I'm all for Defense Budget cuts, but these in an election year? WTF???

[cali]

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to recommend deep budget cuts targeting pay, benefits

Teeing up what could be a politically explosive fight before the midterm elections in November, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday will recommend billions of dollars in annual budget cuts that would reduce housing allowances and other benefits, increase health-care premiums, and limit pay raises, CBS News confirms.

The recommendations, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, are part of a broader effort to trim the Pentagon's budget while minimizing the impact on preparedness and capability. But they're likely to provoke fierce opposition from veterans' interest groups and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The Pentagon argues that personnel costs are simply too big a share of the defense budget to ignore. "Personnel costs reflect some 50 percent of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing," Adm. John Kirby, the Defense Department's top spokesman, told the Journal. "Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation."

The recommendations would limit pay raises across the board to 1 percent, and they would freeze pay entirely for generals and admirals for one year.

In addition to reduced housing allowances, the recommendations would slash the subsidies for commissaries that provide groceries to veterans, service members, and their families at reduced cost.

<snip>

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/defense-secretary-chuck-hagel-to-recommend-deep-budget-cuts-targeting-pay-benefits/

[GeorgeGist]

1. Save the Rich.

Screw the rest.

[valerief]

33. Seems to be the motto of civilization. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

79. At any cost. n/t

[monmouth3]

2. I heard this this morning and swore I heard it wrong. Cuts in housing? Makes me sick...n/t

[madville]

39. They need to reduce housing allowances

The main reason I say that is it artificially inflates rental prices in military dense areas. A two bedroom apartment in decent proximity to the base is about $1200 a month, most junior enlisted get $1100-1500 a month housing allowance.

Drive 20 miles away and the same apartment in just as decent an area is $800. The landlords know what they can charge near military installations based on the published BAH rates. It sucks how it affects housing prices if you live in a military town and aren't in the military.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Now why would a good Democrat like Hagel do that?

Oh...

[KoKo]

4. It will lead to us electing more and better Democrats, obviously....

[ProSense]

8. What freeze the pay of generals and admirals?

Still, the increase for everyone else should be a little higher.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Have you heard of inflation?

Or read this:

Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.

The fiscal 2015 budget will also call for slowing the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would most likely make goods purchased at those commissaries more expensive for soldiers.

The budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active servicemen. But Mr. Hagel’s proposals do not include any changes to retirement benefits for those currently serving.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=1

[ProSense]

31. "impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers"

Yes, and the increases for everyone else should be higher. Did you not understand that point?

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Pay cuts for rank-and-file soldiers after inflation, plus

added costs for them.

[ProSense]

37. Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024555346

[KittyWampus]

17. "Oh" what Manny? Ulnder-informed as usual? There ARE proposed cuts to the MIC

but when someone is intellectually dishonest and has an agenda, what do facts matter?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

[MannyGoldstein]

28. As, you know, I'm a little slow...

Can you explain what you posted? I'm not quite understanding it.

Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

32. the pentagon is cutting just about everything.

but, given that salaries and benefits constitute 1/4 of the budget--not to mention stuff like food, safety equipment, etc--one can't expect drastic reductions in the military budget without it affecting people in the military.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Sure you can. nt

[geek tragedy]

38. you really think that you can slash pentagon spending without reducing the size

of the military?

[MannyGoldstein]

58. We could.

But http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4555842 is more in line with my thoughts.

[msanthrope]

46. Less soldiers means less money spent on their pay. Kind of basic math.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. But it doesn't mean cutting the salary of each soldier.

We could reduce the force by attrition, and hold salaries at their current level (accounting for inflation).

Also, it's "fewer", not "less".

[msanthrope]

78. Salaries aren't being cut. They are being held. Adjusted for inflation? Sure, the Congress could

ask for that.

[RC]

47. Those Billion dollar a peace war toys would be a good place to start.

If they want to save on personal costs, stop their war of aggression against 3rd world countries, in our name.
Put me in charge of that budget and I could save hundreds of Billions of dollars that could then go toward fixing our own infrastructure and create hundreds of thousands of living wage jobs jobs. The spin off jobs would create many hundred of thousands more jobs. More people with money to spend would fuel a real recovery. Not this bullshit recovery, based on how well Wall Street is doing.

