Top military chiefs: Cut pay and benefits

[IDemo]

Source: Washington Business Journal

In an era of shrinking Pentagon budgets, it's now become evident military pay and benefits growth will have to be slowed, says the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Gen. Martin Dempsey said over the weekend that the military's top commanders have come up with a plan to deal with the ever-increasing growth in pay and benefits. Gen. Dempsey said the chiefs would unveil the changes when the proposed military budget is released in February.


Read more: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2013/11/top-military-chiefs-cut-pay-and.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_national+%28Bizjournals+National+Feed%29

---

Full story is at Wall Street Journal (registration required?)

Yes, let's cut pay and benefits so long as we can have our shiny new F35's and Gerald Ford class carriers....

[Scootaloo]

1. I doubt any of them are volunteering cuts to their own pay

[JaneQPublic]

45. Generals and Admirals live like Arab Sheiks.

They have entire entourages to cater to their every whim. They never have to lift a finger for themselves.

Washington Post did an article a few years ago on the military's upper echelon and their lifestyles of the rich and famous.

If military budgets need to be cut, they should start at the top, and then quickly end the war in Afghanistan and after that close a few of the pointless overseas bases.

[dballance]

2. You said it well

The F35 is a complete disaster and why we need new carriers is a mystery to me. No nation on this earth would challenge us - not even Putin.

[KamaAina]

3. Many enlisted personnel are already on food stamps as it is

Do we really want a Walmart military?

[Scairp]

21. Nearly all enlisted qualify

Their pay is already that low. When I was a military spouse the commissary had signs up saying they accepted food stamps. All of my female acquaintances and friends were getting WIC. At least half, or more, of enlisted personnel had second jobs to make ends meet, whether they lived in base housing or not, plus most dependent spouses worked too. This just makes my blood boil.

[KamaAina]

22. Would make a nice little vignette

First you show the signs saying "We Accept Food Stamps". And the largely black and Latino clientele. Then, after the viewers have made their assumptions, you pull back and show that it's a military base.

[winter is coming]

24. Well, they were on food stamps. That will probably get "fixed", too. n/t

[RC]

56. Yeah, that'll win wars.

I can see it now, Donation jars in the market places of countries we invade. Our soldiers going door to door asking for help so their families don't go hungry back in the US. Food drives to send food to the United States for the poverty stricken families of the solders that are randomly shooting and killing the locals, just because they are in the wrong place, or look dangerous.

The weight of all that gold scrambled egg on their hats are crushing the brains of the top brass.
If anyone wants an example of the Peter Principle, the OP provide it.

[Posteritatis]

4. Or they could buy ten fewer F-35s and give all active personnel an extra $1500... (nt)

[Kelvin Mace]

5. The generals don't care about what happens

to individual soldiers, sailors and airmen, they have secure futures with defense contractors.

There should be a law banning any employment by an ex-military officer in the defense industry. 5 years for O1-O4, ten years for O5 and above.

[lastlib]

6. Start with the generals and admirals!!

Then kill off the F-35 and the supercarriers! We don't need them!

[tomm2thumbs]

7. I'm frankly surprised they just don't pull prisoners & force them to enlist for free

oh wait, maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas

[RC]

57. During the 60's, Viet Nam era, they did give some men that choice.

Jail, to serve out their sentence, or the Military and Viet Nam.

[Lasher]

8. The Pentagon's Biggest Overrun: Way Too Many Generals

Thursday, 05 January 2012 04:06
By Dina Rasor, Truthout | Solutions

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will lay out a plan today to cut the Pentagon's budget as required by the White House and the Congress. He isn't happy about it and has complained bitterly in the media about hollowing out the military, and he has had help from the top generals in the Department of Defense (DoD) to give him backup.

However, studies that I started years ago show that there are way too many generals for troops, planes and ships and these generals also make sure that their turf and positions are protected. They are costing us far more than their high salaries, retirements and perks; they are using their positions to protect the status quo in the military.

