Military pay/benefit cuts proposed

[pawnman]

https://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/05/gates-floats-idea-of-pay-cuts/

That's right, the SECDEF has put cutting military pay and benefits on the table as a way to trim the $400 billion the administration is looking to eliminate from the DoD budget.

This article only says he's open to the idea. No numbers are discussed in the course of this article. A pay freeze, I could cope with. I have a feeling that if you start cutting pay, you are going to seriously hurt retention. Just a guess. Sure, we're over our recruiting goals...but a couple years worth of pay cuts, and you'll have a force full of brand new recruits who get out as soon as their commitment is up. That will really hurt in the areas where enlisted guys only sign up for 4 years at a time. I guess there's always stop-loss if things get too bad, eh?

So if you think the fighter pilot retention numbers look bad now...

[HU&W]

So, if I'm reading this right, the directive from the White House is to reduce the $550B DOD budget by $400B? What am I missing? Are they talking FYDP reductions or annual?

[pawnman]

It's possible that it is $400 billion from the total federal budget, which would make more sense to me. I could have read it wrong, and then made a misleading statement in my opening post.

[StoleIt]

I'll seriously consider a pay cut once the douche's in the rest of the government do also...STARTING with EVERY elected official.

[pawnman]

I'll seriously consider a pay cut once the douche's in the rest of the government do also...STARTING with EVERY elected official.

Maybe they can give up their plush retirement after one term in office as well.

[nsplayr]

The $400 billion cut is over 10 years, so by 2023 since the budget request for 2012 is already submitted and includes the original $400 billion Gates has already identified.

Story.

Most of the time pay "cuts" are really either freezes or measures that slow their growth (like smaller cost of living increases, etc.). Honestly, if we're serious about cutting deficits all of a sudden, why is this not on the table? Everything should be on the table so the American people can really see what the options are, no sacred cows on either side if we're being serious. The voters will see that the sentiments to "make cuts" are not nearly as easily met when the things that are eating the vast majority of our budget are quite popular (i.e. not foreign aid, the department of education, etc.).

WRT DoD, it's either make cuts to personnel costs (either less troops or same number and pay them less) or cut R&D, procurement, or operations. A lot of reductions are projected from drawing down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously some major procurement items have been cut recently as well.

I don't want a reduction in pay or benefits for active military members but if cuts are gonna come you realistically have to expect that they will hit that aspect of defense spending. Some of the proposals have even been very reasonable (Tricare fees) but have met a firewall of categorical opposition that defies logic.

Attached good report on DOD personnel costs with a sh*t-load of graphics and numbers on the issue. Forgot to attach and lost the file...

Edited June 5, 2011 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

In fact, Sec. Gates reently floated the idea that reduc­ing mil­i­tary com­pen­sa­tion may not be a bad idea.

Mr. Gates has stated that he is con­cernrd that our military’s abil­ity to remain a world power under these bud­get cuts may be dif­fi­cult.

I see military.com's editing budget needs to be increased.

Edited May 30, 2011 by ThreeHoler

[BQZip01]

I see military.com's editing budget needs to be increased.

any increase from zero is an improvement...

[SocialD]

The $400 billion cut is over 10 years, so by 2023 since the budget request for 2012 is already submitted and includes the original $400 billion Gates has already identified.

Story.

Most of the time pay "cuts" are really either freezes or measures that slow their growth (like smaller cost of living increases, etc.). Honestly, if we're serious about cutting deficits all of a sudden, why is this not on the table? Everything should be on the table so the American people can really see what the options are, no sacred cows on either side if we're being serious. The voters will see that the sentiments to "make cuts" are not nearly as easily met when the things that are eating the vast majority of our budget are quite popular (i.e. not foreign aid, the department of education, etc.).

WRT DoD, it's either make cuts to personnel costs (either less troops or same number and pay them less) or cut R&D, procurement, or operations. A lot of reductions are projected from drawing down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously some major procurement items have been cut recently as well.

I don't want a reduction in pay or benefits for active military members but if cuts are gonna come you realistically have to expect that they will hit that aspect of defense spending. Some of the proposals have even been very reasonable (Tricare fees) but have met a firewall of categorical opposition that defies logic.

