« Mr. Muzzle and Nuzzle (Guest Voice)
Perry Distances Himself From George W. Bush and Compassionate Conservatism »
Military Service Is Not a Nine-to-Five Job—When Slashing the Defense Budget, Remember That.
Aug 28th, 2011 | 11 responses
In a previous article reflecting on plans, suggestions, rumors and just plain nutty ideas for cutting the defense budget, I pointed to the complexities, murkiness, inter-relationships and inter-dependencies of and among the various so-called defense budgets and cautioned:
Whether we are talking about the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program or about our entire national security “program,” our “cutters” must know precisely what to cut, where to cut, how much to cut and the implications, ramifications, consequences and ripple effects of such cuts.
Interestingly, most of the readers’ comments that followed focused on the military retirement system; some comments so “adamant”—to put it mildly—that they had to be moderated.
I agree that the rising costs of the military retirement system need to be mitigated, but not by reneging on present and past promises to our fighting men and women, nor by comparing the 24/7 commitment, dedication and the oftentimes accompanying sacrifices of our military to “working nine to five.”
I know I did not convince some of our readers on what I consider to be the almost sacred commitment we have to those who fight and oftentimes die for us—clichéd as it may sound.
I probably could have made a better argument if I had read a couple of recent pieces.
First, a piece by Andrew J. Bacevich, critical of a recent Defense Business Board (DBB) study that concludes that military benefits are “’more generous and expensive’ than those available in the private sector, and have therefore become ‘unaffordable’ and ‘unfair.’”
Bacevich explains that the DBB (motto: “Business Excellence in Defense of the Nation”) is a panel of corporate types who advise the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, and which “has trained its sights on a problem that urgently needs fixing: the military retirement system.”
The DBB’s plan, according to Bacevich, would basically have the Pentagon discard the concept of a lifelong retirement pension and institute in its place a tax-sheltered savings account to accompany service members into the post-military workplace.
Such a plan would reduce the $50 billion that the Pentagon presently contributes annually to the military retirement system. Bacevich points out that this annual amount is the same amount that the Pentagon presently spends in only five months waging war in Afghanistan.
Sounds reasonable enough …
Bacevich points to the following “advantages” of the DBB plan:
First and foremost, “Less money added to retirement accounts would mean more money for the stuff that matters: wars and weapons.”
Also,
… a portable 401(k)-type system can make it easier for the Pentagon to simply hand people their walking papers …Baldly asserting that today “military skills are transferable to the private sector,” the DBB takes it for granted that former service members will have little trouble finding jobs, ignoring the fact that the unemployment rate for veterans is significantly higher than the national average.
By focusing on economy and flexibility, its proposed overhaul would commodify military service. The effect would be to transform profession into trade, reducing long-serving officers and noncommissioned officers to the status of employees, valued as long as they are needed, expendable when they are not, forgotten the day they leave — just like the workers at any GM plant or your local Safeway.
Bacevich points out that “Conspicuously absent from the analysis is this phrase: ‘military profession.’ Long since diluted elsewhere in American society, the concept of professionalism remains alive and well in the ranks of the armed forces, where an ethos of service and a commitment to a code of personal conduct have survived.”
And he adds that “with only 0.5 percent of Americans bearing the brunt of the nation’s seemingly interminable wars — and with the rest of us largely insulated from wars’ effects — politicians in Washington have had a free hand in deciding when and where that force will fight.”
Now, that same Washington is under pressure to trim the costs of maintaining that force. Basevich concludes: “Rather than reforming — which really means gutting — the retirement system for the men and women who devote their lives to defending their country, we need to reform — which really means rethinking — the all-volunteer force and what we expect it to do.”
A letter to the editor commenting on Bacevich’s article says it better than I ever could:
The article was very thoughtful, and outlined Bacevich’s reasoning for “rethinking” the Defense Business Board’s recommendations to “renegotiate” the “unaffordable and unfair” benefit package for military retirees. Good article, but it didn’t go far enough.
In the corporate world, must an employee sign a contract for a specified length of service? Can an employee resign if he finds the work, or location, not to his liking? Can an employee decline an assignment if it means possible physical danger or death? Are corporate employees subject to sudden moves to any of the “company’s” locations without said employee’s agreement? Are they subject to 24-hour-a-day response to the “company” and its requirements?
These are just a sampling of what divides the corporate world from the military. There are many good ideas for reducing our growing national debt; this just isn’t one of them.
Ward Boyce
Col., U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Austin
CODA: It so happens that all three authors mentioned above are retired military. None of us will be affected by any changes to the military retirement system. However, I do not believe that any of us want to see those who follow in our footsteps, as we say in the military, “shafted”
11 Responses to “Military Service Is Not a Nine-to-Five Job—When Slashing the Defense Budget, Remember That.”
I don’t believe that our government can claim that it has made a genuine attempt to slash the defense budget without making substantial changes to our underlying foreign policy.
Sure, we could reform veteran pension plans, make the defense bidding process more transparent, and implement reforms to disincentivize cost overruns, but all of these cost-cutting measures are a mere drop in the bucket as compared to the money that it takes to finance the 700+ American military bases in 120+ countries around the world as well as the trillion dollar and half trillion dollar wars that our government is fighting.
The Montreal Gazette has more on how much the Department of Defense is spending in Afghanistan alone.
Good point, Nick.
