DoD Unveils Major Force Reductions
"To die for one's country is not as glorious as the living seek to make it, but it does prevent having to suffer disappointment in one's country's failures to honor its commitments to those who have served." ~ Dr. Bill Smith, Major, USAF-Retired
The below article is shared with additional comments and highlights to educate readers about planned reductions for the U.S. Military. Most of the information is "public" and was provided by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Reductions will affect the military's capability to react to threats, to carry out needed operations, and to protect the USA from attacks by foreign powers, foreign organizations, and radicalized foreign people who seek to harm our Nation and thus you. These planned changes will significantly affect military readiness and capability and military personnel, military retirees, disabled veterans and their family members. The very people who are currently placed at risk and those who in the past have sacrificed so much will see their pay and benefits, or retirements and benefits placed at economic risk in the near future.
Please recall that the funding of Defense is one of few constitutionally approved functions of the Federal Government. The concept of mandating "across the board" cuts in all government agencies is not the appropriate method for decision making. This method avoids addressing the constitutionality of an agency or department and its fulfillment of its stated responsibilities. This method to budgeting is a tool of Big Government and is used to retain wasteful and unconstitutional programs and agencies. Eliminating programs, departments and agencies would in fact aid in providing the needed funding to preserve National defense capability. In the below article, the highlights, brackets and comments have been added.
by Philip Ewing: The Defense Department could cut some 80,000 Soldiers and 20,000 Marines over the coming years as part of massive force and spending reductions announced Thursday at the Pentagon, which could also include reductions in pay and benefits for troops.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey gave reporters a "preview" of the fiscal 2013 defense budget that will be sent to Congress next month, the first to reflect the bite of $487 billion in reduced budget growth over the next 10 years.
In addition to the troop reductions, the budget would cut six Air Force fighter squadrons, leaving 54, and retire 130 of its cargo aircraft. It would decommission seven Navy cruisers, two amphibious ships and delay many of the service's planned programs, including its planned new ballistic missile submarine. It would delay, but leave mostly intact, the F-35 Lightning II fighter program, which forms the backbone of future aviation in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
The budget would likely reduce the size of the U.S. strategic arsenal, but would keep the longstanding three legs of the nuclear triad: Navy ballistic missile submarines and Air Force bombers and land-based missiles.
Among other things, the Pentagon is also asking Congress to authorize a Base Realignment and Closure process to consolidate the footprint that will be left empty by tomorrow's smaller force.
And for the troops that remain, Panetta hinted that DoD must tackle its burgeoning personnel costs in the next few years. Troops can expect full pay raises in 2013 and 2014, he said, but "We will achieve some cost savings by providing more limited pay raises beginning in 2015. This will give troops and their families fair notice and lead time before these proposed changes take effect." [In other words, if you don't like it, get out of the military. Fair enough. But for those being release form service in the near future, where are the jobs.]
Panetta also said that troop health care and retirement are two huge issues that Washington can no longer avoid. The budget recommends "increases in health care fees, co-pays and deductibles for retirees," he said, "but let me be clear that even after these increases, the cost borne by military retirees will remain below levels in most comparable private sector plans." [Note, there can be no comparison. Military members were paid less, and for many years, military retirees were denied by the Federal Government access access to certain jobs in industry and in other countries and "regular commissioned officers were required to forfeit their military retirement to be employed by the Federal government. Although these situations have been addressed and changed, those who retired in former years lost access to income. Consider that Vietnam Era Veterans were paid very low pay (equivalent to WWII / Korean War levels and were thus promised free healthcare at retirement if they stayed in the military. Those who lived to retirement received lower retirements because of lower pay scales than those retired in later years. However, DOD changed their benefits and these military retirees were required to pay a potion of their heath care and were denied access to on-base medical services if they lived outside of certain distance of a military base. Now the DOD seeks for these identified retirees to have to pay even more without having ever provided them reasonable incomes in the past for risking their lives.]
