Report targets military pay,benefits for debt-deal

[nhboy (Premo)]

Link to original article.

"The Congressional Budget Office has released a report on military compensation that puts a red laser dot on near-term pay raises, beneficiary healthcare fees and retirement of future forces as potential cost-saving targets Congress might want to consider in any debt-reduction deal.

Thanks in part to what CBO says were pay raises that exceeded private sector wage growth through much of the last decade, the report estimates that military cash compensation increased by 52 percent from 2002 to 2010 while private sector wages rose by only 24 percent.

In 2012, a married E-4 with four to six years of service will receive “regular military compensation” valued at $50,860. RMC, the salary yardstick for the military, combines basic pay ($27,200 for that E-4) with subsistence allowance ($4,180), average Basic Allowance for Housing for the pay grade across U.S. housing areas ($14,820) and an estimated value for the tax advantages on tax-free allowances ($4,660).

An officer example is given too. RMC for a married O-3 with six years of service is $92,220 this year.

In addition, CBO notes that some members receive enlistment or reenlistment bonuses, special or incentive pays for unique skills, and pay for serving in dangerous or difficult assignments including combat areas, which can mean tax breaks on part or all of their basic pay, too.

CBO discusses RMC after advising that $150 billion, or more than one quarter of the Defense Department’s “base” budget (which excludes the cost of current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) will be spent this year on military pay and benefits for current forces and retirees. It goes on to propose ways to curtail compensation costs.

More on this can be read online at Costs of Military Pay and Benefits in the Defense Budget. LINK (PDF)

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, requested the report. It describes recent gains to service compensation, projected growth, the history of cost-sharing under TRICARE and even how court rulings knocked down claims by older retirees that recruiter promises had bound the military to provide free heath care for life.

One approach to cut costs is to “restrict basic pay raises” as Defense officials proposed last April, CBO says. Congress so far has rejected the idea. But any grand bargain to address the debt crisis in coming months could include many unpleasant surprises for beneficiaries of federal programs."

[CrashTest]

Good. This morning, Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D) was on TV saying that EVERYONE needs to give up something.

Last time I checked, service members were part of EVERYONE.

[Rommey]

Originally Posted by CrashTest

Good. This morning, Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D) was on TV saying that EVERYONE needs to give up something.

Last time I checked, service members were part of EVERYONE.

I wonder if Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D) thinks that he and his 534 other counterparts* on Capitol Hill are "part of EVERYONE"


*As well as the thousands of staffers for the 535 Congresscritters...

[philibusters]

Any spending cuts that realistically can provide long term stability to our budget will have be across the board. Since entitlements make up over half our budget, entitlements will have to be reigned in. Likewise, defense spending which when combined with intelligence spending makes up 30% of our budget will also have to take cuts. Some of that will likely be cutting expensive high tech projects, but some of that will have to reducing labor costs. Whether reducing labor costs means freezing military salaries or simply shrinking the size of the armed forces now that is projected we will not be involved in any wars overseas is a question for the policy makers but it will have to happen.

From a self-interested standpoint, my view of the situation has changed. I took a civilian position with one of the military branches about four months and like my new job. So whereas six months ago I was more objective saying defense spending will have to be cut significantly (say by 20%) to reach a sustainable budget, now even though my brain still believes that, I am very uncomfortable with that idea. Simply put, a smaller military means there is a smaller need for civilian personnel like myself and as the newbie I am the low man on the totem pole, so all of a sudden I find myself supporting minimal defense spending cuts.

[cheezgrits]

Originally Posted by CrashTest

Good. This morning, Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D) was on TV saying that EVERYONE needs to give up something.

Last time I checked, service members were part of EVERYONE.

We did give up something. We gave up a normal life, being at home all the time and watching our kids grow up. All for the love of country and honor, but also for the promise we were given that we would receive some compensation for our work.

Some of your "everyone" service members gave up their life.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by CrashTest

Good. This morning, Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D) was on TV saying that EVERYONE needs to give up something.

Last time I checked, service members were part of EVERYONE.

