Azazello1313 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) One independent analyst, Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan policy and research group in Washington, has calculated that if military personnel costs continue rising at the rate they have over the past decade, and overall Pentagon spending does not increase, by 2039 the entire defense budget would be consumed by personnel costs. I know Ursa in particular likes to beat on the fact that pentagon spending needs to come down if there is any hope of ever restoring fiscal sanity. well, read that article and look at some of the obstacles to making that happen. Many who are more worried about cuts, including Mr. Panetta, acknowledge that Pentagon personnel costs are unsustainable and that generous retirement benefits may have to be scaled back to save crucial weapons programs. “If we allow the current trend to continue,” said Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant on a Pentagon advisory group, the Defense Business Board, who has pushed for changes in the military retirement system, “we’re going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist.” seems even the pentagon isn't immune from the bloated government pension problem coming home to roost. historian walter russell mead comments: The answer, in the Pentagon and elsewhere, can’t just be to cut wages and benefits. There have to be productivity enhancements: municipal governments and the defense bureaucracy have got to get more done with fewer hands. In both kinds of organization the ‘teeth to tail’ ratio is part of the problem: how much of the workforce is getting the mission done as opposed to how much does support and supervision. Automation also has a role to play. Drones don’t need pensions, and neither do computers. Learning how to replace bureaucrats with the appropriate software and hardware solutions is a big part of making government work. Finding alternative ways to fund pensions is also part of the answer. Defined contribution plans will have to replace defined benefit plans at all levels of government, as they have throughout private industry. The general prosperity of the country is the best and ultimately the only guarantee that retirees have that their pensions can be paid; generous programs that include employer matches and tax deferred accrual can give employees a stake in the general prosperity to see them through their golden years. There is no magic bullet that will solve our cost problems in government, but the more the solutions can come from increased productivity, the less has to come from the toxic triangle of lower wages, lower services and higher taxes. Edited January 3, 2012 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'll be back to address this a little later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'll be back to address this a little later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Seems like reducing troop levels seems rational. Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, advocates saving $69.5 billion over 10 years by reducing by one-third the number of American military personnel stationed in Europe and Asia “This option would leave plenty of military capability by maintaining strategic air bases and naval ports to provide logistics links,” Mr. Coburn wrote in a report on his budget proposals. Many Congressional budget experts also see ways to save billions of dollars by consolidating Defense Department facilities, schools and installations. I'd also scrap the F-35 joint Strike Fighter. The chief target for weapons cuts is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, one of the most expensive weapons program in history. The Pentagon has plans to spend nearly $400 billion to buy 2,500 of the stealth jets through 2035 Other than a full on war with China, I don't see how this is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Seems like reducing troop levels seems rational. I'd also scrap the F-35 joint Strike Fighter. Other than a full on war with China, I don't see how this is necessary. It's not even necessary then. The F-15, even at nearly 40 years old, is still the class of the world's fighter aircraft. There are only a couple better and we have those too (F-22, F-117; the F-22 is still not ready for prime-time and the -117 is more a ground attack bird than a dog-fighter, much like the F-16). The only real need for the -35 is to replace the Tomcat and our carrier pilots do just fine with the F-18 and F/A-18. The only time they might be in a disadvantage is if they're going against a country with F-15's, but that would be the Israelis and the Japanese, mostly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 First the teachers, then the firemen, then the cops, now the veterans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 First the teachers, then the firemen, then the cops, now the veterans. you forgot grandma and "the children". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Much later than I intended, due to being back at work, here's some initial thoughts on that article. The calculations exclude the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will go down over the next decade. Even after the winding down of the wars and the potential $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade, the Pentagon’s annual budget, now $530 billion, would shrink to $472 billion in 2013, or about the size of the budget in 2007. That is worthy of note - all the cuts do is take us back to 2007. Good grief, hardly the end of the world. Weren't we quite powerful way back then? “If we allow the current trend to continue,” said Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant on a Pentagon advisory group, the Defense Business Board, who has pushed for changes in the military retirement system, “we’re going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist.” Should have thought of that before declaring war willy-nilly on trumped up "evidence". The true costs of the wars are nowhere near complete. What about saving more than $100 billion in health care cutbacks for working-age military retirees? Would that break a promise to those who risked their lives for the country? Taking away the pensions and other benefits that these troops have paid for with their blood would be a fu**ing outrage unparalleled in the nation's history. Why do you think most of them joined? For the f'n Iraq sightseeing tours? The f'n chit pay? No, it was to get the pension (in the case of the lifers) and the school benefits (in the case of the poor kids), know they would have medical insurance, get away from a miserable home life and a ton of other reasons. I don't give a flying f**k how this gets addressed