Posted on 10/11/2013 4:46:20 PM PDT by SkyPilot
A combination of budget cuts and escalating compensation costs will reduce the U.S. military’s fighting forces by at least 50 percent by 2021 and threaten national security, according to a report released Friday.
The report by the Bipartisan Policy Center also said that the nearly $1 trillion in defense funding reductions over the next decade, known as the sequester, would cripple the readiness and modernization of military forces.
The report pushed back against the notion that the sequester cuts have not been as debilitating as originally thought and actually helped to curb the nation’s mounting debt.
While the cuts to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) discretionary spending this year have been lower than expected at $37 billion, DOD spends most of the money it receives from Congress as outlays over several years, the report said. For example, the report mentioned the $3.2 billion appropriated by Congress this year to DOD for new submarines, which will be spent over seven years.
That means many of the sequester cuts will be felt on the back end. The report said the sequester’s effect on spending will double in 2014 and triple in 2015, rising to more than $50 billion in annual reductions to the defense budget by 2017.
Combat training and procurement programs for new equipment will bear the brunt of the cuts because military personnel and retiree benefits, as well as war-fighting costs and veterans benefits, are exempted, the report said.
Additionally, the sequester will eventually reduce economic output and delay the federal debt from reaching 100 percent of GDP by only two years, in about 2033, the report shows.
“Not only will our nation’s economy suffer if the sequester continues, but it will leave our military unprepared—without the training or equipment it needs—to keep our nation safe against future threats,” said former Sen. Chuck Robb (D., Va.), a coauthor of the report, in a press release.
As the military faces a shrinking budget in upcoming years, both federal and defense entitlement costs will continue to swell.
Spending on Social Security and major health programs like Medicare and Medicaid will consume 60 percent of the budget by 2022, according to the report, compared to just 13 percent for discretionary defense spending.
Military personnel costs have doubled since 2000 even though the force is almost 10 percent smaller. Personnel, health care, and other defense-wide costs will consume virtually 100 percent of the budget by 2021, leaving almost no funds for force additions, troop training, or equipment upgrades, the report added.
The report further warned that the military will become a hollow force unless the sequester is modified or repealed and reforms to compensation costs are enacted.
The Army and Marines could shed 14 ground divisions, the Air Force more than 1,600 aircraft, and the Navy 330 ships and eight carriers by 2021, the report said.
No problem. The Republicans just agreed to lift the sequestration along with raising the debt limit and funding Obama care.
Snowden didn’t hurt our national security. Every modern-day nation knows that other world powers are snooping and listening. What Americans didn’t know was that our own government was planning to use intelligence gathered from its own citizens to enslave us.
Maybe if they protected our borders, stopped importing muslims, and stopped spying on us they could do a better job with the money they have.
I’ll worry about the mechanical condition of the car after we deal with the drunken, wasted crazy loon behind the wheel driving us around by the sound method.
Additionally, the sequester will eventually reduce economic output and delay the federal debt from reaching 100 percent of GDP by only two years, in about 2033, the report shows...
Last years U.S. GDP was $15.7 trillion. National debt at the end of 2012 was $16.4 trillion. Figures vary with the sources, but we are there now.
Which is why this report is being pulled out today. Political cover for the GOP leadership taking a dive.
If the GOP “ball club” looks like it’s winning, but always surrenders, doesn’t that suggest that they are throwing the game? Something doesn’t compute.
Somebody needs to remind them that giving up on the sequester cuts is overturning the "law of the land."
Here is the breakdown of the defense budget as of 2010. While there have been some changes, this still works as a rule of thumb for defense expenditures. Operations include costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion
Military Personnel $154.2 billion
Procurement $140.1 billion
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion
Military Construction $23.9 billion
Family Housing $3.1 billion
Total Spending $683.7 billion
So, given these rough figures, the first three figures are where cuts need to happen, because they would have the least impact.
Were I to make cuts, beginning with Operations and Maintenance, I would contract deployments from the majority of nations where deployment serves no discernible defense or foreign policy interest. Currently the US has forces deployed to about 100 countries. This could easily be reduced to just two dozen countries.
Next, cuts to military personnel would be by slashing “double dipping”. For example, an Army LTC gets full retirement, at the same time as laterally transferring to a Government Service job on the same post, at the same pay as an active duty LTC. After a limited number of years in the GS job, he gets retirement both from the military and his GS job, both paid for by the Pentagon. Even if he moves on to a third job, often as a defense consultant to a contractor.
Next, cuts to procurement is easily done with the elimination of cost overruns. When a contractor bids on building a ship, for example, his bid is based on the current plan. But then, every admiral in the Navy decides he wants expensive changes made, often just as an ego trip. This can raise the price of the ship by two or three times, and you end up with a *less* effective warship.
The way around this problem is to create a date certain prior to bidding, in which the design is finalized, and only components that are modular and plug and play can be upgraded. And other changes must have the approval of a single commander.
Please expand on what constitutes those "100 deployments." Are some of theme a contingent of 7 Marines guarding State Department personnel at an African consulate? Does it include Navy and Air Force members who by the very nature of their service support global mobility? By that I mean, we have a handful of Air Force personnel in the Azores, but they are only there to support the refueling and maintenance of Air Mobility Command aircraft that transit through there for fuel or as a weather divert for Spain. Most of the personnel we have stationed overseas today are in Korea (which remains highly volatile), Afghanistan (which is still a war zone), and other locations. When you see Mr. Joe Sixpack complain that we have troops "defending Europe" that is a huge misnomer. We have personnel in England, Italy, and Germany that mainly support what is left of our European enroute bases that are a shadow of what they were in 1990 - and they have to exist to support our operations in the Middle East (same as what is left of our dwindling enroutes in the Pacific).
