bobdina
07-05-2010, 09:47 AM
Military benefits target in cost-cutting talks
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Jul 4, 2010 10:11:52 EDT
From the left, right and center of the political spectrum, talk about drastically cutting military personnel costs is on the rise.
The $549 billion defense budget makes for a juicy target, and the $197 billion of that budget that goes to personnel costs is being attacked from all sides — even the Defense Department itself — as excessive in a time of economic malaise and belt-tightening.
The list of programs under attack includes pay raises, retired pay, health care benefits, commissaries and exchanges, and even the size of the force.
“We are very concerned about the outlook for the future,” said Joe Barnes of the Fleet Reserve Association, who is also a co-chairman the Military Coalition, a group of more than 30 military-related organizations. “We have had a lot of successes over the last 10 to 12 years, and we need to maintain them and to make further improvements.”
But, he added, “There is some pain coming.”
On the right, tea party activists and fiscal conservatives want the government to stop spending so much.
In the past, they might have exempted defense spending from such calls for cuts, but those days are over for many who want everything to be on the table.
This includes people such as Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a tea party movement favorite, and Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., a social and fiscal conservative who has broken ranks with other Republicans by opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the left, some Democrats, including Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., worry that a push to cut spending will devastate domestic programs, and they want to reduce the damage by ensuring the defense budget isn’t spared.
In the center are people such as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who doesn’t want to cut the defense budget but worries that personnel costs — especially soaring health care costs, which account for $58 billion of the 2011 defense budget — will put the nation at greater risk by leaving less money to develop and buy weapons.
At a June 16 Senate hearing, Mullen said rising health care costs are “just simply not sustainable.”
Another key figure in the center: Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a conservative Democrat who said June 8 that after completing work on the 2011 defense budget, he would assign the committee to look for ways to cut defense spending.
Congress looks ahead
A task force formed at the urging of Frank, Jones, Paul and Wyden is proposing a $1.1 trillion reduction in defense spending over 10 years, including $628.5 billion in personnel programs.
Frank, who is leading the bipartisan effort, said he isn’t singling out the military for cuts, but he doesn’t want it singled out for special protection, either.
“We need to bring focus on a long-term reduction in the deficit. We believe that one item has not gotten enough attention: military spending,” he said. “Everything has got to be on the table.”
The report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force was sent to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, an 18-member panel that is supposed to report to the White House and Congress in December with recommendations on how to reduce the federal deficit.
Because the 2011 defense budget could be completed before the commission completes its report, cuts in personnel programs are not likely this year, according to congressional aides who asked not to be identified.
But talk about cutting future benefits could discourage efforts to increase benefits now.
A House Armed Services Committee aide said most lawmakers on both sides of the aisle wouldn’t support major cuts in the number of military personnel, nor in pay and benefits — but this could change after the November elections.
If a freshman class of lawmakers arrives in Congress next year believing that cutting spending is their top priority, support for the military and its personnel could erode, congressional aides warned.
Other cost-cutting ideas
The Sustainable Defense Task Force report isn’t the only group recommending cuts in personnel programs.
A Rand research firm report issued June 14 reinforced the idea of paying bonuses to a few critically needed service members rather than across-the-board raises.
When it comes to getting people to join, bonuses are more cost-effective than adding recruiters or raising pay, the study found. It costs $44,900 per quality recruit to use bonuses to fill the ranks but $57,500 per quality recruit to raise pay, said Beth Asch, one of the Rand researchers.
The Government Accountability Office also reaffirmed in a June 3 letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee that it does not believe bigger military pay raises are needed in the future, because a comparison of total military pay and benefits to private-sector salaries would show service members earn more than 70 percent of civilians with the same level of experience, longevity and responsibility.
The GAO letter also talks about the possibility of cutting military personnel costs by changing the military retirement system to allow people to earn retired pay with less than 20 years of service.
One option, GAO says, would be to make people who leave the military after 10 years eligible for retirement benefits, but make them wait until age 65 to begin drawing a check. This could save money by reducing the number of people who serve beyond 10 years solely to earn future retirement benefits.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_benefits_070210w/
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Jul 4, 2010 10:11:52 EDT
From the left, right and center of the political spectrum, talk about drastically cutting military personnel costs is on the rise.
