View Full Version : Hagel Says Cuts to Pay and Benefits are Needed
BMT (RIP)
11-06-2013, 08:26
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/11/05/hagel-says-cuts-to-pay-and-benefits-are-needed.html?ESRC=eb.nl
BMT
Once again the less than 1 % of the US population already sacrificing a shitload more than the rest of the mouth breathers, must sacrifice some more? F--- him. They are already Atlas. They should be paying the 1%ers a lot more and then some.
Dick.:mad:
TrapperFrank
11-06-2013, 08:40
Two big old thumbs up SinJefe! The army does this drill after every conflict and they never learn. The Obama lapdogs Dempsey, Odierno and Chandler will do Dear Leaders bidding for him and the US will once again have a hallow force. This makes my blood boil.
everytime I look at the chain of cmd on the wall in my office I can't help but think that Hagel looks like a warmed-over rummy well past his prime. Anyone else forced to endure that picture hanging in their office??
hell - why don't we just effing require that new soldiers coming in to the service tithe part of their paychecks to the looters out there? Kind of like "adopt-a-savage".
And how much is Hagel prepared to be squeezed for the good of preparedness? It is an all volunteer force maybe everyone should just get out.
ddoering
11-06-2013, 11:34
Funny how he pitches the "we will need newer, better shinnier toys" while talking the need to cut the pay of those operating said toys. I wonder what he gets from the captains of industry for a speech like that?
Can anyone say puppet? Drinking joke. Cut the F22 & F35 programs.
Cut his pay.
Lets' cut pay but give same sex ....never mind, screw it.
If they aren't careful they're going to go too far and create disincentives for anyone from staying in past 8-10 years. That's going to be hard to fix once it's broken, and there aren't enough mid-level officers and NCOs.
cat in the hat
11-08-2013, 10:51
I remember somebody once told me that Humans are more important than hardware.
probably as relevant to an all volunteer force as it is to SOF.
Oldrotorhead
11-08-2013, 11:21
Cut his pay.
Lets' cut pay but give same sex ....never mind, screw it.
Maybe he should lead. Cut his own pay, office budget and travel commercial and not like a minor god. I didn't realize jr. NCO's could be such yes men and political hacks. Maybe he should have same sex with himself.
I remember somebody once told me that Humans are more important than hardware.
probably as relevant to an all volunteer force as it is to SOF.
They also said SOF cannot be mass produced....
does this mean the government and congress will have to turn in those VIP health care programs and enroll in the ACA ?
No more frivolous congressional budgets...
...surely congress can pay for their own 'lunch'
No more access to "legal" insider training by congress...
...no more taxpayer funded 'vacations' made to look like diplomatic trips
No more contract awards to friends and family of congress or the administration for shit that is unneeded or unwarranted...
Yep... I think Secretary Hagel might be on to something.
Ambush Master
11-09-2013, 10:36
They also said SOF cannot be mass produced....
As stated by the Commandant of The Schoolhouse @ my Son's Graduation: "It takes us longer to produce a Green Beret that it takes the Air Force to produce a Fighter Pilot"!!!
No more frivolous congressional budgets...
That's the problem, there is no budget.
Hope they know after the next 911 people aren't going to line up at recruiting stations. Everyone is seeing how the vets are shit on all the time. A draft will probably do more harm then good.
The Reaper
11-14-2013, 09:25
Great commentary, at the right time.
TR
http://warontherocks.com/2013/11/thoughts-on-the-all-volunteer-force-from-section-60-of-arlington-national-cemetery/
Thoughts on the All-Volunteer Force from Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery
Admiral John C. Harvey Jr.
November 12, 2013 · in Commentary and Analysis
Editor’s Note: The War on the Rocks Team is honored to have Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr., USN (ret.) join us as a Contributing Editor.
Yesterday, on Veterans Day, I spent some time thinking about the recently returned veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. I thought about what we sent them to do, the sacrifices so many of them and their families made, and the challenges they face upon their return home.