The O&M account you mentioned was raped during Sequester. That is because personnel and most procurment dollars were off limits - Obama fenced off military salaries, but the thousands of DoD civilians (doctors, nurses, technicians, maintenance, intel, engineers, etc) were furloughed for weeks. That little exercise destroyed morale and caused the DoD to lost thousands of experienced personnel such as medical staff that directly support the uniformed military and their families.
Military civilian medical workers quit after furlough
A large chunk of the procurement dollars could not be touched 1/2 into a fiscal year, but with Sequestration dragging on, procurement is beginning to see detrimental effects, which is now bleeding American jobs and the high tech and defense industries.
Next, cuts to military personnel would be by slashing “double dipping”. For example, an Army LTC gets full retirement, at the same time as laterally transferring to a Government Service job on the same post, at the same pay as an active duty LTC. After a limited number of years in the GS job, he gets retirement both from the military and his GS job, both paid for by the Pentagon.
The military actually had the policy in place you mentioned - and it was disastrous. There was no rationale for it, other than some people thought it was "unfair" that a military veteran used his or her experience after their uniformed service to be employed again and be of service to their country. The number of people who actually serve in the military and make it to the 20 years retirement is 17%, and of that retired officers in the single digits. The vast majority of the 44% of the DoD workforce who are now civilians did not retire, but they still are veterans. On top of that, we always hear politicians every Veterans and Memorial Day preaching about how they want to help veterans, but they had no problem furloughing hundreds of thousands of them with Sequestration and taking 20% of their pay while Congress and their staff took zero salary cuts due to Sequestration. What the DoD found when it had the previous policy in place was that retired military who were highly experienced simply shunned the DoD as an employer, even when the military recruited them. Further, why should members of our military, who served 20 years or more in combat zones, through 5 or 6 deployments that many times ripped their families apart or caused hardship, be penalized by a system that rewarded other Americans who didn't serve the same benefits? Was their work to the nation of a second class citizen after the age of 42 if they served their nation in uniform? Moreover, their military retirement is not their full salary, only 50% of their base, not including housing or other pay, which is a large portion of their total salary. This is completely different from say a State worker or policeman in a local town. Their % is a real percentage (and let's not even discuss the overtimes scams in the last year many States pull), for a military person they are generally only earning about 1/4 of their salary in retirement.
It was that insanity that caused the policy to be reversed, however, I see that same policy coming back, along with an end to the 20 year military retirement. Our society seems to have no problem handing out $135 Billion a year to 49 million (and climbing) Food Stamp takers, but it seems "outraged" that a retired Army E-6 would dare to work for the DoD after he retired and obtain civilian benefits.
I believe we will see the 20 year retirement for all military disappear within 2-3 years. With that, our military quality will suffer even more.
.
I agree.
I no of no outrage of the "medical device tax" and no one in the nation was talking about it - at all. Then, it suddenly became "The Cause" for politicians in Washington DC.
People were concerned that their medical insurance was quadrupling and they were being shut out of care because ObamaCare was "giving it away for free" to a a selected minority and everyone has to pay for the deadbeats. No one was concerned about that tax except lobbyists.
They won't, but some of the People government targets should.
>> A combination of budget cuts and escalating compensation costs will reduce the U.S. military’s fighting forces by at least 50 percent by 2021
It’s been a week.
The Navy doesn't even have 300 ships. She's been fighting to become a 300 ship Navy for the past decade.
The Marine Corps is a Corps, i.e. 3 active divisions and one in reserve. Any less and it isn't a Corps. What are they going to do, change the name and mission to US Marine Division?
Nuts!
Several things here. To start with, the bulk of the deployments around the world are not legitimate, from a military standpoint.
They began with Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, who just sent military detachments, large and small, hither and yon, sometimes for a short term mission, and others for “decorative” purposes. In either case, they were pretty much abandoned there, never recalled. And once the service obligation of a soldier was up, he left, but was replace, out of inertia.
One such deployment I was familiar with was an Engineer bridging battalion sent to Africa. Their mission was to temporarily bridge a river, using boats to keep the bridge together, so that trucks carrying humanitarian supplies could cross. They were to do this twice in six months. A 2 to 3 day mission. The rest of the time they were idle.
After their mission ended they waited for a recall order to return to Europe. It never came. Finally, after repeated inquiries with no response, their brigade commander ordered their recall. And nobody did anything.
The cost to this battalion was enormous. Their morale was shot, their equipment no longer combat serviceable, and many soldiers had become ill with permanent diseases.
And while this is perhaps an extreme example, there are many deployments that are equally useless and need to end. Some did end during Afghanistan and Iraq, but only because they were searching for personnel who had never rotated through either place, while some personnel had rotated through a dozen times. This was when, for example, the platoon sized unit of Marines guarding the tomb of John Paul Jones at Annapolis were finally replaced with cadets.
As far as military retirement goes, while some will argue about retirement after 20 years, the truth of the matter is that these personnel should definitely be encouraged to move into government service. But instead of getting both retirement and a GS paycheck, they should not be considered as retired until they actually retire, with their retirement reflecting *both* their military and GS service.
So, for example, if they retire again after 10 years of GS service, they should get the same retirement as if they retired after 30 years in the military or GS. So they are not losing a legitimate dime, but they are no longer double dipping.
What are you talking about?
The military has taken 3 massive cuts* by Obama since he took office, and the Republicans have agreed each time.
All the cuts were supposed to be over 10 years, but now they have overlapped each other and have had a terrible effect on the military:
- $330 Billion in 2009 to help "pay for" Obama's "stimulus
- $487 Billion in more cuts 2011
- $600 Billion in even more cuts in 2013 (Sequestration)
* Source: Rep "Buck" McKeon, (R-CA, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
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.