The $549 billion defense budget makes for a juicy target, and the $197 billion of that budget that goes to personnel costs is being attacked from all sides — even the Defense Department itself — as excessive in a time of economic malaise and belt-tightening.
The list of programs under attack includes pay raises, retired pay, health care benefits, commissaries and exchanges, and even the size of the force.
“We are very concerned about the outlook for the future,” said Joe Barnes of the Fleet Reserve Association, who is also a co-chairman the Military Coalition, a group of more than 30 military-related organizations. “We have had a lot of successes over the last 10 to 12 years, and we need to maintain them and to make further improvements.”
But, he added, “There is some pain coming.”
On the right, tea party activists and fiscal conservatives want the government to stop spending so much.
In the past, they might have exempted defense spending from such calls for cuts, but those days are over for many who want everything to be on the table.
This includes people such as Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a tea party movement favorite, and Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., a social and fiscal conservative who has broken ranks with other Republicans by opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the left, some Democrats, including Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., worry that a push to cut spending will devastate domestic programs, and they want to reduce the damage by ensuring the defense budget isn’t spared.
In the center are people such as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who doesn’t want to cut the defense budget but worries that personnel costs — especially soaring health care costs, which account for $58 billion of the 2011 defense budget — will put the nation at greater risk by leaving less money to develop and buy weapons.
At a June 16 Senate hearing, Mullen said rising health care costs are “just simply not sustainable.”
Another key figure in the center: Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a conservative Democrat who said June 8 that after completing work on the 2011 defense budget, he would assign the committee to look for ways to cut defense spending.
Congress looks ahead
A task force formed at the urging of Frank, Jones, Paul and Wyden is proposing a $1.1 trillion reduction in defense spending over 10 years, including $628.5 billion in personnel programs.
Frank, who is leading the bipartisan effort, said he isn’t singling out the military for cuts, but he doesn’t want it singled out for special protection, either.
“We need to bring focus on a long-term reduction in the deficit. We believe that one item has not gotten enough attention: military spending,” he said. “Everything has got to be on the table.”
The report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force was sent to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, an 18-member panel that is supposed to report to the White House and Congress in December with recommendations on how to reduce the federal deficit.
Because the 2011 defense budget could be completed before the commission completes its report, cuts in personnel programs are not likely this year, according to congressional aides who asked not to be identified.
But talk about cutting future benefits could discourage efforts to increase benefits now.
A House Armed Services Committee aide said most lawmakers on both sides of the aisle wouldn’t support major cuts in the number of military personnel, nor in pay and benefits — but this could change after the November elections.
If a freshman class of lawmakers arrives in Congress next year believing that cutting spending is their top priority, support for the military and its personnel could erode, congressional aides warned.
Other cost-cutting ideas
The Sustainable Defense Task Force report isn’t the only group recommending cuts in personnel programs.
A Rand research firm report issued June 14 reinforced the idea of paying bonuses to a few critically needed service members rather than across-the-board raises.
When it comes to getting people to join, bonuses are more cost-effective than adding recruiters or raising pay, the study found. It costs $44,900 per quality recruit to use bonuses to fill the ranks but $57,500 per quality recruit to raise pay, said Beth Asch, one of the Rand researchers.
The Government Accountability Office also reaffirmed in a June 3 letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee that it does not believe bigger military pay raises are needed in the future, because a comparison of total military pay and benefits to private-sector salaries would show service members earn more than 70 percent of civilians with the same level of experience, longevity and responsibility.
The GAO letter also talks about the possibility of cutting military personnel costs by changing the military retirement system to allow people to earn retired pay with less than 20 years of service.
One option, GAO says, would be to make people who leave the military after 10 years eligible for retirement benefits, but make them wait until age 65 to begin drawing a check. This could save money by reducing the number of people who serve beyond 10 years solely to earn future retirement benefits.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/army_benefits_070210w/