[darrellmaurina]

This needs to be watched carefully. For better or for worse, The New York Times is a major "setter of the agenda" for our Washington political elites. This editorial makes pretty clear where a significant part of our national political leadership wants to go with budget cuts.

[darrellmaurina]

I'm guessing the four of you may have military-related ping lists which would benefit from seeing this article. The article appears to be a shot-across-the-bow with statistics like this, perhaps calculated to appeal to a moderate-to-conservative audience that opposes “wasteful federal spending,” doesn't understand how badly our military personnel were paid in the not-too-distant past, and why those who risk their lives **SHOULD** be paid more for their work!

“One problem is that unrestrained compensation costs will edge out funds for training, readiness and weapons. A recent Congressional Budget Office study said that between 2001 and 2012, when private-sector wages were effectively flat, basic military pay rose by 28 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. The study also said that cash compensation for enlisted personnel, including food and housing allowances, is greater than the wages and salaries of 90 percent of their civilian counterparts. And health care costs are projected to rise from $51 billion in 2013 to $77 billion by 2022.”

Those of us who value our military cannot act as if a major New York Times editorial like this won't have effects. Many people who don't understand the military won't understand why these arguments are wrong, and agenda-setting articles like this need to be responded to, not ignored.

The other side doesn't always telegraph its intentions in advance, but when they do and we don't respond or at least prepare for our response, it's our own fault.

[big'ol_freeper]

BOHICA

[Graybeard58]

Back in the 60s, when I was enlisted, the only poor people I knew were married G.I.s.

I was single and a lot better off than the married guys.

[DuncanWaring]

How about putting handouts to parasites on the table?

[Alberta's Child]

I have a great idea: Raise military pay and benefits across the board. If that presents a financial challenge, then reduce manpower proportionally to offset the higher expenses.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Military cuts. Ok let’s start with the service academies. Throughput has not diminished and college ROTC programs are cheaper. Next, let’s slim down the senior officer corps. Also, look at retention bonuses for military. The senior executive service on the civilian side could use a scrub. Finally, a thinning of civil service employees would be beneficial.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"replacing the current retirement system, under which active-duty members qualify for immediate benefits after 20 years of service, with a defined benefit system that partially vests earlier in a service member’s career;"

They've been talking about this one for a couple of years now. I can see this one happening at some point. This may sound unpopular, but one way to cut down on costs would be to not allow service members to marry until they hit a certain rank, either E-4 or E-5. This may sound draconian, but when I was in, most of the off duty problems we had were with poor married PFCs and L/Cpls. Besides, this was the case (as I understand) back in the 50's.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

As of 2010 (including Iraq and Afghanistan)(estimated):

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 - $710 billion (actual),
as of 2012 - $663 billion.

[Venturer]

With China stirring up trouble in the Pacific and Russia rebuilding their fleet , it only make sense for us to cut our military.

In the minds of what idiots?

[Arrowhead1952]

Military ping.

[Gritty]

I have a better idea. Why don't we cut welfare benefits ionstead?

After all, the military contributes a lot to this country while the welfare parasites contribute less than nothing.

[nascarnation]

In the Baraqqi economy, with so few jobs especially for young folks, the military has a big attraction. Like any employer they have “leverage” in a bad market.