Posted on 01/14/2013 6:33:35 PM PST by Kaslin
Republicans, and many Democrats, are upset by the prospect of so-called sequestration cuts to the nation's defense budget. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is so alarmed that the day before the Senate took up what became the "fiscal cliff" agreement, he called a key Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, to express deep concern that the cuts might go into effect. As it turned out, Congress put them off for two months.
Sequestration would force the government to reduce discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Roughly half of that, or $600 billion, would come from defense -- a hugely disproportionate amount to take from the Pentagon. And the cuts would be the worst possible sort: everything slashed, across the board, good programs and bad.
That's no accident. Sequestration was designed to be so awful that Congress would find a better way to cut spending. So far, that hasn't happened.
But just because the sequestration cuts are bad doesn't mean the defense budget should be sacrosanct. In fact, there are hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon spending that can be cut without compromising the military's effectiveness.
Maintaining national security requires underwriting a lot of departments: Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and countless others. But looking just at the Defense Department, the Obama administration this year plans to spend (without sequestration) $550 billion on the basic operations of the Pentagon, plus $88 billion specifically on the war in Afghanistan -- a total of $638 billion.
Back in 2007, the Pentagon's base budget was just $431 billion, with $132 billion added for the war in Iraq and $34 billion for Afghanistan -- a total of $597 billion. Given that it was a peak year for war spending in Iraq, in part because of a costly troop surge, is there any reason the U.S. should be spending more on the Pentagon's base budget today, adjusted for inflation, than it did in 2007?
"If we go back to '07, we had the Army we have today, and it was surging in Iraq, with all the logistical support it needed," says one senior GOP Senate aide. "No one in '07 was screaming that we didn't have enough money for the military."
How to get back to those 2007 levels? Watchdog groups, along with Republican Tom Coburn, the Senate's leading budget hawk, have plenty of suggestions.
For example, the Pentagon is building several versions of the F-35 fighter plane. Models specific for the Navy and the Marines have been "plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays, and are now estimated to cost just under $200 million each," according to a report by Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Project on Government Oversight. Replacing the two extra models of the basic F-35 with the F/A-18 fighter -- ending up with the same total number of planes, but a combination of F-35s and F/A-18s -- could save about $61 billion over the next decade.
Then there is health care. Coburn wants TRICARE, the military health care system, to require greater out-of-pocket payments from retired soldiers who were not in any way disabled by their service and are not yet eligible for Medicare. Their out-of-pocket expenses have been basically unchanged since 1995, while health care costs have risen dramatically. Making that change and a few others in TRICARE, Coburn estimates, could save more than $180 billion in the next decade.
Then there is outside services contracting, a practice that has nearly tripled in cost since 2000. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to slow it down, and there are measures in place to freeze it. But Coburn points out that "reducing Department of Defense spending on service contracts by 15 percent over the next 10 years would still leave contract spending at approximately the level it was in 2007, when the U.S. was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan." Doing so would save an estimated $370 billion over the next 10 years.
There are many other possible savings. The long-troubled Osprey tilt-rotor plane is still a problem; it could be mostly replaced by helicopters, for a saving of $17 billion. An additional $9 billion could be saved by ending the Pentagon practice of running its own domestic grocery stores. And so on.
In all, Coburn envisions a possible $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Others see cuts in the $600 billion range. In any event, it's big money. Whatever the figure, the bottom line is that Republicans decrying the sequestration cuts should remember the Pentagon budget still needs to be reduced -- just in the right way.
Some good ideas here. But the DoD needs to also re-invent the acquisition process — that will be a tough thing to do, but there are plenty of people who have good ideas. The current system is broken in a thousand ways; totally re-thinking how weapon systems are procured could result in huge savings.
I agree there are a lot of cuts defense can do. I wish every agancy was as thouroughly itemized for cuts as the defense budget is.
I agree . . . having worked at both General Dynamics and Boeing . . . lots of waste . . . have a valid charge number and let the spending begin, as long as you have a billable number everyone looks the other way.
I disagree with the Health care part of it. From a common sense point of view our military service people have always been greatly underpaid so they do not have much in the way of out of pocket income. Their healthcare and other benefits are no where near what government employees (actually on all levels) are receiving. Many government employees receive incredible medical and other benefits, have greater salaries so why are we asking them to contribute more for out of pocket? They are paid more and their benefits are far better than the private sectors. While our military service employees even now are paid greatly under what is paid at the private sector level.
correction: so why are we “not” asking them to contribute more for out of pocket? I am speaking as a private sector employee. I have worked with some of these service people who have been trained and they are incredibly talented people who if they had worked private sector jobs would have been paid much more. Instead they have chose to serve our country and for some serve in hopes of getting a college education which they could not afford any other way. These are decent people.
Forget it.
Yes what he suggests makes sense but it requires negotiating with O and Dems. Who knows what they would demand for it.
This bill was the R House (2011/2012) major achievement, in a way they demanded it and got it.
The more PC and feminized our military becomes, the more important that pay, benefits, and quality of life issues become.
It is rapidly becoming another branch of government employees instead of a place that attracts men for adventure and a warrior’s lifestyle.