I also thought about those veterans who didn’t return whole and about those who didn’t return at all. Many of those young men and women who died in the service of their country are buried in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery. And many of their comrades who didn’t return whole fought another grueling battle to overcome their wounds at our military medical centers not far from the hallowed ground of Section 60, the Army’s Walter Reed and the Navy’s Bethesda. Many of those battles will never end.
So it was very interesting to walk among the headstones of Section 60 on Veterans Day and reflect on the debate that is swirling around Washington, on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and among think tanks about the decline in defense spending, the impact of sequestration and the resultant need to rein in all aspects of our defense spending, in particular that portion of defense spending focused directly on our men and women in uniform: their pay, allowances, and benefits.
This debate is a very important one, to be sure, but how we conduct the debate is also extremely important. For, at the end of the day, we’re not just debating about pay and allowances or commissary benefits or Tricare fees. We are talking about the future of our All-Volunteer Force, how we will sustain it, and how it will be able to attract the kind of men and women who will repeatedly deploy into harm’s way, who will raise their right hand and freely take an oath “to support and defend the constitution of the United States,” and assume the limitless commitments that comes with that oath.
We’re not debating about numbers and percentages and what they’ll mean twenty or thirty years from now, but about people and what they’re worth. People like Senior Chief Petty Officer Thomas Valentine, USN, killed in a training accident in February 2008 while preparing for deployment to Afghanistan, Master Sergeant Thomas Crowell, USAF, killed in action in November, 2007, Sergeant Michael Woodliff, killed in action in March 2004 and Lance Corporal Jason Redifer, killed in action in January 2005.
What is it worth to us to have these kind of people fight and die for us? How much should we pay them to make this kind of sacrifice?
As we seek to answer these questions, we must do so in a manner worthy of those who have worn the uniform and borne the battle. It needs to be done keeping in mind that the men and women of our All-Volunteer Force are listening to the debate as it occurs and as they watch sequestration take away their training, take away their professional development and take away their opportunities to prepare for the deployments that we will not hesitate to send them on. What are they thinking while we debate whether or not we’re paying them too much?
The words of Rudyard Kipling’s “Tommy” came to mind:
You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!
Here’s what our modern-day “Tommys” are reading and hearing:
In May 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously asserted, “Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive.”
This year, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert Hale said, “The cost of pay and benefits has risen more than 87 percent since 2001, 30 percent more than inflation.”
Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the Defense Department’s Reserve Forces Policy Board, a former top staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and retired Marine Corps major general said, “The all-in cost of the all-volunteer force is one of the time-ticking bombs that could explode our defense capabilities if not dealt with responsibly.”
In May 2012, the Center for American Progress published Reforming Military Compensation –Addressing Runaway Personnel Costs Is a National Imperative, and in July, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) argued, “The all-volunteer force, in its current form, is unsustainable.” The report argues that, in the absence of major reform, military personnel costs will overrun the entire defense budget by 2039.
A recent Congressional Budget Office study noted:
For fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense (DoD) requested about $150 billion to fund the pay and benefits of current and retired members of the military. That amount is more than one-quarter of DoD’s total base budget request (the request for all funding other than for military operations in Afghanistan and related activities).
We are sending the force that is serving today, the one that fought two wars in the last decade, and the force we are depending upon to re-enlist tomorrow the wrong signal. We’re telling them they just cost us too much, that they constitute a “ticking time-bomb,” and that they’re “eating us alive.” We are telling them that we are looking for a way out of fulfilling our commitments to them. Is this how you characterize those who volunteered to serve in time of war?
It is time to change the terms of the debate. First, we need to ensure the current members of the armed forces have a voice – an active voice – in this discussion about their compensation. What aspects of the current, and very complex, structure of pay, allowances and benefits do they most value and why? What parts of the current structure matter less to a young Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine and prospective recruits? How do their attitudes change as they grow more senior in rank, get married, and have families?