Ironically, they are fighting budget cuts that would take them, in constant dollars, back to 2007 levels of spending. To put that in historic perspective, the DoD budget has nearly doubled since 9/11.

So, how many military brass do we have compared to past years? We have the most ever since World War II. In 1982, when I was running the Project on Military Procurement, one of my sources suggested to me that I do research on how many top officers we had for our troops, planes and ships. My report showed a steady increase since World War II, especially since the number of planes and ships were decreasing due to cost, while the number of generals were increasing. Over the years, my former organization, now known as the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) (for full disclosure, I am on POGO's board of directors and serve as treasurer), has redone the report several times, and the brass continues to grow as we get fewer and fewer weapons. The biggest growth was with three- and four-star generals, which POGO has dubbed "star creep." POGO's Ben Freeman recently testified to the Congress in September on how bad the problem had gotten.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/5920:the-pentagons-biggest-overrun-way-too-many-generals

[MADem]

26. Paygrade creep has been a problem for awhile. It got really bad under Bush.

It's difficult to walk that stuff back, but it needs to be done, especially as we're getting off the wartime foot, now.

Billets that used to be held by a mid-grade personnel suddenly get bumped up to make room for senior muckety mucks all circling like hawks, looking for a star.

The three and four star billets are the easiest to get rid of--those are very discretionary. Best way to do it without hurting too many feelings? Slot people who are about to retire/have reached their terminal rank into the jobs and give them the task of downgrading the job or closing up shop and/or combining the work with another office.

[Ash_F]

53. It's not about strategic need. It is about maintaining a posh high society.

Everyone wants to be in the club. Coming from a rich politically connected family helps. Being a politician or a high ranking military officer helps maintain that family where it is for the next generation.

Modern royalty.

[Solly Mack]

9. Figures.

[msongs]

10. replace private contractors with active duty troops and give them a raise...will still cost less nt

[former9thward]

13. It would cost far more which is why the military uses private contractors.

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

The military does not have to pay private contractors benefits including insurance, pensions and disability payments. Those all come from their employer. They also do not have to pay for training and turnover. This is a one way street and the military will never turn back.

[salimbag]

23. Military pay vs. contract workers

I have seen this statement before. I have never seen any hard numbers to support this. When I was in the military ( many years ago) there were NO civilian workers on base. As an E-3, I made $88/month. We could be assigned ANY job, from cutting grass to polishing brass. The all-volunteer military is likely what made civilian contractors necessary, not cost saving.

[MADem]

28. See, in today's military, you would never have been hired without a real job and a

specialty (or the potential to slot into one fairly quickly). And as an E-3, you'd be making a shitload more than eighty eight bucks a month. If you were one of those kids who made E-3 in boot camp owing to college credit, and you had less than a year in service, you would be making $1787 BASE pay--not including any allowances, not even your uniform allowance. If you had over two years in service, your base pay (again, not including any housing allowance, assuming you are living in the barracks with a meal card) would be $1900. Over three years in service, your base pay is $2015.

Now, because you're a military asset, you're entitled to housing, which costs money, to be fed, which costs money, medical and dental care, which costs money, and if you get married, your dependents (now called "military family members&quot need the shelter and medical care as well--you'd be given an allowance for that of course, and you'd move out of the barracks either into civilian quarters or base housing. You get a commissary/exchange/MWR benefit, and all that costs money, too.

If you stay for 20 years, you get promoted regularly (which costs money), and assuming you get promoted regularly, you get a retirement--and that costs money. And they pay you that retirement every month on the first of the month, until you die. And if you were a smart person and signed up for an annuity for your spouse in the event of your death, that spouse would continue to get money after you die.