Sure, further reductions can be found. But let’s remember, when Gates was still SecDEF, he cut billions from the Defense budget..but not a SINGLE other Cabinet level department followed suit. Time to spread it around.
You might want to take a look at the 2013 pay tables and allowances. A Major with just over 16 years is drawing well over $90,000 with rations and housing. A Master Sergeant is making over well over $65,000 with rations and quarters. The pay is to compensate for the potential hazards and deployments, not necessarily that person’s skillsets. Remember they pay no medical or dental. Education is essentially free while you are in and so is the gym. I work with the military all day everyday in very close quarters so you might want to take a second look at what they really are receiving. Also they are receiving 50% retiremnt after 20 years with medical benefits. Believe me there is plenty of room for payroll savings without loss of capability.
The author talks about YOY constant-dollar comparisons, but I don't see any evidence that he adjusted the 2007 numbers for six intervening years' inflation -- which should be on the close order of 25-30%.
Might want to check that assertion. Tricare (the old CHAMPUS) is getting rolled into Obamacare with big runups in cost to the personnel. IOW, they're getting screwed by SovietCare like everybody else.
“Remember they pay no medical or dental. Education is essentially free while you are in and so is the gym. I work with the military all day everyday in very close quarters so you might want to take a second look at what they really are receiving. Also they are receiving 50% retiremnt after 20 years with medical benefits. Believe me there is plenty of room for payroll savings without loss of capability.”
Still active duty after 22 years, just had triple hernia surgery (related to G stress from flying the jet), both breasts removed from cancer (related to chem exposure in Iraq)...being in the military these days really stresses a lot of guys out. I doubt I will suck up retirement pay for too long after I get out. Most people in the military earn retirement after 20 years.
In a position of authority I have several civilians that work for me. You should see the bonuses that were handed out to that group last December. Absolutely disgusting. As I am handing out thousands of dollars of bonus money (to people for doing their jobs) I laughed because there is money to cut in stuff like this and it is kept “hush-hush”. I know for a fact that a significant number of civilians that work at Naval Air Stations received large sums of bonus money for simply doing their jobs as a “gift” before Christmas. My vote is to significantly reduce the number of government civilians working for DOD. However, the civilians vote Democrat and the military votes Republican. Guess who will lose?
There are always specific cases that lie outside the general arena. As an E-4 leaving the Air Force in 1976 I made about $485 a month. I survived it and was able to parlay those skills into a lucrative career in aviation over the next 36 years. I am a DOD employee that is currently serving in Afghanistan and was in Iraq before that. I do not get bonuses. However I do bring an extensive skill set to the table that justifies my compensation. Most military I encounter over here could never earn in the private sector the pay and benefits the military confers. You don’t have to try and refute this because I know what I speak of. I spent 33 years in private industry and it was amazing how narrow and shallow the skillsets most of our military hires had. Fortunately for them the majority of civilian hires were even more marginal. My main point is that compensation being received by most military occupations exceeds the value of an individuals contributions to the organization by a wide margin. Is a private E-2 with 2 years service really worth $40,000 as a cook or clerk.?
Yeah, I don’t want to turn this into a DOD civ vs military thread. Obviously in your case, you bring a lot of value to the job you do. And most of the GS-11 and above positions I deal with are filled with retired military (and these guys make some money double dipping with fat bonuses on top).
What is lost on a lot of libs is the fact the military makes men/women out of a lot of young people that would not have a future without something like the military. Crime and poverty would be the path for a lot of them. I’d rather spend money getting something out of these folks rather then just hand it to them through entitlement spending (welfare, prison time, etc.).
!
Yes!!! It is a systemic issue that Congress should address with hard lines. Too many veterans are double and triple dipping through various loopholes and programs that really just are gaming the system. Defending the constitution also includes self-restraint and acting honorably in regards to seeking out programs for the purpose of obtaining compensation. One example is a retired Navy Chief I know who is drawing retirement of over $2500 a month, disability of around $2000, educational benefits for his wife and housing of around $1500 a month during this schooling period. Is this really the intent of these veterans programs? I believe they have been transformed into a DOD welfare program that takes away from those Veterans who truly are in need of post-service rehabilitation and training.
military salaries
http://www.airforce.com/benefits/enlisted-pay/?m=2012easearch&pl=google&med=cpc
they do make less than the private sector even after 20
years of service,
govt employees on the PERS system in CA have high salaries and get 5-10 percent raises even in this economy. a low level fireman in the small city i live in gets 100K in salary and that was back in 1996. This is not to say all the employees do well but a significant number do. Why don’t we make them pay more out of pocket for those making over 100k?
military salaries
http://www.airforce.com/benefits/enlisted-pay/?m=2012easearch&pl=google&med=cpc
they do make less than the private sector even after 20
years of service,
govt employees on the PERS system in CA have high salaries and get 5-10 percent raises even in this economy. a low level fireman in the small city i live in gets 100K in salary and that was back in 1996. This is not to say all the employees do well but a significant number do. Why don’t we make them pay more out of pocket for those making over 100k?
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.