2
2
0
From: Navy Times
Looming budget cuts not only are stoking anxiety among troops but also fundamentally changing how they think about the military, the services' top enlisted leaders told House lawmakers Wednesday.
"Thirty years ago, if you were a good airman and worked hard, you could serve for 20 years. I'm not sure you can say the same today," said Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James Cody, who added that budget uncertainty "is curtailing the ability to serve."
All the services face potential drawdowns in coming years as part of post-war defense funding cuts and looming sequestration budget caps, set to go into effect again this fall after a brief hiatus.
Pentagon budget planners have lamented those budget restraints as dangerous to national security, but over the last three years Congress has not found any realistic compromise to replace or dismiss the spending caps. Lawmakers have promised to redouble their efforts to find a solution this year, but so far shown little public progress.
On Wednesday, the enlisted leaders said the looming threats are not just theoretical concerns, but are provoking immediate anxiety in the ranks, with service members expressing fears about what the budget moves will mean to their readiness, pay and career options.
Army officials already have said they'll have to trim their service's ranks to about 420,000 soldiers — if not more — by the end of the decade if the sequestration cuts aren't repealed. "We may have to tell good soldiers to go home," said Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey.
Navy Master Chief Petty Officer Michael Stevens said sailors also have begun asking about possible pay cuts, equipment losses and training reductions as they look at coming years' budgets.
"They are concerned," he told lawmakers. "Uncertainty in the geopolitical and operational world is understandable. However, ambiguity in areas that we control, such as sequestration, are not so easily understood by them."
Stevens called sequestration "a forced diet," adding that "over the last few years, we've lost all the weight we could afford to lose. There's no more fat."
All the enlisted leaders expressed support for Pentagon plans for pay and compensation in coming years, pledging that they will not support any reduction in troops' salaries.
That doesn't necessarily translate into robust pay hikes, however. The services have backed a 1.3 percent pay raise for 2016, which would be one percentage point below the expected rise in average private-sector wages next year. The military raises for both 2014 and this year also lagged private-sector wage growth.
The enlisted leaders told lawmakers they are confident that even with the belt-tightening, they can maintain a high quality of life for troops and their families — provided sequestration is repealed.
If not, said Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Ronald Green, all aspects of military life will suffer.
Marines "should not have to deal with thinking about if they're going to have enough resources to go ahead and do our mission," Green said. "It's going to leave us in a position that is going to hurt, and affect our readiness."
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/02/25/enlisted-leaders-budget-concerns/23994253/
Looming budget cuts not only are stoking anxiety among troops but also fundamentally changing how they think about the military, the services' top enlisted leaders told House lawmakers Wednesday.
"Thirty years ago, if you were a good airman and worked hard, you could serve for 20 years. I'm not sure you can say the same today," said Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James Cody, who added that budget uncertainty "is curtailing the ability to serve."
All the services face potential drawdowns in coming years as part of post-war defense funding cuts and looming sequestration budget caps, set to go into effect again this fall after a brief hiatus.
Pentagon budget planners have lamented those budget restraints as dangerous to national security, but over the last three years Congress has not found any realistic compromise to replace or dismiss the spending caps. Lawmakers have promised to redouble their efforts to find a solution this year, but so far shown little public progress.
On Wednesday, the enlisted leaders said the looming threats are not just theoretical concerns, but are provoking immediate anxiety in the ranks, with service members expressing fears about what the budget moves will mean to their readiness, pay and career options.
Army officials already have said they'll have to trim their service's ranks to about 420,000 soldiers — if not more — by the end of the decade if the sequestration cuts aren't repealed. "We may have to tell good soldiers to go home," said Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey.
Navy Master Chief Petty Officer Michael Stevens said sailors also have begun asking about possible pay cuts, equipment losses and training reductions as they look at coming years' budgets.
"They are concerned," he told lawmakers. "Uncertainty in the geopolitical and operational world is understandable. However, ambiguity in areas that we control, such as sequestration, are not so easily understood by them."
Stevens called sequestration "a forced diet," adding that "over the last few years, we've lost all the weight we could afford to lose. There's no more fat."