See how it starts to get pricey? Even if you have to pay some company a couple of thousand bucks a month to come in and cut the lawns, it's still cheaper than having to fund the salaries, medical care, and eventual retirement of "make work" personnel. The base doesn't have to maintain mowers, pay for gas for those mowers, put a mid-grade or senior enlisted supervisor in charge of all the E-3 and below personnel to make sure they aren't screwing off. You just throw money at a contractor, check their work after they've done the job, and that's that. If they do a good job, you cut 'em a check every month and it is up to them to pay their people.

The saying is "If you're not putting ordnance on target, your job can be civilianized." An administrative assistant/secretary/file or pay clerk doesn't "need" to be fit--you can hire some one to do that job who is not deployable, but they really don't need to be. A lot of administrative work can be done remotely. And you can make it an entry level job, or even contract it--so you only worry about pay, and not current or downstream benefits.

[Lasher]

32. Food for thought: Are Private Contractors Really Cheaper?

Those who support using private military and security contractors often claim that a major reason for doing so is that it is more cost-effective than using regular military forces.

<snip>

Perhaps the reason contractors are more effective than regular military forces is that they are more prone to getting shafted by their employers. Naturally, that is not the argument a pro-private-military-and-security-contractor advocate might want to cite, but a paper written in 2012 provides some compelling evidence that it is the case.

Last year, Jimmy I. Wise, a U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, wrote a paper published by the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Outsourcing Wars: Comparing Risk, Benefits and Motivation of Contractors and Military Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan (2009–2011) compared risk, insurance benefits, and motivation factors for contractors and U.S military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2009 to 2011.

He found that while contractors’ medical insurance benefits were equitable to U.S. military personnel, real inequity existed between contractor disability compensation insurance and the military personnel’s benefits, and real inequity existed between a contractor’s death benefits and the U.S. military personnel’s death benefits.

http://nation.time.com/2013/07/23/are-private-contractors-really-cheaper/

This article concludes that contractors are more cost effective because they get screwed on their disability and death benefits.

[MADem]

37. The article is correct. It's all down to what DoD does NOT have to pay out.

That's why the contractors are cheaper--the person contracting them isn't responsible for paying benefits for illness, death, retirement, etc.

That's the job of the person who runs the contracting agency.

There is a certain element of "double dipping" in the contractor ranks, so not all of the contracted personnel are getting screwed. Fresh retirees (many of whom aren't that old--thirty eight, forty or so) sign on with the contractor, pull down a sweet paycheck, and still have the military privileges accorded them as a consequence of their retiree status.

[Lasher]

41. It's more complicated than that, as I'm sure you are aware.

One thing is, when using contractors you get into problems you wouldn't have with GIs. For example, contractors are not subject to the UCMJ. Not accusing you of deceit and all, this is more for the spectators.

[MADem]

48. They're subject to civilian law--which can be problematic if you're working in a place with

no effective civilian law!

[ancianita]

34. All true. As the former wife of a former Army officer, I am totally familiar with this.

There's just too much "civilianizing" of ordnance making, selling, distributing and base building. Period.

[salimbag]

49. Of course the pay is higher

Today's pay is nothing like during my time. I agree totally with your numbers, but the military simply cannot recruit enough people to fill all the positions necessary for operations and support. One thing I don't see is the military trying to save money. During the draft era, all they needed to do was yank a few thousand young men off the street. Now they have to hire contractors.

[MADem]

52. They don't WANT to recruit people for support. It's cheaper to hire them as needed.

Why pay those salaries waiting around for a war to start up? Draw down in peacetime, up-surge in wartime.

As for operational personnel, there's a reason why there's now a reservist on the JCS (there never was before). Guard/reserves have taken so much more of an important role these days--they sit at home, drill every other week, and sometimes less, depending, but they are there when needed.

Absent a genuine world war, where all the marbles are on the table, you will never see a draft again. They're inefficient, and the people who are conscripted do not want to be there, do not respect the process, and it takes more effort and energy to "keep them in line" than is worth the effort. The unreliable draftees make it an unsustainable process.

They don't have to worry about finding contractors. They pay well, they put the job out for bids, and they get more than enough takers. It is more money upfront, but it is way, way less money downstream.