As for retirement, Panetta said DoD will ask Congress to establish a "commission with the authority to conduct a comprehensive review of military retirement" -- with the understanding that current troops will be protected with a grandfather clause that keeps their existing benefits. [This claim of grandfathering has been said before but has proven to be a ruse; reference prior comment on retiree healthcare. Closing bases removes access to base services, including commissary, exchanges and medical services.]
. . . "Make no mistake, the savings we are proposing will impact all 50 states and many districts across America," Panetta said. "This will be a test of whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action. My hope is that when members understand the sacrifice involved in reducing the defense budget by half a trillion dollars, it will convince Congress to avoid sequestration, a further round of cuts that would inflict severe damage to our national defense for generations."
For now, Panetta and Dempsey's announcement fills in the blanks left by President Obama's announcement earlier in January that the U.S. would pursue a new defense strategy focused on the Western Pacific and no longer plan to fight two major simultaneous wars. They tried to emphasize the areas the budget protects or expands, despite its headline-grabbing reductions.
. . . the budget protects Special Operations Forces; keeps 11 Navy aircraft carriers and 10 air wings; protects unmanned surveillance aircraft; funds the Air Force's new bomber; and will improve future Navy submarines' ability to carry cruise missiles.
But there were some unanswered questions. The Army's reduction in end strength, for example, reflects eight combat brigades, but DoD's presentation Thursday hinted there could be more changes in the works -- "the future organizing construct of the Army is under review."
And although the Pentagon once again reaffirmed its commitment to the F-35, the largest defense program in history at more than $300 billion, it wasn't clear what its new delays would mean. The Air Force's and Marine Corps' fleets are quickly wearing out, and both services have been counting on new F-35s to take the place of their older, long-serving aircraft.
Some of the specifics, including the Pentagon's latest estimates for how much its new vision will cost, will appear in its official budget submission on Feb. 13. . . . [Read More]
Consider contacting the DOD and your elected officials to let them know how you feel about the proposed 2013 Defense Budget.
Tags: Leon Panetta, Martin Dempsey, DOD, force reductions, reducing the military, Bill Smith To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
 |
| Sec. Leon Panetta & Gen. Martin Dempsey |
Reductions will affect the military's capability to react to threats, to carry out needed operations, and to protect the USA from attacks by foreign powers, foreign organizations, and radicalized foreign people who seek to harm our Nation and thus you. These planned changes will significantly affect military readiness and capability and military personnel, military retirees, disabled veterans and their family members. The very people who are currently placed at risk and those who in the past have sacrificed so much will see their pay and benefits, or retirements and benefits placed at economic risk in the near future.
Please recall that the funding of Defense is one of few constitutionally approved functions of the Federal Government. The concept of mandating "across the board" cuts in all government agencies is not the appropriate method for decision making. This method avoids addressing the constitutionality of an agency or department and its fulfillment of its stated responsibilities. This method to budgeting is a tool of Big Government and is used to retain wasteful and unconstitutional programs and agencies. Eliminating programs, departments and agencies would in fact aid in providing the needed funding to preserve National defense capability. In the below article, the highlights, brackets and comments have been added.
by Philip Ewing: The Defense Department could cut some 80,000 Soldiers and 20,000 Marines over the coming years as part of massive force and spending reductions announced Thursday at the Pentagon, which could also include reductions in pay and benefits for troops.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey gave reporters a "preview" of the fiscal 2013 defense budget that will be sent to Congress next month, the first to reflect the bite of $487 billion in reduced budget growth over the next 10 years.
In addition to the troop reductions, the budget would cut six Air Force fighter squadrons, leaving 54, and retire 130 of its cargo aircraft. It would decommission seven Navy cruisers, two amphibious ships and delay many of the service's planned programs, including its planned new ballistic missile submarine. It would delay, but leave mostly intact, the F-35 Lightning II fighter program, which forms the backbone of future aviation in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
The budget would likely reduce the size of the U.S. strategic arsenal, but would keep the longstanding three legs of the nuclear triad: Navy ballistic missile submarines and Air Force bombers and land-based missiles.