but addressed it must certainly be. Perhaps we could slash social security for people who don't need it or raise taxes - at least that would be some kind of belated sacrifice by some of the 95% of people who had no skin in the game and continue to have no skin in the game. Changing the deal after the fact would be a disgustingly dishonorable disgrace. If, say, the Pentagon saves $7 billion over a decade by reducing the number of aircraft carriers to 10 from 11, would there be sufficient forces in the Pacific to counter an increasingly bold China? Well, yes, of course - the Chinese have one aircraft carrier and that's not operational and not likely to be for six years. If the Pentagon saves nearly $150 billion in the next 10 years by shrinking the Army to, say, 483,000 troops from 570,000, would America be prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia? Have a draft. If it's worth going to war over, it's worth drafting over. There are several good ideas in here. Capping pay increases to inflation is one. Reducing foreign bases, especially in Europe, is another. Europe has let America pay the bills for too long while they all did nothing but reduce their own retirement ages anyway. Defense contracting is another target. Projects go way too long and grossly overrun their budgets while the people running them, both civilian and military, sit there fat dumb and happy collecting the taxpayer dollar. Cut way back on the really expensive projects and simplify them. Run more projects much quicker and much cheaper. Don't try and build something for 2035 and beyond - build something for 2015, again for 2025, again for 2035. Building for 2035 is far too long for the speed technology moves at - it will be out of date by the time it comes into service. Build simple - the AK47 is probably the most successful piece of weaponry ever. Finally, negotiate better with the likes of Hailliburton and audit the Pentagon top to bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Have a draft. If it's worth going to war over, it's worth drafting over. If it weren't for all of them gawd danged hippies we'd still have a draft... That and that gawd danged crook Nixon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) That is worthy of note - all the cuts do is take us back to 2007. Good grief, hardly the end of the world. Weren't we quite powerful way back then? Weren't you the one that said we couldn't cut back a trillion per year. Seems to me if we cut all government spending back to 2007 levels we would accomplish that goal. "Good grief, hardly the end of the world." We are paying for that aircraft carrier and much of China's military modernization just on our interest payments to them via our massive borrowing from China. I agree that we don't touch the military pensions, but nothing stopping us from moving forward on pension plans going forward. Just like individuals that draw on SS, there are many military personal that really don't need it as they have made it in the private sector. In other words these programs can be looked at going forward not looking backward for solutions in the future. A draft is not the answer or even needed. Forced service is and should remain a last resort option in a country our size. Building 10 year defense platforms is certainly not efficient. Far more efficient to upgrade platforms to extend the life of the product like we have done with our older platforms but at a point the age of platforms must undergo new designs to stay ahead of the world capabilities when it comes to defense. Edited January 4, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Just like individuals that draw on SS, there are many military personal that really don't need it as they have made it in the private sector. To me it doesn't matter if they "made it" in the private sector or not. They spent their career paying into SS. Why would you make them pay and then stop them from receiving SS? Congressional people are the ones that need to take the pay/pension hit. Not the military person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 A draft is not the answer or even needed. Forced service is and should remain a last resort option in a country our size. Guess it depends on your definition of needed. I think the world would change overnight if most people had a chance that themselves or their loved ones would have to go fight. We might be a little more prudent in our foreign policy and have a better definition of what meets a threshold for going to war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 To me it doesn't matter if they "made it" in the private sector or not. They spent their career paying into SS. Why would you make them pay and then stop them from receiving SS? Congressional people are the ones that need to take the pay/pension hit. Not the military person. I never once said anything close to your question in bold. I was simply drawing a parallel that both programs will have successful individuals over time but that doesn't mean they shouldn't collect the benefit. What I said was: I agree that we don't touch the military pensions, but nothing stopping us from moving forward..........In other words these programs can be looked at going forward not looking backward for solutions in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Congressional people are the ones that need to take the pay/pension hit. Not the military person. this....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 A draft is not the answer or even needed. Forced service is and should remain a last resort option in a country our size. Building 10 year defense platforms is certainly not efficient. Far more efficient to upgrade platforms to extend the life of the product like we have done with our older platforms but at a point the age of platforms must undergo new designs to stay ahead of the world capabilities when it comes to defense. I completely and totally disagree about the draft point. Even if it does not come to fighting, war MUST be a shared sacrifice and that sacrifice MUST be felt. Whether it's an across the board tax hike for everyone to pay for war as we go or a mandatory weekly public service, it is inexcusable that 95% of the population can lose interest in a war and just go on as if it isn't happening. As far as the efficiency goes, we won't know until we try. Ten year increments might not be ideal but it could be quite close to your idea of upgrades to extend life. For sure the multi-hundreds of billion dollar projects that either don't work or have enough cost overrun to run South America for a year have to be reined in. Guess it depends on your definition of needed. I think the world would change overnight if most people