Cost Cutting in the Military-the Consequences Ripple On http://www.standupamericaus.org/military-news/cost-cutting-in-the-military-the-consequences-ripple-on/ By: Scott W. Winchell and Denise Simon

February 7, 2012

Abstract
The DoD will reduce military spending by $1.2 trillion within the next decade, and will do so in two parts. The Obama administration proposed a $450 billion cut and because Congress couldn’t agree on a deficit budget by the November Deadline, the Pentagon has to make an additional $500 billion cut. The first round of cuts will include a reduction in force (military and civilian sectors), base realignment, cuts in research, several retirements with in the fleets. Both the Army and the Marine Corps will be reduced by approximately 100,000 troops, these forces will be approximately the sizes they were in 2001. The Air Force and the Navy are going to loose a significant amount of their fleet, however the cuts are not going to affect the increase of un-manned aircraft. Unemployment rate for veterans in December 2011 was at 13.1%, and you will have these troops coming home to no jobs. The government contracted companies are also going to take a hit, and this is not just those companies that provide security. The areas of Tyson’s Corner, Virginia; Bethesda, MD; Fort Meade, Mad; Silicon Valley in California; the route 128 corridor around Boston, MA; and the Research Triangle in North Carolina will all be dramatically effected. These areas house the largest military research groups, and therefore are home to a large number of highly paid professionals. Cutting spending on military research could reduce the economy’s long-term growth, but by cutting the civilian employees, you could save millions.
To give you a general idea of the difference in pay I looked up General Dynamic’s salary info (www.glassdoor.com). A Junior Software engineer is paid a yearly salary of $66,250, while a Navy Seaman with the same job (E-3, fourth year of his first term) gets a yearly salary of $27,734. A Senior Lead software engineer for the same company brings home an annual salary of $150,414. Again, a Navy seaman with the same job (E-6, eighth year of his second term) only brings home $44, 002 a year.