Among other things, the Pentagon is also asking Congress to authorize a Base Realignment and Closure process to consolidate the footprint that will be left empty by tomorrow's smaller force.
And for the troops that remain, Panetta hinted that DoD must tackle its burgeoning personnel costs in the next few years. Troops can expect full pay raises in 2013 and 2014, he said, but "We will achieve some cost savings by providing more limited pay raises beginning in 2015. This will give troops and their families fair notice and lead time before these proposed changes take effect." [In other words, if you don't like it, get out of the military. Fair enough. But for those being release form service in the near future, where are the jobs.]
Panetta also said that troop health care and retirement are two huge issues that Washington can no longer avoid. The budget recommends "increases in health care fees, co-pays and deductibles for retirees," he said, "but let me be clear that even after these increases, the cost borne by military retirees will remain below levels in most comparable private sector plans." [Note, there can be no comparison. Military members were paid less, and for many years, military retirees were denied by the Federal Government access access to certain jobs in industry and in other countries and "regular commissioned officers were required to forfeit their military retirement to be employed by the Federal government. Although these situations have been addressed and changed, those who retired in former years lost access to income. Consider that Vietnam Era Veterans were paid very low pay (equivalent to WWII / Korean War levels and were thus promised free healthcare at retirement if they stayed in the military. Those who lived to retirement received lower retirements because of lower pay scales than those retired in later years. However, DOD changed their benefits and these military retirees were required to pay a potion of their heath care and were denied access to on-base medical services if they lived outside of certain distance of a military base. Now the DOD seeks for these identified retirees to have to pay even more without having ever provided them reasonable incomes in the past for risking their lives.]
As for retirement, Panetta said DoD will ask Congress to establish a "commission with the authority to conduct a comprehensive review of military retirement" -- with the understanding that current troops will be protected with a grandfather clause that keeps their existing benefits. [This claim of grandfathering has been said before but has proven to be a ruse; reference prior comment on retiree healthcare. Closing bases removes access to base services, including commissary, exchanges and medical services.]
. . . "Make no mistake, the savings we are proposing will impact all 50 states and many districts across America," Panetta said. "This will be a test of whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action. My hope is that when members understand the sacrifice involved in reducing the defense budget by half a trillion dollars, it will convince Congress to avoid sequestration, a further round of cuts that would inflict severe damage to our national defense for generations."
For now, Panetta and Dempsey's announcement fills in the blanks left by President Obama's announcement earlier in January that the U.S. would pursue a new defense strategy focused on the Western Pacific and no longer plan to fight two major simultaneous wars. They tried to emphasize the areas the budget protects or expands, despite its headline-grabbing reductions.
. . . the budget protects Special Operations Forces; keeps 11 Navy aircraft carriers and 10 air wings; protects unmanned surveillance aircraft; funds the Air Force's new bomber; and will improve future Navy submarines' ability to carry cruise missiles.
But there were some unanswered questions. The Army's reduction in end strength, for example, reflects eight combat brigades, but DoD's presentation Thursday hinted there could be more changes in the works -- "the future organizing construct of the Army is under review."
And although the Pentagon once again reaffirmed its commitment to the F-35, the largest defense program in history at more than $300 billion, it wasn't clear what its new delays would mean. The Air Force's and Marine Corps' fleets are quickly wearing out, and both services have been counting on new F-35s to take the place of their older, long-serving aircraft.
Some of the specifics, including the Pentagon's latest estimates for how much its new vision will cost, will appear in its official budget submission on Feb. 13. . . . [Read More]
Consider contacting the DOD and your elected officials to let them know how you feel about the proposed 2013 Defense Budget.
Tags: Leon Panetta, Martin Dempsey, DOD, force reductions, reducing the military, Bill Smith To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 9:23 PM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home