[MADem]

27. +1--seems more expensive in the short term, but over time it saves a bundle.

It is the new paradigm.

[SharonAnn]

46. The employer's cost of benefits is in the price billed to the military.

Contractors figure out their "fully loaded cost" per unit, add a percentage, and then bill the resulting amount.

Of course the military pays the private contractor's benefits. It's just done through uni (by hour, by person, by year, etc.) billing.

And if the person is paid so little that they qualify for the EITC and Food Stamps, then the taxpayer pays.

[former9thward]

47. The reason any employer uses contractors is because it is cheaper.

That includes the military. Of course the contractor makes a profit. But it is cheaper to have workers you can get rid of and be done with than long term employees.

[olddad56]

11. yeah, cut pay and benefits to people serving....

just don't quit paying ridiculous money to government contractors and keep spending trillions on unnecessary illegal invasions.

[underpants]

12. Oh.... the South (and their rep.s - mostly Repubs) are not going to like that

The South depends on Uncle Sucker money while being told to hate Uncle Sucker

[MADem]

29. The end result will probably be that they'll slow cost of living increases--they've already been

shafting retirees on this score for a while) and they will continue to aggressively downsize.

When you send people home, you don't have to keep paying them.

The "trick" (no shooting the messenger, here--this is how former SECDEF CHENEY devised the last massive drawdown that got implemented under the Clinton administration) is to shove as many people out the door without having to pay them any retirement. How is this done?

--- You target people who need to move "up or out" and if there is an exam or some other hoop they need to jump through to get that promotion, you make it VERY hard to get through that hoop. The ones who fail get booted and you don't have to pay them anything.

---Another way to get rid of people is to piss test early and often--there's always a small percentage of weed smokers or weekend coke sniffers or name-your-poison ingesters--nail them and catapult them outta there.

---Get all "zero tolerance" over misbehavior, to include nit-picky misbehavior. Five minutes late for muster? Treat it like the crime of the century. Flunked that personnel or barracks inspection? Make it a mandatory lower mark on evaluation forms, making the servicemember less competitive against his or her peers. And if a military member gets in "civilian" trouble? Haul out the catapult and jettison them from the ranks!

---The dreaded "PT" test....make the standards more difficult, quantify the standards so the test isn't just noted as PASS/FAIL--make sure that people who barely scrape by are shamed, and those who do nothing but hit the gym are lauded. Getting a little thick around the middle, or wide across the beam? Be draconian in the imposition of weight standards, and dog the living shit out of people who don't meet the requirements. If they can't shape up quick enough, show them the door.

---Finally, if, after doing all this, you still don't get your numbers down, start offering severance packages. Say, you too can leave six months early if your enlistment is coming to an end! We'll give you a few perks to make a couple of months after we've shown you the door easier--commissary benefits, say, or a couple of months of medical care and a transition workshop. Or, alternatively, if you don't express an intention to reenlist by X date with no assignment guarantee (you could end up in Hell on Wheels, Shitville--it's a--pardon the expression--crap shoot!, we're not going to let you re-up. OR...for people who are well on their way to retirement, we'll offer those guys a "Temporary Early Retirement Authority" whereby we'll give 'em a smaller retirement, worth less, but it's still something, if they'd just hit the bricks, take their ball and go home.

I could tell you horror stories about that drawdown--a lot of good people were shoved out the door. Many didn't want to go. Feelings were hurt. People felt betrayed. Those of us who survived the axe were left with emotions that ran the gamut from survivor's guilt to giddy jubilation to shame at knowing that so-and-so over there was probably a better candidate to stay than you or someone you knew was, and damn it, life is just not fair.

It was an angst-laden and divisive time. I'm sure that's coming again. It's terribly unfortunate.

[underpants]

31. I was in the Army during the first downsizing

And I saw some really fantastic professional soldiers who were getting booted for stupid DUI's when they were 19 while some lowlife parasites (who literally never did anything of note) with clean records were going to coast to retirement.