Attached good report on DOD personnel costs with a sh*t-load of graphics and numbers on the issue.

As stoleit2x said...I'll buy the pay freeze, IF all members of our government lead by example and freeze their pay as well!

Edited May 30, 2011 by SocialD

[ASUPilot]

22 Jan 14,

"I'm a stay at home son..."

[nsplayr]

As stoleit2x said...I'll buy the pay freeze, IF all members of our government lead by example and freeze their pay as well!

Obama has proposed this for all almost non-military Executive branch employees already. Including DOD civilians. Much more saved right there than a similar freeze for the 535 members of Congress although symbolically they can go for it.

[SocialD]

Obama has proposed this for all almost non-military Executive branch employees already. Including DOD civilians. Much more saved right there than a similar freeze for the 535 members of Congress although symbolically they can go for it.

The freeze applies to all Executive Branch workers -- including civilian employees of the Defense Department, but does not apply to military personnel, government contractors, postal workers, members of Congress, Congressional staffers, or federal court judges and workers.

If we are in such dire straights and drastic measures are needed, then NO ONE should be immune to the cuts! We are all in this together...including Congress. Yes, I think it's symbolically important that they take the cuts as well. How can they have nerve to look all other Federal workers in the eye and say, you need to take a pay cut...but not me!

[nsplayr]

If we are in such dire straights and drastic measures are needed, then NO ONE should be immune to the cuts! We are all in this together...including Congress. Yes, I think it's symbolically important that they take the cuts as well. How can they have nerve to look all other Federal workers in the eye and say, you need to take a pay cut...but not me!

I agree that if we're going to do cuts it should include everyone; notice how one of those specifically mentioned groups not included in the freeze was military personnel. I don't think a federal government pay freeze does dick for our long term problem but symbolically, yes, we should all be in it together, including Congress and the armed forces. That's why symbolic cuts are kinda pointless...they do nothing to solve the long-term problem yet they're painful to the everyday guy who relies on that paycheck, sometimes after doing a great deal of service to their country (military/police etc.).

[Champ Kind]

Flame me if you will: if they start messing with pay, I'm out at the first opportunity. I am proud to serve my country, I love the flying, and I like most of the people. However, the pay and benefits to me serve as a balance for all of the " do more with less" bullshit we have to put up with. Once that changes, I will be much more willing to explore my options in the civilian world, even if it means a pay cut, as it would be apparent that the "stability" that we are supposed to have in the military would no longer exist.

[Guest]

Maybe they can give up their plush retirement after one term in office as well.

I keep hearing people say this but have never seen such a thing. Can you expound on this plush on term retirement good deal?

[nsplayr]

I keep hearing people say this but have never seen such a thing. Can you expound on this plush on term retirement good deal?

Detailed report attached after 6-9 second google search. The answers are there. This also applies to Congressional staff.

For members elected after 1984, they are covered by FERS. They can receive a pension after 5 years of service (so greater than 2 terms for members of the House, less than 1 term for Senators). The formulas for benefits are in the report, but basically it's:

average of top 3 salary x 0.017 x years of service. Base salary for members of Congress is $174,000, and if we're talking 5 year minimum to earn the pension, your minimum payout is $14,790 per year. The 1.7% only applies only to the first 20 years of service, it's back to 1% like other federal employees after that.

There's also TSP and social security benefits but we should know all about how those work.

It's a nice plan (and the starting salary is very legit) and I like how you can be vested in a shorter amount of time rather than the 20 or nothing of the military. But it's not some ridiculous golden parachute of internet lore like a lot of people think. It's very similar to what all federal employees receive, except that regular federal employees are immediately vested, no need to serve at least 5 years.

Regular federal employees have a similar computation found here, but it boils down to 1% of your top 3 salary for every year of service (or 1.1% if you retire over age 62 with at least 20 years). Basically Congress gives themselves the same kicker given to, "Air Traffic Controllers, Firefighters, Law Enforcement Officers, Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police, or Nuclear Materials Couriers."

The facts are out there if only we knew how to find them...

Edit: forgot to attach file.