Last time I checked I gave up being home with my family for over 20 years, last time I checked I gave up a good paycheck for 20 years, last time I checked I gave up an 8 hour day for an 18 hour day for 20 years.....for the same paycheck. People like you can pack it in your ass because you haven't a clue what you're talking about and the same goes for the idiot Congressman. Veterans have given up more than their share for this country, most don't want much in return except what was promised when they enlisted. Even that was taken away. Some of them gave up their lives. Idiots like you haven't got a clue.

[MMM_donuts]

Originally Posted by cheezgrits

We did give up something. We gave up a normal life, being at home all the time and watching our kids grow up. All for the love of country and honor, but also for the promise we were given that we would receive some compensation for our work.

Some of your "everyone" service members gave up their life.

Speak for yourself - I didn't do it for any "compensation" other than the satisfaction of giving my best and my everything to serve the people of my country and to learn from it how to be nothing less than a beneficial contribution to society.

[CrashTest]

Originally Posted by Vince

Last time I checked I gave up being home with my family for over 20 years, last time I checked I gave up a good paycheck for 20 years, last time I checked I gave up an 8 hour day for an 18 hour day for 20 years.....for the same paycheck. People like you can pack it in your ass because you haven't a clue what you're talking about and the same goes for the idiot Congressman. Veterans have given up more than their share for this country, most don't want much in return except what was promised when they enlisted. Even that was taken away. Some of them gave up their lives. Idiots like you haven't got a clue.

I would feel for you if you were drafted but you weren't. You had a choice.

And since miltary pay and benefits come from the taxes everyone pays, that gives everyone a voice in how it's used. If miltary pay and benefits came from fairy dust, I'd keep quiet on how the fairy dust is used.

[Makavide]

Originally Posted by CrashTest

I would feel for you if you were drafted but you weren't. You had a choice.

And since miltary pay and benefits come from the taxes everyone pays, that gives everyone a voice in how it's used. If miltary pay and benefits came from fairy dust, I'd keep quiet on how the fairy dust is used.

True, when i joined the military the draft had ended. So I had a choice to join. However, once I joined the only choice i had after that was if i wanted to stay in at the end of each enlistment. Those are the only choices I really ever had. Yes I choose to join. I did not choose to work 12 hours on 12 hours off, 7 days a week for 6 straight months. and yes I did that. I did not do that contiously for 20 years, but there were a number of times those were the hours I worked. A couple of times those hours were for 36 in a row. But yes, I chose to stay in. I was deployed for the birth of 2 of my daughtes, but yes I chose to stay in. I didnt do it for the money at the time. I did it because I enjoyed what I was doing. I enjoyed working with the people I worked with. I enjoyed the knowelege that what I was doing had real meaning.

I didnt make much money then. I didnt get to save much to send my daughters to college. Now, because of the experience I gained, I make a little better then I did in the military. So now my girls are ineligable for any kind of pell grants -but I will sacrifice some more to ensure they can go to college.

And by the way, those taxes "everyone" pays - I paid those as well. So I also get to have a say on where those taxes get spent. If the choice is between defending this country so you can inhale your fairy dust, then I will choose to have my taxes go to the military.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by philibusters

From a self-interested standpoint, my view of the situation has changed.

That's the difference between those of us who served and those who didn't. We are willing to sacrifice for the good of the country. There are so many who are not willing to sacrifice, and worse base their decisions on what will help their situation without regard for what will help the country. That's why a lot of people voted the way they did. They were scared that whatever program benefited them the most might go away, so they voted for that program instead of voting for the good of the country.

I don't mind the thought of paying more taxes, but not if they will be wasted as they always have. If I had faith that the government would use my tax dollars wisely, I wouldn't mind paying 50% in order to leave my kids a nation that was safer, stronger, and better than what I inherited. But as long as we have people in Washington who do not respect the money I pay, I will do whatever I can to pay as little tax as possible.

Anyone who has worked for the Government for any time knows that there are massive inefficiencies that need to be fixed. We also know that across the board cuts will will not fix the problems, but will create new problems as critical programs suffer.