(continued at link above)
Oh I fully agree, except it's his pay and benefits need to be cut though and not the troops.
when the gub-mint says that health care costs are eating the defense budget it makes you wonder about a few things...
Is it because Joe and Molly are getting annual checkups that include full scale lab workups, consults with cardiac specialists, and endocrinoloigsts to maintain their health?
What about the DOD is making costs so high?
Is it because Joe and Molly are running to the ER for a cold-pack every time they get the sniffles?
...or is it because Joes leg got blown the fuck off and prostectics cost money.
...and Mollys intense physical therapy costs money
...and extended surgical procedures to save an extra few inches of limb cost money
However, when you consider all of the other folks in government getting 'free' health care:
...how often do old, alcohlic, spoiled, elitists seek health care that include full scale lab workups, x-rays, consults with cardiac specialists, nutritionists, personal trainers, and endocrinoloigsts to maintain their health, given by top notch docs that provide regular consistent, one-on-one care (as opposed to rank and file Military Docs that are on a constant PCS schedule)
So to compare and contrast:
Who drains more dollars from the US governmment for ROUTINE health care in any given fiscal year?
Senator Reid, Rep Pelosi, and Sen Hagen or an entire platoon of infantrymen (not infantrypersons)
If a politician gets the sniffles, they have a team of health care lackeys waiting to wipe their nose.
...Joe and Molly have to learn to fucking walk again based purely off of their own drive and desire.
A politician aint paying SHIT into the 'tax' system, but they make plenty of speeches about how important health care is.
...Joe and Molly lost a leg and all they get to show for it are a few months of tax free pay (that is now getting 'pro-rated' per day)
Politicians cannot wait to fleece the america public to fund healthcare for thugs, ingrates, drug dealers, baby mama's, and professional welfare recipients while the military is portrayed as "eating up the budget". Well fuck me running backwards. Who would have thought that someone sold down the river over political and diplomatic failures would be blamed for our money problems. Surely the invisible planes that we dont use, or the armored vehicles being bought by DHS aren't costing us any money. Our elected (and appointed) officials demonstrate what can only be descibed as a disgraceful level of care and concern for this nations young people in uniform.
Shame on you hypocritical motherfuckers.
Shame on you.
Reap the whirlwind, MFers.:mad:
Ghost_Team
11-14-2013, 23:11
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We'll lose every nickel of our pay, retirements, and benefits before they touch one penny of an entitlement.
It's simple math that we are a much smaller voting block.
BMT (RIP)
11-19-2013, 07:18
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/11/19/obama-urges-congress-to-support-tricare-fees.html?ESRC=eb.nl
On Monday the White House pressed the Pentagon to rein in Tricare costs and begin a new round of base closings as the Senate took up the National Defense Authorization Act on the military’s 2014 budget.
BMT
Free For Life sure is going to get pretty expensive per month.
BOHICA
It wont be long until abject welfare provides benefits on par with military service.
In my experience, not everyone on welfare is a "moocher" and not everyone in the military isn't.
Richard
Well at least we can all rest easy knowing that the nations govt. primates have had their retirement budget nearly doubled.
Retired chimps who spent years having drugs tested on them have their federal retirement fund almost doubled to $55m
Budget for housing and caring for chimpanzees that were used in government tests was $30million
Has just been nearly doubled to $55million
Nearly 300 more apes will be added to the 150 that already live in sanctuariesRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509315/Congress-adds-25m-budget-chimpanzee-retirement-plans.html#ixzz2l7a0McUv
In my opinion 1st generation welfare folks can have a pass.
If you're a 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation welfare recipient you're a moocher who has learned to live off the system.
If we could figure out how to boot the miitary moochers, and get the welfare NON moochers into the military we should be good to go.
...if only there was a system in place for able bodied folks on welfare with a good work ethic to go were we could bring them into miitary service. All we would need is a few stations where we could put folks that could recruit folks into the military.
Or maybe we could even get them jobs with the TSA and DHS.
The fucking miitary is just such an inconvenient drain on the country.