Retirement Benefits for Congress.pdf

Edited May 31, 2011 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

To pile onto all the numbers I found before, the official formula for military retirement is 2.5% x years of service (at least 20) x average top 3 salary. You can do the math, but our retirement system is much more generous than that of Congress, they (and all other federal civilian employees) are just vested much sooner. They also don't get shot at regularly and etc. etc. but that's kinda why they pay us more. Congress' base salary is also much higher than all but the most senior military positions, so that helps to jack up their numbers as well (i.e. average top 3 salary for a Lt. Col. isn't gonna be $174,000).

So for anyone arguing that Congress gets "full retirement after a year" you're wrong. After 5 years, it's a qualified yes, but it's not "full retirement" from the perspective of a military person. 2.5% < 1.7% and that makes a big difference over the long haul...especially when military benefits kick in right away and FERS pensions apply to those actually of retirement age.

Honestly I wish there was an option when you joined to either be on the current military system (more generous but must hit 20 years to be vested) or to be a part of the regular FERS system. In FERS, regular federal employees get TSP matching and are vested immediately, which would be an attractive option to all of those who are looking to punch before 20 years. There are obvious reasons the military doesn't want to change the system because they want people to stay the full 20 and once you reach a certain threshold of service they likely have you by the balls, but if Congress really wanted to increase quality of life for most military service members (i.e. those who don't stay in a full 20), letting us choose FERS would be a good deal.

If I punched at the end of my nav school commitment (i.e. As an O-3 after 7 years of service) I'd get about $358 per month in 2011 dollars in pension rather than $0 that I'll get under the current system. Plus all that flight pay I've been putting in TSP would have been matched by the government dollar for dollar up to 5% of my base pay, slightly less than doubling my current contributions. Ain't much but it ain't nothing either.

Edited June 5, 2011 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

https://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2011/04/5923767

Recent article dealing with these type of issues.

[Dubs]

https://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2011/04/5923767

Recent article dealing with these type of issues.

The first area to work on is “entitlements” inside DoD. Service members and retirees should have to pay more for their medical care. The 20-year' date=' half-pay retirement system should be terminated. Retiring 40-year-old officers and noncommissioned officers makes no sense for readiness and it is a financial drain[/quote']

There it is again. That thought and the constant "threat" of it becoming reality coupled with shitty work hours, dwindling job satisfaction, constant queep and rage inducing "change for the sake of change" are what makes me think I'm punching at the first available opportunity.

[nsplayr]

There it is again. That thought and the constant "threat" of it becoming reality coupled with shitty work hours, dwindling job satisfaction, constant queep and rage inducing "change for the sake of change" are what makes me think I'm punching at the first available opportunity.

And if there were a different system, even the plain old FERS every desk-jockey civilian federally employee has, you'd be getting at least several hundred dollars a month once you're actually old and will need the money. Under the current system, if you do punch before 20, it's thank you for your service and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. At least the GI Bills provide lasting benefits to veterans who get out before 20 if they choose to actually use them.

The best part of the current system is that you start collecting full benefits potentially at age 38 (or more like 42 for officers), and that's the most costly part too. 50% of your pay when you're 95% likely to be working another full-time job is a ridiculously good deal, one not afforded to almost any other high-risk career field. The current system pays nothing to people who do punch before 20 years and pays a lot to working age "retirees," not ideal at all IMHO. Reform doesn't have to equal a worse deal but I guess if you're a fan of the current deal it's worth the fight to keep it. The best system to me would reward some service, generously reward long-term service (20+ years), and would be given when a person is actually retired or disabled rather than 42 years young and on to lucrative career #2. I'm not hopeful of change anytime soon though so I doubt it's worth a panty-twisting.

Edited June 5, 2011 by nsplayr

[DeHavilland]

I can't believe I am the first to post this topic for discussion. I could rant and rave and make all kinds of counter arguements to this proposal. I will let those that reply start that discussion. However, I will say personally, after 28 years, I will have to make the decision of whether it is better to retire now before my expected high 3 retirement turns into a new "low 3" (pun intended) retirement and possibly lock in a larger retirement or wait to see if the cuts also affect retirement pay as well as current pay. I'll go stick my head back in the sand pit that says even in these fiscal times military pay base pay should be untouchable.

