Another story about unilateral
disarmament
U.S.
Military Eyes Cut to Pay, Benefits
Joint Chiefs Grapple With Less to
Spend
By Julian E. Barnes in
the Wall Street Journal
SIMI VALLEY,
Calif.—The U.S. military's top commanders, groping for ways to cope with a
shrinking Pentagon budget, have agreed to a plan that would curb the growth of
pay and benefits for housing, education and health—prized features of military life
that for years have been spared from cuts.
Gen. Martin Dempsey,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a weekend interview that without
such changes, the cost of military personnel would soon rise to 60% from about
half of the defense budget.
"What we have
asked these young men and women to do over the last 10 years, we can't pay them
enough," Gen. Dempsey said during a conference at the Ronald Reagan
Presidential Library. "Having said that, we also have an institution to
manage."
Military officials
haven't revealed details of the plan, which still must be approved by the
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and President Barack
Obama before it is sent to
Congress for approval.
Gen. Dempsey said the
chiefs would unveil the changes when the proposed military budget is released
in February. He said the new plan wouldn't immediately cut the benefits
received by service members or retirees.
Over the past nine
months, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been analyzing military
compensation—from pay and health benefits to housing allowances to the
discounted prices at base commissaries.
Previous efforts to
curb benefits have met stiff opposition from veterans groups and lawmakers.
Gen. Dempsey said the military's previous efforts to change compensation were
flawed because they were one-year fixes. The new approach would offer a
multiyear plan to slow the growth of military compensation.
The Pentagon will make
a persuasive argument to lawmakers that the changes are needed to balance the
budget and fair to troops, Gen. Dempsey said.
"We have the
analytic tools that potentially we didn't have before," he said. "We
have a body of knowledge that has convinced us doing it once is the right answer."
Lawmakers are far from
certain about the plan.
"Last year
Congress established a compensation review commission to look at this issue,
and we have not yet received their feedback," said Rep. Howard
"Buck" McKeon (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee. "I would like to see how much we can get out of institutional
reform before we look at cutting benefits for the troops."
Without curbs on
compensation-spending growth, there will be too little money for building new
weapons systems or training forces in 10 years, Gen. Dempsey said during the
interview Saturday.
Off the table for now
are changes in the retirement system. Because the military hopes to allow
current service members to keep their existing retirement plans, it will be two
decades until any savings from changes in military retirement are realized,
making shifts in the program less urgent.
Gen. Dempsey made his
comments on the sidelines of the Reagan National Defense Forum.
During the conference,
current and former Defense officials, as well as members of Congress, spoke
about the need to approve Pentagon budgets and lift the across-the-board
government spending cuts known as the sequester.
"You can't expect
this country to maintain a strong military if we aren't maintaining some kind
of common-sense budgeting," Leon Panetta, the former Defense secretary,
said at the forum. "We are sending a message that the United States is
going to be weak and that is the wrong message to send."
If Congress doesn't
agree to lift the sequester, the Pentagon faces $52 billion in cuts in January.
About $41 billion was cut this year from military spending.
Mr. Panetta's
successor, Mr. Hagel, said in a speech that the military's ability to respond
to crises was impaired by budget cuts.
"Inevitably, we
are shrinking the size of the force that is ready and available to meet new
contingencies or respond to crises across the globe," Mr. Hagel said.
Gen. Dempsey said in
the interview that if the sequester stayed in place, a large number of military
units wouldn't be ready for war or other duties. Under the sequester, the
military in five years will be without the necessary depth to tap in the event
of unforeseen crises, he said.
"You have just
what you need," Gen. Dempsey said. "But my view of the future is,
just what you need is not enough."
Here's a link to a
similar type story: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131117/DEFREG02/311170007/US-Air-Force-CSAR-Mission-Jeopardy
Poster's comments:
1) Not enough young people will join, and not
enough "lifers" will stay in the military beginning in around 10
years...maybe less.
2) The Nation will have to eventually end the
all-volunteer force and resort to a draft to man our reduced military.
3)
Future Presidents and other rulers will be more limited in their future
reactions to future events.
4) Less
trained and equipped military people will die at a higher rate if committed to future
combat, too.
5) One most fundamental federal requirement to
provide for a national defense is being systematically frittered away, or so it
seems.
6) I
buy the idea that while the military may get a person to join, generally they
retain his Family, if they choose to stay around.
No comments:
Post a Comment