs aren't sticking around long enough to become senior NCOs, you have not done yourself any good."
In other words, you're saying that NCOs feel that they are slothful unable to manage their own money, and therefore agree that those decisions must be made by some GS-15 perfumed prince.
Dude, either you have no clue about NCOs, or you know some really stupid ones.
Not true. The aticle states (and 15 years of conservative thought on health care beleives) that by orienting health care polices such that the consumer has more to gain or lose on the price of health care that the consumer will make wiser choices that save money in the long run.
Is this the same Mike Pence that some on this web site have been trying to draft to run for POTUS?
Well he doesn't get my support after this.
How about wiping out the dept of education and the endowment of the arts, and leaving our military folks alone?
Jackass.
I just noticed the lack of sourcing, that does make this suspicious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.