Report: Cut military retirement to pay for weapons

[bobdina]

Report: Cut military retirement to pay for weapons

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Oct 23, 2009 9:29:58 EDT

A new report from an independent think tank suggests that drastic cuts are needed in personnel benefits in order to pay for weapons modernization.

Some recommendations from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments might be welcomed by service members and their families, such as a proposal to cut the cost of permanent change-of-station moves by extending tour lengths by 50 percent.

But other recommendations strike at the heart of the military pay and benefits system. The report by Todd Harrison says the promise of retired pay after 20 years is an example of the generous benefits that led to financial problems in the auto industry, requiring a government bailout.

“Few employers today offer pensions and health care benefits for retirees, must less a package that becomes effective after only 20 years of service,” Harrison wrote. “Even GM’s much-derided labor contracts did not provide benefits this rich.”

Harrison said big reductions in benefits, such as requiring more service to earn retired pay and charging more for health benefits, are “politically difficult” but that modest changes, if begun soon, could help control costs.

Modest steps could include cutting Army and Marine Corps personnel levels as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan subside to reduce overhead costs as quickly as possible, the report said.

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is a Washington-based independent, nonpartisan think tank focusing on national security issues.

“If the overall defense budget remains relatively flat over the coming years, continued increases in personnel-related costs will crowd out funding for acquisitions,” Harrison wrote. “Rather than accept this as inevitable, DoD should begin taking steps to rein in personnel costs.”

The report, called “Avoiding a DoD Bailout,” focuses on the financial choices facing the Pentagon if budgets remain relatively flat in the coming years. The fear that personnel-related costs could leave no money for weapons research and purchases is an issue already under study by the Defense Department.

Harrison said personnel cuts are not enough to take care of all of the budget pressures; the Defense Department also needs to be careful with weapons spending.

“The Pentagon must also rethink the types of weapons it is buying and how it buys them,” the report said.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_benefitscuts_report_102209w/

[bobdina]

And how many companies have to go on deployments for a year or more and get shot at. Comparing the military to the UAW is pure bullshit. It makes you think-WHO THE HELL ARE MEMBERS OF THIS THINK TANK? Only 20 years of service? Service being deployed every other year, service being shot at and maimed, service having to move your family on average every 3 years , now nothing against the UAW but just how risky is it building cars and making more then the average enlisted (probably twice as much) without any of the above factors? In no way can you compare military service to a civilian job making cars. I'm done with my little rant now.

[nastyleg]

Well Bob I will take over now. After only a short time in service 8yrs I am having medical problems associated with deployments. I am also suffering from physical problems associated with everyday military activity. My memory sucks ass, I have flashbacks, my knees are that of a senior citizen. 4 years in the military service will add 8 years of wear and tear. The physical demands and mental demands on troops is universal(meaning every country that has troops experiance about the same strain). If they cut the retirement benefits of military retirees it will be a huge slap in the face and a knife in the back. If I go to a civilian doctor through my civilian insurance plan I would be denyed coverage.

No one forced us to join. No SANE person would think of it. Americans who are currently serving are less than 1% of the total population. The older generation of vets is less than that and getting smaller everyday. Those who are sufferring from health problems incurred while in service DESERVE OUR UTMOST SUPPORT AND DESERVE ALL THE MEDICAL ATTENTION THEY CAN GET.

People are yelling at the VA for not treating the wounded properly. Think how bad it will get if they chose to cut benefits. BULLSHIT.....some people do not deserve the right to speek let alone think. This group is one of them.

[GTFPDQ]

I get it, I really get it. The military take an oath to serve, in return there is no oath by the government to take care of you after they are finished with you. You are given an entitlement, not a promise. If any company wants to make savings, they always look at pay, conditions, pension and longevity.

If they cut pay or more specificly, allowances, they reduce cost burden. If they (those faceless bureaucrats) see that the level of uncertainty, danger etc is falling, then why do the troops need extra allowances, or allowances at the rate that they had during the most dangerous of times.

So in essence, the troops no longer count. Iraq is achieving a level of stability that reduces the burden on deployed troops, so reduce allowances. Right?

Afghanistan has just gone through a new election phase, with a run off coming up. When this is finished the country should be slightly more stable. Right?

Wrong, Iraq drawdown has reduced costs already. There is still a huge amount of work to be carried out. There is a hidden insurgency waiting in the wings for the US and Allies to reduce troop numbers further, to a level where the Iraqis MUST stand on there own. Iraq is another 10 years or more from stability and self reliance.

Afghanistan is a powder keg. As Pakistan ramps up its offensive the load on the Allied troops will increase because more insurgents will look for safer or even easier positions and locations to fight, hide or defend from.

This is sickening. The US administration should be ashamed of this type of measure even being discussed.

[nastyleg]

I get it, I really get it. The military take an oath to serve, in return there is no oath by the government to take care of you after they are finished with you. You are given an entitlement, not a promise. If any company wants to make savings, they always look at pay, conditions, pension and longevity.

If they cut pay or more specificly, allowances, they reduce cost burden. If they (those faceless bureaucrats) see that the level of uncertainty, danger etc is falling, then why do the troops need extra allowances, or allowances at the rate that they had during the most dangerous of times.

So in essence, the troops no longer count. Iraq is achieving a level of stability that reduces the burden on deployed troops, so reduce allowances. Right?

Afghanistan has just gone through a new election phase, with a run off coming up. When this is finished the country should be slightly more stable. Right?

Wrong, Iraq drawdown has reduced costs already. There is still a huge amount of work to be carried out. There is a hidden insurgency waiting in the wings for the US and Allies to reduce troop numbers further, to a level where the Iraqis MUST stand on there own. Iraq is another 10 years or more from stability and self reliance.

Afghanistan is a powder keg. As Pakistan ramps up its offensive the load on the Allied troops will increase because more insurgents will look for safer or even easier positions and locations to fight, hide or defend from.

This is sickening. The US administration should be ashamed of this type of measure even being discussed.

I said it once I will say it again


Charlie for PM!

[Toki]

I said it once I will say it again


Charlie for PM!

I'll appoint him when Tokenia is up and running. I'm still paying off the lot fees on the Caribbean island.