had a chance that themselves or their loved ones would have to go fight. We might be a little more prudent in our foreign policy and have a better definition of what meets a threshold for going to war. Exactly. No rationing, no checkpoints, no inconvenience, no mandatory service, no tax increases, no blackouts - no interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Anyone who is opposed to mandatory service but supports cutting veterans benefits is lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Guess it depends on your definition of needed. I think the world would change overnight if most people had a chance that themselves or their loved ones would have to go fight. We might be a little more prudent in our foreign policy and have a better definition of what meets a threshold for going to war. The world would not change overnight. Our Military is the most advanced for many reasons but one is that we actively recruit a force that wants and freely chooses to serve. The military is actually quite selective and meets their recruiting requirements. There really is no logical reason at this point to have a draft. We are in a much different place than WWII as an example but should we need rapid expansion of force then a draft would be or could be a requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The world would not change overnight. Our Military is the most advanced for many reasons but one is that we actively recruit a force that wants and freely chooses to serve. The military is actually quite selective and meets their recruiting requirements. I'd rather stay on the list of folks with their heads in the sand when it comes to this, and bitch about the lines at gas stations instead. We are in a much different place than WWII as an example but should we need rapid expansion of force then a draft would be or could be a requirement. Fixado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Anyone who is opposed to mandatory service but supports cutting veterans benefits is lame. Not sure these two are related at all. I am certainly not in favor of cutting military benefits for all that are serving or have served but our country is 300 plus million so do not see any correlation. How would you propose mandatory service?how would you pay for it? Most importantly, why is it needed given the fact we meet our recruiting requirements with Americans that want and choose a military career? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 How would you propose mandatory service?how would you pay for it? Most importantly, why is it needed given the fact we meet our recruiting requirements with Americans that want and choose a military career? You aren't old enough to remember when we had a draft are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I completely and totally disagree about the draft point. Even if it does not come to fighting, war MUST be a shared sacrifice and that sacrifice MUST be felt. Whether it's an across the board tax hike for everyone to pay for war as we go or a mandatory weekly public service, it is inexcusable that 95% of the population can lose interest in a war and just go on as if it isn't happening. As far as the efficiency goes, we won't know until we try. Ten year increments might not be ideal but it could be quite close to your idea of upgrades to extend life. For sure the multi-hundreds of billion dollar projects that either don't work or have enough cost overrun to run South America for a year have to be reined in. Exactly. No rationing, no checkpoints, no inconvenience, no mandatory service, no tax increases, no blackouts - no interest. Just to address the shared sacrifice comment. Not even including Military, our government has gone through massive growth and spending so when we scream for tax increases and shared sacrifice the argument becomes somewhat disingenuous that we need even more revenue given how the government chooses to spend the revenue received in the first place. We are an inefficient government and our government has shown interest in sacrificing spending in other areas to fund military so looking at the government structure and spending habits are first up when we point fingers as it relates to rationing, sacrifice, and on and on. No offense but manufacturing simply doesn't work the way you envision as it relates to complex military or commercial platforms for that matter. It is one thing to build a better rifle quite another to build next generation aircraft or nuclear submarines. To put it into a bit of perspective. Boeing has been working on the 787 commercial jet since 2003 to gain a 20% more fuel efficient aircraft. This one jet will be in service for 30 years as they just delivered the first one last September. While this was a complex project it is no more complex and probably much easier than developing next generation war aircraft. The bullet train in California will take a decade if it happens and that is even easier. While we are a technically advanced society, huge projects take a long time given so many moving parts and designs from multiple companies. All these parts have to come together to ensure success. Try harder and working faster are great goals but realities are such that the short windows and even shorter life spans are simply not possible today. Nothing wrong with the goal but realistic implementation is not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 100% straw man response. Totally unsurprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) You aren't old enough to remember when we had a draft are you? Actually, I am. I was at the tail end but being born in 56, I was on the priority list. This was the last birth year the Selective Service assigned priority numbers in case the draft was re-enacted BTW. I had 1-A status. Edited January 4, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The world would not change overnight. I guess we disagree. I think if there are two wars going on and everyone of a certain age had a 20% chance that you were to get drafted and sent over to fight someone yelling "derka derka, Mohammed jihad" on Bakalakadaka street the political conversation in this country would be vastly different than the current one. Another option would be an immediate 20% war tax or mandatory volunteer hours for citizens. Not sure why the idea of a draft or mandatory war tax would be a blind spot to a fiscal conservative. I mean, it makes sense to me. Dwight seemed to get the idea. . If government jobs and spending take away from our freedoms and takes money away from Americans wouldn't it make sense that we didn't have a military budget the size of every other nation combined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.