Defense cuts spark worries about troops' careers, pay

2015-02-26T10:40:52-05:00

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service's ranks to about 420,000 soldiers — if not more — by the end of the decade if the sequestration cuts aren't repealed.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/

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 11:21 AM

2015-02-26T11:21:57-05:00

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.

Response by PO3 Michael James made Feb 26 at 2015 10:01 PM

2015-02-26T22:01:13-05:00

Okay, Sorry, to me it appears that the Congress wants to save money.. The Constitution of the United States (the same Constitution we were ordered to swear and defend) states: "The Congress shall have power to.. Declare War.." Also the Congress has the appropriation of money,. and the responsibility to oversea how it is used.. I am Confused.. If they want to save money, stop putting us into harms way ! Congress makes a real generous pay and benefits package, compliments of the people, while they sit in front of HDTV watching sports/players making millions, because they just might get hurt and walk with a limp ! Yet, our brave Americans are in foreign lands, alone, making some 30,000. to 100,000 per year.. some to never walk again, lost limbs, most with traumatic stress, and some who gave it all ... will never return !! Congress wants to save money, that's great.. Support our Military.. find other ways to cut.. like the Congressional retirement package !!!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 1:05 AM

2015-02-27T01:05:32-05:00

They just want to trim away all of our benefits and send us all back to war than on top of that cut our money to do the job we all experience money woes one way or the other but I mean come on guys you cant cut cut and cut more than say oh ya no deploy with your equipment that we do not have the funds to fix while they are all sitting high on the hog with free medical and such I still do my job to the best of my ability I will say that I am glad to be close to retirement :)

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 5:38 AM

2015-02-27T05:38:52-05:00

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.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Feb 27 at 2015 9:09 AM

2015-02-27T09:09:12-05:00

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.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 12:54 AM

2015-02-28T00:54:28-05:00

Budget cuts? Do we actually have an approved budget for this or next fiscal year? Scary times in the Army right now. We are fast approaching a return to the "zero tolerance" days of the mid 1990s. If the DoD wants to save some money why not stop sending Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines to basic training as anything other than an E1. When the enlistee has demonstrated their successful indoctrination into the military profession and have earned an MOS then they can be compensated for what ever incentives earned them advancement in grade, JROTC, college credit, etc. I have no problem with enlistment incentives, lets just stop throwing money at someone who has yet to demonstrate any actual military value. This ties into another discussion concerning Army Specialists, another instance of the Army rewarding mediocrity. And lastly, can we get rid of all the damn M113-series vehicles? Just replace them with Strykers and be done with it. It costs the Army twice as much to maintain those 50+year old vehicles than a nice new truck that's twice as fast. Go home Army, you're drunk.