Posted on Oct 1, 2015
Here are some important takeaways from the new NDAA. What do you think?
3.9K
13
10
3
3
0
I realize that this is from the Heritage Foundation and some may not agree with the side of the aisle they fall on. However, try to look beyond that & read the 8 takeaways that they are focusing on. I think they did a pretty good job pointing out the major ones for those of us here.
DoD
Budget
Congress
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
SSgt (Join to see) I like #1
1. Increases the defense budget (but not enough).
The base budget for national defense has gone down 15 percent in real terms in the last four years while threats have dramatically increased.
This bill would increase the defense budget by just under 6 percent in real terms, but it relies on a budget gimmick to do so. While the increase for national security is good, it should be increased much more. One Heritage expert argued for a 10-percent increase in defense spending so that the Army can stop cutting soldiers and the Navy can start growing again.
1. Increases the defense budget (but not enough).
The base budget for national defense has gone down 15 percent in real terms in the last four years while threats have dramatically increased.
This bill would increase the defense budget by just under 6 percent in real terms, but it relies on a budget gimmick to do so. While the increase for national security is good, it should be increased much more. One Heritage expert argued for a 10-percent increase in defense spending so that the Army can stop cutting soldiers and the Navy can start growing again.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL I hear that. Sounds like some principles-based people pushed for items in this bill. Cutting non-necessary or excess spending in order to put more in needed areas was also a general direction I got out of this.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I like most of it. Still not a fan of the new retirement system. Lets be real though; is there ever a time where the defense budget has ever been enough? Even in peacetime military, new and emerging technologies required bumps in the budget to properly investigate and evaluate them. One issue I have is the method of cutting the DOD. I agree with it in principle, but I have an issue with it when it can be bent to suit someone. I might be addressed in the actual document, but until I get to read or see it. I'll have that question. I think this could've been better placed in a VA reform package, but we have to start somewhere. Why do we need "new" nukes? We can't keep track of what we have. We can't seem to properly maintain what we have, and are they going to build a nuke version of the F-35? If so, we don't need it. Acquisition reforms. How about "what we have reforms"? We want stupid new junk, and we already have stupid Nused junk. So what do we do with the junk? But in the end, I'd sign it just because the A-10 keeps flying.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SSgt (Join to see) - In cutting back on the juggernaut DOD is, you get rid of them and the next you know it has a rippling effect; getting a smaller government. Now while this is good and needed, it only adds to the unemployment lines for those who are really effected by this. The SES and high level GS positions won't really be hurt, but those in the middle will. They're graded by those previously mentioned. So we might end up loosing those we need and not get rid of those who really need to go. I'll never be happy with the F-35. Not because I hate the plane, but the process of how the contracting company screwed over the government and basically gave it the green weenie and the government took it with a smile. I'll give you a $400K helmet that can track the millennium falcon and a MIG 27 at the same time, and broadcast Fox News on the left side and MSNBC on the right, so the pilot has full situational awareness. It's going to cost you along with that money, troop programs tho. Seems right to me huh?
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SGT David T. - I'll have to take your word for it. I don't come under it, yet you seem to have a head on your shoulders. My biggest gripe with it is that while many could be taught how to properly manage it, more won't be. And it's going to be those that make the most noise. And how does it relate if a troop is med boarded? What becomes of his retirement then? Again I'm not familiar with all the in's and out's, but from the limited readings I've read, it just doesn't add up.
(1)
(0)
SGT David T.
SSG Warren Swan - Even if they do nothing with it, the lowest interest rate is still more than they would get with the traditional pension. As far as a med board goes, they get what they and the government pay into it plus interest. However you bring up a good point, I am not sure how that would work since I don't have a VA rating. Perhaps one of the others who do can chime in and explain how that works. I thought the VA payments were independent of the service retirement. The TSP can be rolled over into a 401K after separation.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
VA is independent of it. I'm medically retired. But since I didn't make 20 (18mo short), I didn't get a traditional Army retirement being I wasn't authorized. Now I got my VA rating and was allowed to apply for CSRC which acts like a sudo-Army retirement. Over 20 applies for CRDP. Still paid for by the VA. Now with the new system, how on earth could they do the compilations to get Army wise what someone would be due, how could they pay it out, when retirement is based on a 401k style retirement? I too would be interested in someone schooling me on how the future would play out in this.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google