What should military members be willing to sacrifice first?

[MarineTpartier]

IMO, we should sacrifice our retirement. When I say sacrifice, I mean that instead of being able to collect our retirement the year we leave our respective (I use that term loosely for everyone but the Marine Corps lol) service, we should wait until we are 55. I think 10 years earlier than everyone else is a justifiable reward for serving 20 or 30 years in an environment where you go to war for others who choose not to and you have no collective bargaining agreement in regards to your retirement to begin with. Some of the other stuff in the poll could go too. I just believe this should be first.

 

[tessaesque]

I think the last people we should ask to sacrifice anything are our all-volunteer military/former military.

 

[Redress]

IMO, we should sacrifice our retirement. When I say sacrifice, I mean that instead of being able to collect our retirement the year we leave our respective (I use that term loosely for everyone but the Marine Corps lol) service, we should wait until we are 55. I think 10 years earlier than everyone else is a justifiable reward for serving 20 or 30 years in an environment where you go to war for others who choose not to and you have no collective bargaining agreement in regards to your retirement to begin with. Some of the other stuff in the poll could go too. I just believe this should be first.

I support cuts to the defense budget in the near future. We can make those cuts without making our troops sacrifice. Efficiency improvements alone in a 700 billion budget could account for significant savings.

 

[cpwill]

Where is the poll?

I agree - our current retirement system is not reflective of our workforce. Guys aren't going to get out at ages 38-44 and then immediately become bed-ridden retirees; they are going to go get other jobs. We should shift retirement from a pension to a TSP match like 401(k)'s for the younger guys, and find ways to grandfather/ease the older guys.

Pushing all retirees starting in 5 years (so that everybody reenlists into the new system) out to 55, and all retirees starting in 10 years to age 65 would be a good way to "step-ladder" that process. In the meantime, we can match up to 5-10% of base pay in TSP to ease the cost of the shift, and everybody who has reenlisted at least once but hasn't hit the 10 year mark can get pro-rated retirement at 65 (so, for a 10 year guy who then completes the 20, 25% of base pay at age 65) plus the TSP match, with all the guys on their first enlistment and below just getting the match.

That way we phase out costs without breaking faith. 15 year retirements are probably a good idea too - but should be an automatic you-are-waiting-until-55-or-65 starting immediately.

But yeah, if it comes down to gear for the next generation of guys or my benefits - give them the gear. Every Marine knows the right answer between an extra paycheck or something that might save a younger Marines' life.

 

[DiAnna]

I "liked" the OP because it is a well-articulated method of cutting the military budget that will cause the least financial pain for those who have probably already started a second career.

However, there are a hell of a lot of military cuts that should be made long before any of those who have already sacrificed much should be asked to sacrifice more.

 

[cpwill]

I support cuts to the defense budget in the near future. We can make those cuts without making our troops sacrifice. Efficiency improvements alone in a 700 billion budget could account for significant savings.

hooray! magic efficiency savings! Government is going to become efficient!




Personnel and Maintenance are the two largest costs for DOD. You can either cut spending on personnel, or you can have them driving around in imaginary tanks. There isn't a realistic "well let's just get rid of all the $600 toilet seats" answer to really cutting DOD spending.

 

[cpwill]

I "liked" the OP because it is a well-articulated method of cutting the military budget that will cause the least financial pain for those who have probably already started a second career.

However, there are a hell of a lot of military cuts that should be made long before any of those who have already sacrificed much should be asked to sacrifice more.

like... healthcare for retirees? That's what's getting cut (along with a whole bunch of other stuff) under sequestration.


everybody is in favor of cutting DOD spending until they have to face the reality that the choice is A) cut benefits to the troops or B) cut the gear and training that keeps them alive.

 

[cpwill]

As for a pay freeze. I am willing to freeze mine, sure. But I am 100% dead set against a pay freeze for E4 and below. Those guys live enough on the edge already; if you are going to freeze their pay you need to boost BAS / BAH to make up the difference for the guys trying to raise families on wages that rate them food stamps.

 

[MarineTpartier]

I support cuts to the defense budget in the near future. We can make those cuts without making our troops sacrifice. Efficiency improvements alone in a 700 billion budget could account for significant savings.

I agree. But we all need to be willing to make sacrifices IMO. Our military is very well taken care of. The retirement thing is low hanging fruit. Where in this country can a 38 year old retire and receive a pension for the rest of his/her life? Medical care could be cut in regards to health problems unrelated to service. For instance, if a retiree goes to the doctor for a cold, he pays a higher co-pay than if he goes for treatment for his knee that was blown out during his time in.
My whole point on this is that I don't like the fact that our military is turning into an entitlement society just like the rest of the country. A lot of my fellow Marines act as though they deserve things that I never would have thought I deserved when I was at the point in my career that they are. We all need to buckle down and be willing to get a little uncomfortable to benefit the country.
Last thing, I would love to see a politician or two be willing to do this.:lamo:cuckoo:

 

[cpwill]

I think the last people we should ask to sacrifice anything are our all-volunteer military/former military.

we're the ones who signed up for it - and we are the ones who generally are young, disciplined, and skilled enough to where we can more easily take it. I'd rather cut my pension (long in the future and I have time to figure out how to make up for it) before I would cut current medicare recipients, who may have no other options.