There is no good reason to cut any personal pay, benefits, commissary, or anything else.

So, yes we can expect drastic reductions in the military budget without it affecting people in the military. We just are not going to get it.

[geek tragedy]

48. in order to reduce the size of the military budget, you need to reduce the size

of the military. which means fewer people, which means fewer jobs etc.

[RC]

51. Comprehension problem there?

Notice I said use the money saved to repair our crumbling infrastructure. That is where here the replacement jobs for our military will be. And the spin-off jobs to support the infrastructure rebuilding. Everything from shovel work to to white collar management jobs.

[geek tragedy]

52. that's not military spending. nt

[RC]

57. It is the government spending it. The military is supposed to be part of the government.

So take it away from the over bloated military and give it to the cash strapped cities and states for the rebuilding. What is so hard to understand about this? It all started with tax money anyway, whether spent on the military or us lowly civilians.

[geek tragedy]

59. I would support that with great eagerness.

But, in order to spend less on the military in order to spend more on infrastructure, one has to spend less on the military.

[RC]

61. And that is what this whole thread is all about.

Re-read the OP

[JustAnotherGen]

50. Posting to let you know this was alerted on

On Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:21 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

"Oh" what Manny? Ulnder-informed as usual? There ARE proposed cuts to the MIC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4555420

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:28 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not a personal attack.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Give the treacherous Blue Dogs hell, Manny!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Im sorry. I do not see a personal attack. I vote leave.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Sharing because of Juror #4.

I have to say kitty - you have NEVER struck me as anti democratic party, anti liberal, anti progressive.

And it's kind of sad to see something like that written in jury results.

I'm thinking Manny would agree - that any kind of group think and cultish cheerleading is deplorable.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Are you $%^&ing me?

I've essentially stopped alerting on personal attacks, but there are some people - perhaps as much as 10% of the population - that would consider "Ulnder-informed [sic] as usual", "intellectually dishonest", and "what do facts matter" as a personal attack. Crazy, I know.

So, Ms. Kitty shall remain free to call me a ratfucker for the foreseeable future.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. No

Someone actually alerted on this.

What can I say? You are a lightning rod and kitty is bold and outspoken.

DU is a playground these days with a lot of folks giving each other the 8th grade hair flip. It comes and goes in all directions. Sometimes the hair flip comes as an alert - or as a member of a DU jury.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. But the jury gave it a big thumb's up. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

71. It is what it is

I was on that jury - I only look at the specific post alerted on. I never look up, or look down, or go back a year for older posts by a member.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. And you don't consider it to be a personal attack? nt

[JustAnotherGen]

75. Eh?

No - that's why I didn't comment at all on the jury.

[L0oniX]

62. Spell check is your friend.

[JoePhilly]

70. I assumed that post was from "neo-con Manny", a new personna

who is against defense cuts.

Could've been a cousin of 3rd way Manny.

[Egalitarian Thug]

80. Pearls before swine.

[Solly Mack]

5. ...

[Jake Stern]

6. So when is a good time to discus the bloated Defense budget?

After the election? Then politicians will say we have other, more important, matters to attend to.

The Defense budget has become a sacred cow that nobody is willing to deal with.

Sadly I know people who call themselves Democrats that thinks it's easier, politically, to cut SS than to make cuts to defense spending.

I can guarantee that Democratic members of Congress are going to be fighting a whole lot harder to make sure that a SSGT can save a few bucks at the commissary than they did for SNAP and Emergency Unemployment.

Guess it's just not as patriotic to make sure that unemployed workers keep their lifeline as it is to make sure that a retired Colonel, drawing an eye popping pension, can get free medical care at a base hospital along with unlimited free commissary, AFFES and MWR privileges.

[cali]

21. any time. what I pointed out isn't about discussion, in any case.

as I said, I'm all for cutting the defense budget, but I'd rather see contracts for redundancies cancelled than see people have benefits cut.

discuss that.

[JoePhilly]

7. Q: When are defense cuts considered bad on DU?

A: When the Obama administration proposes them.

