I just read the news last night and have been trying to process what all of it means for my family, for other military families, and for the country at large.
The overall news is good - the Pentagon will be cutting it's budget. We all know the numbers. The overall worldwide spending on defense is dominated by our own defense budget. It is clear that something had to change.
The details are messy and the articles I have read cherry pick the news - As a mom and military wife, I do my best to keep up with the issues and I'm concerned because if I am wondering what details are missing, then I have a feeling they aren't all there. Let me share what I have figured out.
The news came to me via Facebook and an article from the Associated Press. The basics are simple:
Pentagon leaders outlined a plan Thursday for absorbing $487 billion in defense cuts over the coming decade by shrinking U.S. ground forces, slowing the purchase of a next-generation stealth fighter and retiring older planes and ships.
And the battle lines are already very clear. Only a couple of hours post announcement and Republicans like Senators John Cornyn and John McCain are crying foul. No surprise there. It isn't because they read the details... it's because they automatically react this way to any defense cuts. In case you're interested, here are the cuts that the AP article focuses on:
The Army would shrink by 80,000 soldiers, from 570,000 today to 490,000 by 2017. That is slightly larger than the Army on 9/11.
The Marine Corps would drop from today's 202,000 to 182,000 — also above the level on 9/11.
The Air Force would retire some older planes including about two dozen C-5A cargo aircraft and 65 of its oldest C-130 cargo planes.
The Navy would keep a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers but retire seven cruisers earlier than planned. It also would delay purchase of some other ships, including a new Virginia-class submarine.
Purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, to be fielded by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, would be slowed.
Current plans for building a new generation of submarines that carry long-range nuclear missiles would be delayed by two years. The current fleet of nuclear-capable bombers and land-based nuclear missiles would be left unchanged.
Military pay raises will remain on track until 2015, when the pace of increase will be slowed by an undetermined amount.
Add base closures that President Obama will request from Congress to this list but with the caveat that Congress is unlikely to approve any of these in an election year.
Two items remain sacrosanct - Special Operations and the Navy fleet of aircraft carriers.
With me so far? If we had only read the AP, that would be it. But my husband had read the New York Times earlier today and informed me that the cuts may go deeper. And they hit hard on the aspect of personnel:
But Pentagon officials have made clear that military personnel costs are on a disastrous course — Mr. Panetta has called them “unsustainable” — and that it is imperative that they be brought under control. As it stands now, the Pentagon spends $181 billion a year, nearly a third of its base budget, on military personnel costs: $107 billion for salaries and allowances, $50 billion for health care and $24 billion in retirement pay.
The NYTimes makes it very clear that military pay has been raised consistently every year beyond what the Pentagon has requested since 9/11. I guess Congress felt that a military at war should be compensated at salaries equivalent with the civilian world. As that has happened, civilian salaries have also dropped, pretty heavily in the early 2000's and, according to the graph below, just started to rebound a couple of years ago.
And I'll give you the peachy news from the NYTimes that makes it sound like my officer husband has been raking in the dough and that our most basic of basic ranks isn't doing too bad for being three years out of high school:
A private first class with a family and three years’ experience deployed to a war zone took home $26,700 tax free in 2001, compared with $36,000 today — an 11 percent raise over inflation. A lieutenant colonel with a family and 20 years’ experience in the same war zone took home $84,000 tax free in 2001, compared with $120,000 today — a 16 percent increase.
Where do I begin?
Salary earned while deployed to the war zone is TAX FREE. Those figures are not close to the amount of money any enlisted or officer serving in a non-war assignment would see.
While deployed, these same officers and enlisted get paid for hazardous duty. If they have spouses and children, they also get separation pay. It does make for a handsome paycheck - but going to war is not an occupation that everyone is willing to face. Without a draft, it is necessary to pay a competitive salary to keep people in the military.
I am just plain old pissed at the NYTimes for using the amount of money for deployed service members to write their article. It is disingenuous at best. And I feel like I'm having to justify the money my husband earns. Hell, if Mitt Romney can make three times the deployed salary of an LTC in just his speaking fees, then why shouldn't our military members be well paid while at war? It's not like my family has iPhones or expensive cars or even owns our own home, much less a vacation home. But the NYTimes makes me feel like we are trying to milk the American Tax Payer for all they are worth.
But I am getting wrapped up in personal issues that are besides the point... If you want to discuss with me in the comments below about all the extra money my husband got paid while deployed, have at it. I can tell you where all of it went if you need to know.
So, normal salaries for military members are much, much less. Check out this pay chart to see exactly what each rank can expect for 2012 - you can add basic rent for a house in the appropriate city and come to an honest assessment of what a military service member earns.
As to cutting the force in order to save money you need to take a look at a figure:
Our military is small in personnel compared to what it has been in the past. I'm not saying it can't be smaller but we need to understand that cutting people is happening not because we have so many people but because it costs so much more in today's dollars to care for those people in a dignified manner. What, you say? Dignified? What does that mean?
The concerns are tri-fold - salary, health care, retirement. These are the exact same concerns that most Americans are facing as companies cut salaries, increasingly push health care costs to their employees, and get rid of pensions all together. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like military members need to join a union.
Dignified means providing a salary that allows families to make a living wage. No, officers are not of big concern here. Officers make competitive salaries. Enlisted families are struggling however. I wrote about this a couple of days ago and though salaries for enlisted seem to be competitive with the civilian world, we still have a lot of families waiting in line at the food bank. Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark and I think it has more to do with middle class salaries overall, not just military salaries.
Dignified means providing health care. Although active duty family health care does not seem to be on the chopping block, retiree health care will be seeing a raise in fees if Panetta can convince Congress. Those of you who follow me know I have written about this subject extensively. I always remind folks that retirees like my Dad and active duty like my husband who joined before 1995 were promised free health care for life. Yes, it's gone to court and they determined that Congress doesn't make promises. It is still a sticking point for many veterans and the Democrats will own this issue for eternity if they raise rates yet again.
Many will say that military retirees already have it good because the amount they pay for health care is miniscule compared to the average American - in fact, that is exactly what the NYTimes has to say:
The Pentagon did not say how much health insurance fees would increase — the details are to come in early February. Families now pay $520 a year, far below the cost of a private carrier.
This is yet another argument to see who can race to the bottom of the barrel first. My point is always this - FIX OUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CRISIS and the military health care system will be fixed as well. No one, absolutely no one, seems to hear that cry. I have yet to see a national journalist, a think tank, a politician, or anyone discuss military health care in terms of the national health care crisis. Maybe, just maybe, if we tied health care to the issue of national security, we could get some moderate Republicans on board.
Last but not least, dignified means a fair pension. Currently, Panetta seems to be leaving this alone but the topic of changing the current structure of military retirement is being discussed at the highest levels in the Pentagon and has been recommended by the Defense Business Board. It is a subject we should not think has just gone away.
The federal government is feeling the same sting that corporations have been feeling for years and rather than find a way to pay for it's personnel, it would rather get rid of them or decrease their benefits. If, like Republicans, we believe that a government should be run like a corporation, then this makes perfect sense. But what if we think otherwise?
I don't know about you but I am tired of living in country that does not appreciate its workers.
I am tired of living in a country where salaries are dropping while CEO pay is through the roof.
I am tired of living in a country where affordable health care is not available to everyone.
I am tired of living in a country where retirees can no longer depend on a pension to keep pace with the cost of living and where many retirees return to work in whatever form they can find just to live a dignified life.
So this is my message to Congress - Cut the defense budget but remember those people behind the numbers. We are your taxpayers. We are your constituents. We are the voters. We are the 99%.