Cost Cutting in the Military-the Consequences Ripple On

The Defense Department will cut its military spending budget, in two rounds, by almost $1 Trillion dollars in the next decade. The Obama administration has proposed to cut military spending by $450 billion in the next ten years. Due to the fact that Congress couldn’t agree on a plan for the deficit reduction by the November deadline, there is an additional $500 billion in Pentagon cuts that have to be implemented in the next ten years as well. The first round is going to hurt our economy, but the second round will be detrimental to our economy and to our security. These articles only focus on the first round, as this is all the information that has been proposed.
The first round of cuts will include a reduction in force (military and civilian sectors), base realignment, cuts in research, several retirements with in the fleets. These types of cuts are typical when a war ends, and given the nations financial crisis, the Pentagon had planned on a large cut. Contracted Companies have been cutting back as well, in preparation for the ending of the Iraq War. You simply do not need the same amount of manpower here that you need during conflict. We won’t need the same amount of equipment either, therefore the civilian companies that have been making the gear and security devices aren’t going to need the same amount personnel. The proposal is that the Army will reduce active-duty soldiers by 57,000. The Elimination of eight brigade combat teams, and two heavy brigades in Europe. The Marine Corps will be reduced by 20,000 active-duty Marines. Both the Army and the Marine Corps will have a revised rotational presence in Europe as well as a sustained force in the pacific, and also a persistent presence in the Middle East. These forces will be approximately the sizes they were in 2001. With the reduction amount of “boots-on-the-ground” and more emphasis on the un-manned vehicles, this proves to be a leaner, meaner, more efficient military. But we need to be careful as to where we cut. We have about 100,00 troops coming home, with no job prospects, and to add to that, they are facing pay cuts as well. With the unemployment rate for veterans in December being at 13.1%, many of our service members will re-enlist, even with the low pay, smaller raises, increased costs of benefits, and the restructuring of the retirement and grade compensation. It is already hard for some of our military families to make ends meet without government aide (which is also slated to be cut due to the budget crisis). We risk having an all volunteer military made of service members that are poorly motivated and highly stressed all do to finances. And this doesn’t include the proposed cuts for the retirees. As of today, the Veterans Affairs has not suffered any cuts, but the medical premiums for those retirees under the age of 65 will see an increase in their insurance premiums. They do plan to “Grandfather” the benefits for all service members currently serving, so most of the cuts will affect the new recruits that join after the budget cuts begin.
Rick Mays writes in the Military Times, in his article DoD plans smaller pay raises, benefits cuts:
Pay caps, reduced retirement benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs for retiree health care are in the military’s future under the Defense Department’s new strategy that will be announced this afternoon.
For 2013 and 2014, the Defense Department is budgeting for military raises that fully match the average increase in private-sector wages, according to congressional aides who have been briefed on the Pentagon’s plans.
That means the Jan. 1, 2013 raise would be 1.7 percent, under the Obama administration plan. The 2014 raise will not be known until next year because it would be calculated to follow the pay formula in law to match the Employment Cost Index of private-sector raises.
But things would change in 2015, when long-discussed pay raise reform could lead to smaller raises for people who are in noncritical or overmanned occupational specialties, congressional aides said.
To force a controversial overhaul of military retired pay, the Defense Department will seek to create an independent commission under a process that would force an up-or-down vote in Congress on the changes, with no ability to alter the recommendations.
Increased health care premiums and fees for working-age retirees also are part of the plan, as the Defense Department is refusing to accept a congressional mandate included in the 2012 defense authorization act that limited future fee hikes to no more than the cost-of-living adjustment in retired pay.
Defense officials will renew their call for fee hikes that match medical inflation, which runs 7 percent a year or higher, rather than being limited to COLAs that, over time, average around 3 percent. The most recent retiree COLA was 3.6 percent.
Senior military officials know that such cuts are a bitter pill to swallow, according to congressional sources. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and their senior enlisted advisors, aware that hostile reaction in the ranks could make it less likely for Congress to go along, are urging their subordinates to support the benefits reductions as being in the best long-term interest of the military, sources said.
This is all based on the $450 billion in cuts; this will change with the addition of the additional $500 billion and with the 2014 deadline to end the combat mission in Afghanistan. Though now the Obama administration is proposing a pull out for 2013 in order to help with the budget crisis. Both the Navy and Air Force stand to loose air and water fleet.
The Air Force will lose six tactical fighter squadrons and a training squadron, while the Navy loses seven Ticonderoga-class cruisers, one of which has missile defense capability, but which needs a lot of repairs, the budget document says.
Air mobility takes a hit with 27 C-5A Galaxy airlifters being retired along with 65 older C-130s. The entire C-27 fleet of 38 cargo aircraft is also being scrapped by the Air Force.
However, there will also be investment in advance unmanned aircraft, and the Air Force will gain the capability to operate 65 Predator/Reaper patrols and surge to 85 when needed. Today, the Air Force can fly 61 orbits continuously. The Army will cancel its effort to recapitalize its Humvee fleet and will instead focus resources on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/01/defense-leon-panetta-says-smaller-military-cutting-edge-012612w/)
During peacetime, veterans are heavily recruited by the civilian sector and by government contracted companies. With the proposed budget cuts, the government contractors are going to feel the pinch as well. Civilian Contractors have been preparing for these cut backs, even so, this will have huge economic downfalls in areas of the country that support the large contracted firms. Tyson’s Corner, Virginia; Bethesda, MD; Fort Meade, Mad; Silicon Valley in California; the route 128 corridor around Boston, MA; and the Research Triangle in North Carolina will all be dramatically effected. These areas house the largest military research groups, and therefore are home to a large number of highly paid professionals. While the Companies may be able to contract out to other firms, the largest contract is the Department of Defense. These economies are going to take a cut to the jugular. Though the military is streamlining to a more revolutionary military, they are no longer the leader in research and development. A study conducted in 2007 showed that for every $2 private firms spent on research and development, the government only spent $1. It remains to be a sore point as to cut the civilian sector and research and development being the largest (security being second). Cutting spending on military research could reduce the economy’s long-term growth, but by cutting the civilian employees, you could save millions.
To give you a general idea of the difference in pay I looked up General Dynamic’s salary info (www.glassdoor.com). A Junior Software engineer is paid a yearly salary of $66,250, while a Navy Seaman with the same job (E-3, fourth year of his first term) gets a yearly salary of $27,734. A Senior Lead software engineer for the same company brings home an annual salary of $150,414. Again, a Navy seaman with the same job (E-6, eighth year of his second term) only brings home $44, 002 a year. The government wants to cut the pay of out military, but the civilian contractors salaries are also grouped in with that pay. This is how my Father a retired Command Sgt. Maj. Views this:
Military pay has increased in the past decade, NOT because of increasing the force by 80k, but because military pay was brought back up to near parity with equivalent civilian work force pay. If we want to talk about equivalent pay, military pay is grossly under paid compared to what DoD and the US Government is willing to pay an equivalent contractor or civilian in a combat zone or danger zone. What increased were higher incentives like reenlistment bonuses, which are also NOT the real reason for higher personnel costs. Someone really needs to look at the personnel costs and separate out the active force costs versus civilian personnel costs, which are being lumped in as military personnel costs, because the reason for reducing active force is because of personnel costs; however, we know that it costs 5-10 times more to deploy a civilian into a combat zone than it does an active duty soldier, and it takes 8-10 civilians to support an active duty soldier. We have greater reliance on a civilian support structure for combat soldiers, because we reduced the active force and eliminated equivalent job functions. DoD's plan is to reduce active force, which will rely heavier on civilians and contractors to fill the gap. Iraq is a clear example, where you have 1500 "diplomats" but 15000+ support personnel, most of them security guards. The main concern of all of my articles is how these budget cuts are going to affect, first and foremost, the military, and the affect on the economy. Facts are Facts, after every war there will be drawdowns. While all authors kept mostly to the facts, they did voice their opinions in some way. And the main consensus is that even if the make our military leaner, are we going to be lean enough if this thing with Iran turns into a second nuclear war? You cannot send civilians into a warzone of that technicality. Depleting our troops at the sake of “research” is not a safe idea. And the vast majority of these civilian employees are veterans that did not re-enlist because they could make three times the amount of money they did while enlisted. Most would agree to Scott W. Winchell and Denise Simon statement of opinion in regards to the outlook of our military personell if we have to cut $1.2 trillion in 10 years:
America is in a National security crisis due to our feeble financial condition and our open borders north and south are sieves. We can only hope that since 10.8 million weapons were bought by civilans just last year, we will be our own fighting force should very real and looming threats become hot in our own backyards. (http://www.standupamericaus.org/military-news/cost-cutting-in-the-military-the-consequences-ripple-on/) And I do agree that we could cut the salaries for the civilian contractors, and leave those of the service members alone. They are the ones fighting for our country, for our freedom. They are the ones we need to keep motivated. For them to have to be in the stress of a war zone coupled with the stress of taking care of their family is not something that they should have to contend to. There are a large number of reservist on active duty, and those service members tend to loose money while they are active. I look forward to see how this all plays out, and I can only pray that it will. If any of our enemies feel that we have weakened, we will be recovering from a lot more then large debt. I find that these articles are all well articulated and very much to the point. The majority of them are created by, or are used for the news installments at our military installations.

.