And the wheel of outrage spins round and round.

[justabob]

9. when they don't affect the MIC at all?

I think the point here is that these cuts will hurt people of all ranks (not just the colonels, generals and admirals) and do not address the more serious problem of money pit weapons systems and multibillion dollar contracts? Just a guess.

[KittyWampus]

14. Ah, but there ARE proposed cuts to the MIC, Cali just ignored them

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

[justabob]

20. great... still not smart to go after people

in an election year, you fight FOR people. Is that really so hard to grasp?

[cali]

22. so post a frickin' op, kittywamp

yes,I'm discussing something that I think repukes will make great use of this year. ooooh, how scary how threatening how just awful.

[JoePhilly]

16. Actually, the specific cuts have yet to be announced.

So I'm not sure how anyone here could be upset already.

And of course there , other articles on this which do indicate there will be cuts to military systems. But since its not announced officially yet, its not clear.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/24/defense-secretary-hagel-to-propose-large-military-cuts/

But look, I understand the standard DU knee-jerk reaction on this.

The Obama administration is going to propose something. So it must be the worst thing ever.

Since yesterday's worst thing ever.

[cali]

15. all defense cuts are not equal. that's kind of a given.

[JoePhilly]

18. And these are yet to be announced.

But why wait for that ... you'd lose valuable outrage time.

[treestar]

53. We can't demand military spending be cut

without realizing it will affect the number of people the military employs. That is going to go with the territory. impossible to cut the military without cutting personnel.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. When rank and file soldiers get a pay cut

because of austerity.

[msanthrope]

43. Admirals and generals are now "rank and file?" Hey Manny...he's cutting the MIC and

you seem, sad....

[MannyGoldstein]

63. I have a revelation for you.

Are you sitting down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

Do a little thought experiment: what happens when pay rises slower than inflation? And mandatory fees are added, to boot?

[geek tragedy]

10. did people at DU really think that defense cuts would come solely from non-human costs? nt

[JoePhilly]

73. Apparently, yes ... some of them did.

[woo me with science]

11. DISGUSTING.

Attacking pay and benefits is not reducing the MILITARY.

Corporate monsters will not rest until they have a nation and an army of slaves.

[KittyWampus]

13. If you are the OP'er cared about reality you'd KNOW THERE WERE CUTS

Fighter jets, naval ships etc

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

[JoePhilly]

19. The Combustible Hair Club doesn't care about such facts ... knee jerk first.

Obama is going to propose something ... its got to be the worst thing ever.

[cali]

23. this isn't even about Obama, but the abject adoration and knee jerk defense

of the adored one, ignore that.

gad, it must be something to be so, er, devoted and adoring.

[JoePhilly]

27. Spare me.

You are upset about a proposal you haven't seen yet.

Which means its just another Monday morning.

[ProSense]

24. Don't bother

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024547107#post49

The anti-Obama types are now using RW distortions to attack Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024554928#post84

[woo me with science]

26. Food stamp use at military commissaries up sharply in four years

Food stamp use at military commissaries up sharply in four years
http://www.stripes.com/news/food-stamp-use-at-military-commissaries-up-sharply-in-four-years-1.160858

Spare it. The MIC could be slashed by half without harming a single family. I am sick and tired of seeing this administration go after the lowest paid in this country, when the billionaires who profit from their bloody wars are protected time after time after time.

To try to portray more assaults targeted directly at pay and benefits of families as "MILITARY CUTS" is obscene. Stop the damned drone murders. That should pay for a commissary or a raise for some family that has survived a parent's being sent on multiple tours in Afghanistan.

[MannyGoldstein]

68. We should be proud of this!

At least according to some.

[woo me with science]

77. You know what makes me sick, Manny?

There was a fundraising commercial on TV the other night. It was sort of like those ads for the ASPCA or to help starving children in other countries.

Only this was begging for support for US MILITARY FAMILIES.

This THIRD WAY GARBAGE of stealing from Americans who are already turning to food stamps, in order to sustain the actual blood-drenched military machine, needs to stop.

It is dishonest and beyond obscene to try to pass off more austerity targeted directly at families as "MILITARY" cuts.