[MADem]

38. I survived that mess, too--I was in a job where I was difficult to replace.

I knew where a lot of bodies were buried (figuratively speaking, mind you) and had a lot of historical knowledge in my head. Lucky me, eh?

The sad truth of the matter is that professional service members, war fighters, without a real solid "back up talent" that had utility in the bureaucratic mazes of a peacetime military, were targeted and given the old heave-ho. It's an awful thing to see.

One other way that they got rid of people--that I forgot to include upthread--was to get rid of/combine specialities/ratings/MOS's. The poor people who have a tough time changing horses in mid-stream ("I've spent my career doing X....I don't want to have to learn how to do Y!!!!&quot often become discouraged and will take an early retirement if offered and they are eligible, or take a severance pay if they are younger and just don't want to adjust.

Off topic--every time I see you around the board, I look for those dancing underwear you used to have as your SIG line--they used to make me laugh every time I saw them flit across my screen!

[underpants]

39. Yeah

I can't find the link tot he old gif. matcom had it but I can't find the same one now.

[MADem]

43. If you ever do find it, bring it back!

I'll bet I'm not the only person here who would love to see your underpants dance across the screen once more!!!!



(I'm betting there are newcomers who have no clue what we're talking about, here!!)

[ancianita]

35. Thanks for informing everyone of middle and lower level shafting. Military brass seem to follow the

corporate management austerity model of upward redistribution of capital.

[MADem]

40. It is a sad fact that the places they make the cuts affect the lower/mid pay grades more than the

senior ones.

To be clear, though, it's not the MILITARY doing this. If the military had their way, and an unlimited budget, they would pay everyone VERY well and demand the highest level of professionalism from them. That said, they have to cut the cloth according to the measure that is doled out by Congress.

Military submits a budget, Congress approves it. All appropriations for the military start with the House Armed Services Committee, a crew of insufferable jerks whose asses must be kissed if you're within 20 yards of any of them--or else. They're the ones who decide how much people will get paid, not the military. They don't always follow the military's requests, either.

The Senate gets to approve commissioned promotion lists. Years ago, I was on a promotion list and someone in the Senate was pissed at someone else in the Senate, so my promotion got held up for several weeks while they pissed and moaned at each other. Many people suffered because a few fat cats couldn't get along. That kind of thing is not unheard of, unfortunately.

[Ash_F]

14. But we need more multi-million dollar war machines

...to kill olive farmers living in mudbrick huts.

[hardtravelin]

15. Fucking scumbag Generals

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

A 3 star retirement pay is usually north of $170,000. 4 stars are all in excess of $200,000.

Me? I retire after 22 years as an infantryman and paratrooper next year. I'll make about $24K before taxes. In addition, cuts and rate increases to TriCare will make it even more painful.

It always seems that these political asshole officers are so cavalier once they've got their shit squared away.

They are picking the wrong generation of vets to fuck with.

[tazkcmo]

54. Congrats

And thank you!

[pasto76]

16. oddly, they are only doing what Congress is telling them to do

Seems DOD are the only ones last few years that are actually making the deep cuts. before sequestration even. Yes it sucks - Im on that side facing a pay reduction. hell yes, please SHITCAN the F35.

[hollowdweller]

17. guest workers

[ancianita]

18. The brass should prove its leadership quality and undergo its own austerity program.

That so much waste has been uncovered compels it. The military is the single biggest drag on this country's economy. Period. Unaccounted for budgets, privatization, no-bid contracts, internal corruption.

It needs a top-down overhaul from brass to boot camp -- from budgets to fast track promotions to early retirement to total defense contract and global bases review -- a restructuring by both the joint chiefs and commander-in-chief. Civilian command needs to retake control of this behemoth.

[NobodyHere]

19. The main problem is

that the "Civilian Command" loves the flow of military dollars into their states.