Let’s say the budget cutters managed to slash the amount the Pentagon contributes to the military retirement accrual fund by 20 percent (that’s a pretty good “slash”). That would still be only $10 billion a year, or about one “Afghanistan war accounting metric”, i.e. what we spend waging war in Afghanistan in one month.
I was disappointed to see veterans benefits decrease after Vietnam. I felt the education and home loan guarantees really did a lot for the economy by educating and training veterans for employment. The home loan guarantees truly aided the real estate market. Seems to me that infrastructure investment by the government would be well served by these veterans programs. It’s a good return on that national investment.
Regarding retirement after twenty years, it is generous, but it requires more than just “enduring” for twenty years. It’s my understanding, that If you don’t make certain rank in so much time, then out you go. Pretty much making your time spent in the twenty year career attempt a waste, because you get nothing if you don’t make the full twenty.
As for reform, the 401(k) idea sucks, IMO. Placing people’s retirement at risk of market fluctuations is a bad idea in every circumstance. It’s just a gamble. I’m not quite sure what a reform solution would be, but if you are going to have an all volunteer military, then you have to make it at least somewhat worthwhile.
Bacevich had a nice chapter in “Bill Moyers, The Conversation Continues,” a recent read in my library well worth the time.
In it, he spends more time talking about exactly what Nick brings up, the mentality of our foreign policy having its teeth in military might instead of negotiated diplomacy.
Another really good section of that book involves the author who exposed Blackwater’s influence and involvement in the recent wars, and how privatizing the wars has brought us more dangerously close to that “military industrial complex” that was considered a grave mistake by some of our national forefathers.
But, that being said: how does our nation compare with others in regard to proportion of revenues for military expenditure?
What are the components of our national expenditure, and if a staggering sum is spent on defense, do we see this as a problem?
Will we continue to see ourselves as obligated to defend or fund worldwide opportunities for democracy? Will we (or have we already) incorporated that into a philosophy comfortable within our “war on Terror?”
NICK RIVERA says:
AUGUST 29, 2011 AT 1:53 AM
“I don’t believe that our government can claim that it has made a genuine attempt to slash the defense budget without making substantial changes to our underlying foreign policy.”
I hope I’m not too far off topic here but regarding the theme of the size of defense, our debates about its funding, etc, Glenn Greenwald today has some thoughts worth sharing regarding “underlying foreign policy” as well as the specific war on Terror. It’s fairly typical Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/29/terrorism/index.html
lol, does anyone even know how much goes to military spending? I’ve seen numerous figures quoted but its in excess of $600Bn, PLUS the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, when I was trying to track down information on riders attached to various bills, I noticed regardless of party, the biggest spenders in Congress were adding things that went to defense spending as well. I don’t know if those count under the $600Bn already listed for defense, but since they are riders I don’t think so. The total for those came out to another $100Bn+.
So from what I can tell it looks like we are spending almost 1 Trillion dollars on military needs, when the next 3 biggest nations combined spend less than $250Bn, and TWO OF THOSE ARE OUR ALLIES! Why do we have to spend so much more than other nations, how is it we can’t just spend I don’t know, what those top 3 guys spend, still retaining our position quite solidly as the biggest kid on the block, while still reigning in spending for an out of control budget to a degree that dwarfs anything so far proposed.
And now that we are talking a modest cut of $500Bn over 10 years, lets do the math, carry the 1…. a mere $50Bn cut(7%?) per year, instead of finding some real cuts we can make they are looking at targeting retirement bennies to our soldiers? I call shenanigans.
Everything needs to take some sort of cut. But where do we draw our “line in the sand?”
Defense spending is going to have to be scaled back in some fashion.
Those who retire from a military career should be compensated in a manner I could call “Very Comfortably” but not “Luxuriously”.
It’s easy to use ambiguous terms like this, but it doesn’t actually put numbers on the table. The other problem with this is defining “Luxury”, which has a very different meaning on the Right than it does on the Left.
How do you put a price on Devotion to Defending the Constitution Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic?
Does that price go up if the Defender doesn’t have 100% of the body parts he/she was born with? What about PTSD?
The scope of this subject is much deeper than can be addressed by a few articles and comments containing “Opinions on where to draw the Line In The Sand”.
I’m just saying, we have 11 Carrier Battlegroups. Only 8 other nations have even one, and none currently operates more than one. And those ones are less effective than any of ours. So, what I’m thinking is, why aren’t cuts starting in the areas where we have overwhelming advantage, so much so that we can cut that advantage without even coming close to losing our rank as top dog in the field, instead of in the things like retirement bennies for our boys and girls who have served honorably. What I’m saying is that the Pentagon is trying to shift to focus of the argument to that so it makes it look like anyone who wants military cuts is trying to screw our veterans. Its a pretty craven ploy to keep from having to cut spending in areas that actually could absorb it without degrading our standing as the last guys in the world you want to get into a shooting war with.
“But, that being said: how does our nation compare with others in regard to proportion of revenues for military expenditure?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Slamfu-
Oh we can cut defense. We can do it with a BIG cutter, but this is about targeting retirement benefits as a method of cutting defense. I’m not sure much can be done in this regard.
Every large organization has waste and duplication. Look very hard, and cut those first. NATO support needs to be scrutinized. Unfortunately, with China in its ascendency, it’s hard to cut back on big expensive programs, but it needs to be done.