 

[cpwill]

I agree. But we all need to be willing to make sacrifices IMO. Our military is very well taken care of. The retirement thing is low hanging fruit. Where in this country can a 38 year old retire and receive a pension for the rest of his/her life? Medical care could be cut in regards to health problems unrelated to service. For instance, if a retiree goes to the doctor for a cold, he pays a higher co-pay than if he goes for treatment for his knee that was blown out during his time in.
My whole point on this is that I don't like the fact that our military is turning into an entitlement society just like the rest of the country. A lot of my fellow Marines act as though they deserve things that I never would have thought I deserved when I was at the point in my career that they are. We all need to buckle down and be willing to get a little uncomfortable to benefit the country.
Last thing, I would love to see a politician or two be willing to do this.:lamo:cuckoo:

It would have to be a vet, like McCain to bless off on a program like this.

 

[MarineTpartier]

As for a pay freeze. I am willing to freeze mine, sure. But I am 100% dead set against a pay freeze for E4 and below. Those guys live enough on the edge already; if you are going to freeze their pay you need to boost BAS / BAH to make up the difference for the guys trying to raise families on wages that rate them food stamps.

I agree with you on that bro. Corporals and below hurt bad, especially when they are married. I should have put that in the poll honestly.

 

[tessaesque]

like... healthcare for retirees? That's what's getting cut (along with a whole bunch of other stuff) under sequestration.


everybody is in favor of cutting DOD spending until they have to face the reality that the choice is A) cut benefits to the troops or B) cut the gear and training that keeps them alive.

There are other options.

1. We could rework treaties that obligate us to keep forces in countries that we don't really need to be in. We could then significantly cut the number of troops we have at these locations. Those troops could be reassigned or put on reserve and put back into the civilian work force (of course this would take place as the economy recovers).
2. We could cancel out defensive contracts for materials the military doesn't want/need.
3. We could stop funding the military arsenal of countries more than capable of buying/creating their own.
4. Let the border states employ their own forces to defend and fortify the borders.
5. Lower administrative salaries at the DOD.
6. Cancel out defensive contracts for mercenary/manual labor programs.

And I'm sure there are several other options that don't include screwing over our military troops.

 

[MarineTpartier]

There are other options.

1. We could rework treaties that obligate us to keep forces in countries that we don't really need to be in. We could then significantly cut the number of troops we have at these locations. Those troops could be reassigned or put on reserve and put back into the civilian work force (of course this would take place as the economy recovers).
2. We could cancel out defensive contracts for materials the military doesn't want/need.
3. We could stop funding the military arsenal of countries more than capable of buying/creating their own.
4. Let the border states employ their own forces to defend and fortify the borders.
5. Lower administrative salaries at the DOD.
6. Cancel out defensive contracts for mercenary/manual labor programs.

And I'm sure there are several other options that don't include screwing over our military troops.

Just a note on something similar to the highlighted above. I received a Range Control phone roster from a civilian at Ft Campbell a week ago when I went for the Range Safety Officer course. There are, and this is an estimate off the top of my head, at least 50 guys working at range control on that base. All with their own phone number, I assume their own office based off of the fact that they all have their own phone number, and many of them with the same job title. Do we really need 50 people running range control? It can't be that hard. The SDZ's (cpwill, you know what I'm talking about I'm sure) stay the same, the ranges very seldom change, and maintenance is many times conducted by the range user not range control. It seems to me that ranges should be able to run themselves once the safety stuff is done.

 

[Donc]

IMO, we should sacrifice our retirement. When I say sacrifice, I mean that instead of being able to collect our retirement the year we leave our respective (I use that term loosely for everyone but the Marine Corps lol) service, we should wait until we are 55. I think 10 years earlier than everyone else is a justifiable reward for serving 20 or 30 years in an environment where you go to war for others who choose not to and you have no collective bargaining agreement in regards to your retirement to begin with. Some of the other stuff in the poll could go too. I just believe this should be first.

Poll: What should military members be willing to sacrifice first?

Not a damn thing.When we have a voluntary force, you join, you’re putting you life on the line. that’s plenty right their.:2mad:

 

[Donc]

Just a note on something similar to the highlighted above. I received a Range Control phone roster from a civilian at Ft Campbell a week ago when I went for the Range Safety Officer course. There are, and this is an estimate off the top of my head, at least 50 guys working at range control on that base. All with their own phone number, I assume their own office based off of the fact that they all have their own phone number, and many of them with the same job title. Do we really need 50 people running range control? It can't be that hard. The SDZ's (cpwill, you know what I'm talking about I'm sure) stay the same, the ranges very seldom change, and maintenance is many times conducted by the range user not range control. It seems to me that ranges should be able to run themselves once the safety stuff is done.