[MADem]

30. The "brass" has PLEADED with Congress to not spend money on bullshit in the past--and CONGRESS does

not listen.

There is a film that illustrates this conundrum in a humorous way, starring Kelsey Grammar and Olympia Dukakis, called The Pentagon Wars. If you haven't seen it, go to your library and check it out--it is given a bit of "broad brush" treatment, but I am telling you that this kind of shit ACTUALLY does happen. A LOT.

And speaking of a "LOTT," I can't help but recall how Trent "I don't give a shit what you want, or need" Lott tried like hell to bully USN to take a half-built, bankrupt goddamn CRUISE ship they didn't want and didn't need--and those aren't small-ticket items. He even sneaked language into the Defense Authorization bill to try to force Navy to buy this white elephant and turn it into a "floating barracks." It was the stupidest idea going. You have no idea how many people were tearing their hair out over this insane notion--the feeling that Navy was being forced to spend money on a stupid project, and the difficulty in getting Trent Lott off the Navy's back, cannot be understated.

But hey... It's all about bringing money to the district, and to hell with We, The People, I'm afraid....

See: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130546

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130198

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/18/business/critics-christen-ship-project-as-an-off-course-uss-pork.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

That was a nightmare!

[ancianita]

33. Thank you for the links. I stand corrected, though the brass have the power to use/not use

such contracts. If civilians are willingly mis- and overspending, then it's up to us to remove them.

[MADem]

42. Here's the problem with not utilizing contracts, and let's use the "grass cutting on the base" one

as an example, that was brought up, upthread.

Say you pay a landscaping firm three thousand a month to cut your grass, and you want to save this money by taking your personnel and payroll clerks off the job to do the work instead--it's only an hour or two if you get all of 'em doing the mowing, and they can just do their regular work faster, or maybe give 'em a longer work day, why not?

Suppose you've even got left-over mowers so you don't have to buy new ones, and suppose they are in good condition so they don't need repair right now (no expense there). And suppose you don't have to worry about morale as all these desk jockeys try to manage mowing in the hot sun, and get insulted because they aren't being treated professionally?

What will eventually happen is that the equivalent of a "desk audit" will take place, and the bean counters at the senior levels will notice that somehow, Command Z is able to do both grass cutting AND pay/personnel with "X" number of people. Those very bean counters will say "Well, to hell with that--lets get rid of three or four of those military people, and tell that commander that he's going to have to hire contractors to mow that lawn--if he keeps doing it with military personnel, we'll know they have way too much spare time on their hands! We're not in business to pay retirement benefits to lawn mowers!"

Same way with annual budgets. Depending on the climate, you always cry for five to ten to even fifteen percent more, knowing that when the inevitable austerity moves are announced, they'll insist that you cut your request by at least that much!

It's amazing....the Pentagon can't account for trillions down the years, but they will go over your shitty little forty or fifty million dollar installation budget with a fine-toothed comb!!

[MADem]

44. The military doesn't say anything, or point fingers, because "civilian control of the military" is a

hallmark of our nation. Uniformed personnel aren't supposed to shoot their mouths off. I can't help but notice the ones who usually ignore this admonition, who wear their uniforms and shake their fists at the POTUS, for example, are almost invariably Republicans!

[killbotfactory]

20. Well at least they aren't weaning themselves off contractors, because that would be terrible. nt

[Mnpaul]

25. Shrinking Pentagon budgets?

Where is this happening? They doubled over over the past ten years.

[Blandocyte]

36. Outsource to China

[cstanleytech]

50. My bet is pay and benefits will largely remain at their current level in the end

but to pay for it they will probably end up putting some more bases on the chopping block.

[Kaleva]

51. My guess is that base pay and benefits will remain static.

[NutmegYankee]

55. What a surprising response.

When the Civilian Civil Servants were getting furloughed back during the summer there were folks here happy and cheering it on.

[tabasco]

58. Soldiers must suffer to protect the profiteers!

TRAITORS!