All the enlisted leaders expressed support for Pentagon plans for pay and compensation in coming years, pledging that they will not support any reduction in troops' salaries.
That doesn't necessarily translate into robust pay hikes, however. The services have backed a 1.3 percent pay raise for 2016, which would be one percentage point below the expected rise in average private-sector wages next year. The military raises for both 2014 and this year also lagged private-sector wage growth.
The enlisted leaders told lawmakers they are confident that even with the belt-tightening, they can maintain a high quality of life for troops and their families — provided sequestration is repealed.
If not, said Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Ronald Green, all aspects of military life will suffer.
Marines "should not have to deal with thinking about if they're going to have enough resources to go ahead and do our mission," Green said. "It's going to leave us in a position that is going to hurt, and affect our readiness."
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/02/25/enlisted-leaders-budget-concerns/23994253/
Posted in these groups: 
Defense
Defense
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
Since Congress dictates budgetary line items, I think they should start with Generals' aides, personal drivers, golf courses and all the advertising we see on television. Get rid of them all. While it doesn't have a huge bottom line impact, such an action would send the message that this pain is to be shared by all - not just enlisted personnel.
(4)
(0)
CSM Mark Gerecht
Better yet Congress should be required to cut their pay and benefits. Funny how they can put a bill on the floor that includes raises and benefits then no one votes on it and somehow it becomes law and they get a raise!
(1)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
@CSM Mark Gerecht - you know Congress wouldn't ever do that! The idea of shared sacrifice is foreign to most of the Congress and nearly all the Senate, too. However, that's where we have our greatest leverage. How many Soldiers have written their Congressmen or Senators on this issue? How can we, as Service Members, expect Congress to act as we wish when we don't tell them? That ONE vote you have can work wonders.
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Congress sees the fault in others but not in themselves because their one-way vision can only look out-ward and not in-ward. Be it cut funding or cut pay/benefits, costly insurance/no insurance, or unequal pay, they all seem to operate a motto of "it's ok so long as it doesn't affect us"
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The fact is that Congress is right; the defense budget is bloated and, as a fiscal conservative, the U.S. needs to decrease the defense budget as well as other budgets to improve the U.S.'s debt situation. However, I find it disingenuous when the only plan reported is to implement cuts on the backs of the service members. There should be considerable discussion about the analysis of the acquisitions program and faulty equipment projects as part of the solution. Hopefully our leaders will tackle some of the harder problems and not just cut SM and benefits....but we'll see.
(3)
(0)
Col Joel Anderson
CW2 Brown, good comments. Since you raised the waste associated wth the acquisition system. Look at the number of superficial reforms that have taken place since the mid 70's alone, look at the recent VA scandal, billions in reform mindedness for that entity alone, and yet nothing substantive ever occurs. Byzatine bureaucracies would be a great source of reductions in waste, fraud and abuse yet we just perpetuate name changes and substantiate the status quo.
It is a far easier task to cut salaries, numbers and benefits than it is to truly execute necessary reform.
It is a far easier task to cut salaries, numbers and benefits than it is to truly execute necessary reform.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Sad that it's looking the way it is.
However, I think the military is about 5-7 years behind what happens in civilian sectors.
During 2007, while the civis were sucking, I was in Iraq not feeling any effects of the on coming recession. I couldn't help but think though, we're not immune to the ripples caused during that time.
As the military cinches the belt during these upcoming years, I believe it is temporary and the service is just that. A service to all (except the enemy). The like and career skills that we have the opportunity to learn a re invaluable. I mean, the one career that will make you a legitimate supervisor before you can vote.
However, I think the military is about 5-7 years behind what happens in civilian sectors.
During 2007, while the civis were sucking, I was in Iraq not feeling any effects of the on coming recession. I couldn't help but think though, we're not immune to the ripples caused during that time.
As the military cinches the belt during these upcoming years, I believe it is temporary and the service is just that. A service to all (except the enemy). The like and career skills that we have the opportunity to learn a re invaluable. I mean, the one career that will make you a legitimate supervisor before you can vote.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google