WTF!!!

50 guys working at range control on that base.

It takes 50 guys to do what boots used to do?Spot and wave maggies drawers?:mrgreen:

 

[obvious Child]

I support cuts to the defense budget in the near future. We can make those cuts without making our troops sacrifice. Efficiency improvements alone in a 700 billion budget could account for significant savings.

Agreed. Secretary Gates essentially stated that unless we get healthcare costs in the military under control, there won't be money for weapons. And the US spends more on defense then the majority of the entire world combined.

 

[Redress]

hooray! magic efficiency savings! Government is going to become efficient!




Personnel and Maintenance are the two largest costs for DOD. You can either cut spending on personnel, or you can have them driving around in imaginary tanks. There isn't a realistic "well let's just get rid of all the $600 toilet seats" answer to really cutting DOD spending.

Ah, it must be silly season. Because two things are the biggest, that must mean that is the only place spending happens. So you create this painfully silly false claim. Maybe you do not remember, just as an example, the base Closure Commission(hint: it worked).

 

[Redress]

Just thought I would throw this out there for cpwill: U.S. Government's 2010 Financial Report Shows Significant Financial Management and Fiscal Challenges

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations.

“Even though significant progress has been made since the enactment of key financial management reforms in the 1990s, our report on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statement illustrates that much work remains to be done to improve federal financial management. Shortcomings in three areas again prevented us from expressing an opinion on the accrual-based financial statements,” said Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General of the United States.

The main obstacles to a GAO opinion were: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.
​

 

[apdst]

Efficiency improvements alone in a 700 billion budget could account for significant savings.

Yeah! That's gonna happen. :rofl

Making a government org efficient is like teaching a cat to bark.

 

[cpwill]

Just a note on something similar to the highlighted above. I received a Range Control phone roster from a civilian at Ft Campbell a week ago when I went for the Range Safety Officer course. There are, and this is an estimate off the top of my head, at least 50 guys working at range control on that base. All with their own phone number, I assume their own office based off of the fact that they all have their own phone number, and many of them with the same job title. Do we really need 50 people running range control? It can't be that hard. The SDZ's (cpwill, you know what I'm talking about I'm sure) stay the same, the ranges very seldom change, and maintenance is many times conducted by the range user not range control. It seems to me that ranges should be able to run themselves once the safety stuff is done.

Yeah, and you and I have spoken before about the need to put "fiscal success" in fitreps - it seems that would be the sort of thing that should fall under the Base Commander. But you and I also know that trimming down the "retiree" force is chump change.


How much money could we save if we offered active duty an HSA-style option like the State of Indiana did? They saw costs decrease by 11% in two fiscal years. TRICARE Standard and Prime could stick around for the Extraordinary Family Member types, or the ones who just are banged up enough to need it, but the younger, healthier masses would be incentivized to move to a cheaper program.

 

[cpwill]

Ah, it must be silly season. Because two things are the biggest, that must mean that is the only place spending happens.

no. But significantly cutting DOD spending without hitting those two things is like balancing the budget without cutting Social Security and Medicare. It's not plausible.

So you create this painfully silly false claim.

no... the "we can just squeeze it all out of efficiency without any hard or painful choices" pipe dream is the silly claim. reality demands sacrifice.

 

[Redress]

no. But significantly cutting DOD spending without hitting those two things is like balancing the budget without cutting Social Security and Medicare. It's not plausible.



no... the "we can just squeeze it all out of efficiency without any hard or painful choices" pipe dream is the silly claim. reality demands sacrifice.

Look at the link above:

Dodaro also cited material weaknesses involving an estimated $125.4 billion in improper payments

You are so right, can't make any significant cuts without hitting two items that account for only about half of military spending....

 

[specklebang]

My Father is 100 years old and has been retired from the Army, fully disabled, since 1967. That's 45 years now and he shows no signs of departing this earth. I'm 68 and he'll probably outlive me.

According to my calculations, he costs the taxpayer around $150,000 a year. His current salary is $9,000 and he has medical benefits that cost plenty. So, he has consumed $6,750,000.00 since retiring. He is far from the only one. Until society figures out that we don't die you anymore and that reality had better start appearing in our judgements and calculations.

No position taken. Just information that I thought would be worth noting in the very thoughtful thread.

 

[Sarcogito]

I agree with setting an age at which we can start drawing retirement, such as 55. As it currently stands you start drawing your pension the day you retire from the military, regardless of age. So if you enlist at 18 and retire after 20 years, you will start drawing a pension (that amounts to about 50% of your base pay) at the ripe old age of 38 and it will continue for the rest of your life.

So, yeah, I think we could set an older age. But I don’t think we should pull a bait and switch on people who are already in. Grandfather them in and start the new retirement system for new recruits.