What do you tell people that say "I can't understand why they don't just have a Soldier do that"?

I saw this article on AR.com:

http://www.armyreenlistment.com/news-tougher-defense-cuts.html

Then I see a bunch of comments on FB about people talking about how terrible it is to replace a Soldier with a civilian and how they can't understand how people are hiring cooks etc in Afghanistan instead of just recruiting/having a private do it.

Here's the reason:

Residual costs. The same reason the auto companies in America went out of business (I'm sorry, accepted a government handout stolen from my pocket and yours is a better term).

Most of these people you meet are contact civilians. Not DA civilians.

So why on earth would we pay a civilian cook $100,000 on a one year contract when we could pay a SPC $24,000???

It never ceases to amaze me - the level of basic fiscal understanding that many people lack.

Let's break it down.

Civilian cook working in Afghanistan costs the taxpayer and DoD budget $100,000. Their employer is paid per person for the service. Then they enter in agreement for healthcare etc, but that is not footed by the US Taxpayer. After that year, that person has no ties to the USG at all. No compensation, no retirement package, no nothing. Thanks for helping us out. Goodbye.

Army cook in Afghanistan costs $24,000. Plus BAH, BAS, IDP, HFP, and potentially FSA. Plus per diem at the end, clothing allowance, etc. Probably at the end close to $50,000. Still cheaper by far, right? Wrong.

So that SPC costs about $50,000 to upwards of $100,000 (especially if there is special training, or security clearances involved, etc) to train, and then made about $9100 as an E1, $10,200 as an E2, $10,800 as an E3, and then $50,000 in Afghanistan. The first three numbers aren't including BAH, BAS, or clothing allowance. Then that SPC PCSs and you factor in the cost of PCS. Also factor in re-up bonuses, healthcare for him and his family, subsidized dental for his family and free for him....

Now assume SPC re-enlists and stays in the Army. This is where it gets REALLY expensive. Because let's say even for argument's sake he retires as a SSG with 20 at the age of 38 and dies at the average age of 75. The Army pays him an average of $22,122 a year (not including COLA adjustments) for 37 years, for another total of $818,514. Oh by the way, 20 years in the Army usually bangs you up pretty good. Let's say he gets 20% disability. That's another just under $9000 or so a year, or about $325,000 more over the course of his retirement. That also doesn't include the medical care he receives while retired.

Nor the PCS moves during his 20 years. Or his clothing allowances. Or his BAH, BAS, FSA, TDY stuff, DITY Moves, NTC rotations, equipment, etc. MGIB when he gets out. TA when he's in.

Guys, Civilians doing Army jobs is WORTHWHILE for the Army. The longer residual cost is nil compared to someone who is in the Army.

Contracts are not forever. Paying someone even $100,000 to guard the gate for a year at an installation is cheaper than training an MP, outfitting them, paying their salary for a 4-6 year contract, paying them BAH/BAS etc, giving them medical care, giving their family medical care and dental, any surgeries, bonuses, etc. And even if they get out at 6 years, paying them disability MGIB and all that other stuff...assuming he doesn't retire or stay in even longer.

It's not a forever fix, but in the time of budget crisis, it's cheaper overall.

CBO suggests tough defense spending cuts

10 Years Army Strong for Soldiers and Families