The Pentagon's top officer said Thursday that servicemembers will likely see cuts in pay and benefits as the military plumbs its budget for nearly half a trillion dollars in savings over the next 12 years.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen warned against taking the "relatively easy" choice of cutting hardware while maintaining the increasing costs of paying and providing ongoing health care to troops and retirees.

"Two of the big places the money is, is in pay and benefits," Mullen told defense reporters at a June 2 breakfast meeting in Washington. "And so when I say all things are on the table, all things are on the table."

In May, President Obama proposed sweeping budget cuts totaling $400 billion over the next 12 years -- a fiscal hit experts say will largely come from the DoD. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said health care costs are "eating the Department of Defense alive" -- with nearly 10 percent of the budget going to health benefits for active and retired servicemembers.

Let your legislator know how you feel about potential pay and benefits cuts as the military looks to trim its budget.

"Sustaining … the weapons and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who use them is increasingly difficult given the massive growth of other components of the defense budget, the 'tail' if you will -- operations, maintenance, pay and benefits, and other forms of overhead," Gates said in a May 24 speech. "America's defense enterprise has consumed ever higher level of resources as a matter of routine just to maintain, staff and administer itself."

Mullen went further, saying savings should be found in pay and benefits costs before cuts to programs and personnel.

"We need to avoid just making the relatively easy decision [to] just cash in force structure," Mullen said. "We have to go through everything else -- and 'force structure' are platforms and people -- before we get to that point, because that's why we're here."

He added that these cuts will likely need to be made in the next few years in order to "start to generate cash in the out years."

The U.S. doesn't face the same world it saw after the Vietnam War, Mullen argued, when Congress and the Pentagon slashed defense by nearly 40 percent. The threats to U.S. security are real and growing, so gutting aircraft and ship programs would undercut American defense, he said.

"I'm not satisfied with the idea that 'let's just be the best counterinsurgency force we can be in the future,' and that's it," he said. "We still have high-end warfighting requirements that we're going to have to resource, and those are important programs."

Mullen, who's due to leave his post this fall, said the Pentagon is still working out the options on where to find the $400 billion in savings. And while he wasn't sure where the White House would come down on the issue, he was firm in his belief that preserving future hardware is a top priority for the DoD.

"We're at the point where … we have to present 'here are options to execute this,' and those are then decisions that the president has to make," Mullen explained. "So we haven't gotten to the specifics of [whether] the White House supports X, Y and Z."

[Stretch]

I can't believe I am the first to post this topic for discussion.

You don't have to believe it.

Different spokesmen, same ground.

[BFM this]

I'd be interested to see what our retirement costs the gov't per retiree and again per member.

For the retiree, sure, you've got your flag officers, and you've got some retirees that live to be 100+. But for survivor benefits there is a signifigant contribution from the member; a sort of insurance premium.

Per member, I think the gov't is doing quite well for itself given the percentage of those who get out before 20, and members that pass with only a few retirement years without survivor benefits.

I for one would be happy to trade in our FERS system for the pension. Unfortunately when the math is done, I think we're going to get a significantly watered down result when the benefits are spread over all members, not just the 20+ crowd.

Nearly every "adjustment" in benefits I've seen in my lifetime: Champus-->TRICARE, Final Pay-->High-3-->Choice/REDUX, (notable exception: MGIB-->P911GIB), has been [gov't savings driven]-->[member net benefit reduction].

Right thing to do? Maybe. We can all passionately argue why these are deserved benefits. But has the quality of our force survived previous reductions? I think so. It will again if this latest idea gains traction.

[pawnman]

I'm all for being able to get out prior to 20 and having some kind of pension to show for it. More than once, the idea has surfaced of the 10 year, 25% pay retirement...but it's always shot down.

How else are you going to keep those demotivated pilots in for the full 20?

[pawnman]

You don't have to believe it.

Different spokesmen, same ground.

Beat me to it.

And if they think they have a fighter pilot retention problem now, wait until they start hacking away at pay and benefits. The Army should fair REALLY well under this policy.

Edited to add: Gotta love the line, "gutting aircraft and ship programs would undercut American defense, he said."...who does he think will man these systems for less pay and fewer benefits, all for the added bonus of spending more time away from home as the services (USAF at least, no first-hand knowledge of the others) draw down and deploy fewer people more often?

Edited June 5, 2011 by pawnman