Why does cost savings/avoidance have to be on the backs of the military members?

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:22:40 -0400

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/20/thornberry-mccain-entitltement-reforms/74266626/

"The measure would allow a lower-than-anticipated pay raise for troops starting in January and includes trims in the growth of military housing stipends, new co-pays for some military drug prescriptions and plans to scale down the commissary benefit." (Why not reduce the cost of failed weapon systems? Oh, because that would mean some Senator/Congressional Rep wouldn't be able to tout their accomplishments for reelection.)

Lawmakers looking at more military personnel reforms

Fresh off a slate of planned military benefits changes, congressional leaders said to expect more in coming months.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 12:30 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:30:00 -0400

I believe that in order to reign in spending, cuts will have to come from all areas. Military and vets are not exempt. I think we have a pretty good deal.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 12:47 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:47:54 -0400

Because majority of us are a bunch of nice guys and will follow the "orders". :)

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 21 at 2015 1:00 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:00:19 -0400

What infuriates me are these cuts during war times. Who ever thought of giving pink slips to soldiers downrange is an insensitive prick.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Oct 21 at 2015 7:14 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:14:07 -0400

Equipment is easy to account: The contracts for ships, weapon systems, and equipment have already been penned for FY16. Those things are fixed costs in the budget. For existing equipment (already paid for) is re-designated, deemed "non-mission essential" is put into mothball, storage, and is either re-cycled or eighty-sixed.

As far as personnel --Reduce the force and you've simultaneously reduced need for such things as base housing, family medical, base infrastructure, MWR/AAFES, retirement, and other ancillary, personnel-rated costs.

Cuts in the latter becomes very personal. To say, nobody is impacted if an M-149 is forced out of service.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 21 at 2015 7:55 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:55:22 -0400

Lack of Loyalty to the segment of our society who loses the most.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Oct 21 at 2015 11:24 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:24:44 -0400

Sgt Spencer Sikder Brother you nailed with this statement, "Why not reduce the cost of failed weapon systems? Oh, because that would mean some Senator/Congressional Rep wouldn't be able to tout their accomplishments for reelection."

We don't have a large enough voice so we are easy pickens.