[atreides1]

55. A-10 isn't a fighter!

Neither is the U-2...and reduction of operations of 11 cruisers isn't much...especially when the Navy will be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines every year.


Not much of a reduction on the MIC!

[jsr]

12. You don't threaten jobs or benefits in an election year

It's Elections 101

[former9thward]

44. Or the year leading to an election year.

That is when people start running. See how that works ....

[Redfairen]

25. This "election year" talk = we have no rights for all of this year.

Perhaps we should give up our rights to be represented and have a voice in government, or at least for one out of every two years

[djean111]

34. Already done, IMO.

[MissMillie]

40. It's always an election year

isn't it.

Just as soon as one election is over, people are running for the next one.

[msanthrope]

41. Less people in military equals less money needed for people in military....kinda

basic math here.

[former9thward]

42. Wow, even progressives are against Defense cuts.

That is how entrenched the MIC is. The Defense Department must be cut dramatically. Most of the budget is human related. Jobs must be cut. No getting around it., BTW it is ALWAYS an election year.

[msanthrope]

45. Progressives or concern trolls? Note that Obama cutting the MIC is causing angst

to whom??????

Right...the people who claimed he is controlled by the MIC.

[magical thyme]

49. The NYT article shows pay freeze for the upper echelons, and small pay increases for the rest

I also see a *lot* of good: significant reduction in the size of military, small reduction in size of National Guard and a return of the National Guard to disaster relief.

And reductions on the hardware, too.

[SidDithers]

54. And today the wheel of outrage lands on..... Defense cuts!...

Tune in tomorrow, folks, to see what a new day will bring.

Sid

[JoePhilly]

65. I really have to make a wheel of outrage image.

Outside RW MSM media, only on DU could the first response to defense cut be outrage.

[TwilightGardener]

66. Getting ducks in a row before a further reduced budget in 2016--

Congress gave the Pentagon an easing of sequester cuts for 2014/2015, but they are going to have to implement cuts going into 2016 and onward. There's not really any way to forestall it, election year or not--this is what the President and Congress want (and engineered and voted for in 2011), so it's silly for anyone to throw a fit about it now. And no, the Pentagon isn't going to leave personnel costs untouched, allow salaries and benefits to continue to grow as before, and totally cancel things like the F-35 instead. Not gonna happen.

[L0oniX]

69. World wide bases need to be closed. Enough of the world police policy already!

I know this will put some people out of work but the money spent of these bases can go to infrastructure and the (new living wage) jobs that would come from that. Those bases are not helping our country ...and in a lot of cases they are just making more people hate us.

Our military needs to have some introspect and a conscience for the US people it says it is protecting. What is good for the military obviously is not good for our country when our yearly budget assigns over 50% to the pentagon.

Vets should be respected but encouraging people to sign up is an entry point for military spending. Of course disabled vets should be given a spending priority ...not lifer generals.

Seems that no party can be seen as wanting to cut the military in any way for political reasons. What does that say about our government and our country? We put the military above all else and reduce the value one one hungry child to nothing!

Yes politically it was a stupid thing for Hagel to say this ...because he's a Dem? Hard to believe that he couldn't find one repuke to team up with in calling for cuts ...and that would have balanced this out ...politically.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. Lol. Nothing's ever good enough for some

If it was the opposite, "why are Dems afraid to do the right thing in an election year"?

You've already informed us the house will stay Republican so all we're really talking about is a few key senate seats. But some like Liandreau are practically Republican so who cares, right?

[giftedgirl77]

76. It is nothing new for pay increases to be minimal

for service members under a democrat, it is something we have come to expect. As far as generals & admirals go who gives a shit if they freeze their pay, have you ever bothered to look at a military pay chart to see how much they make? They aren't going to effect democrat turnout. Soldiers also get BAS (basic allowance for substance) to offset food cost. Is this being cut as well, because we haven't heard anything about it & we get close to $400 a month (it's the same across the board).

Soldiers are not going to be outraged that overpaid officers pay is going to be frozen and you overlooked the fact that many junior Soldiers which are generally the ones on receiving public assistance also get to live on post in family housing which includes all of their basic utilities, this in itself helps immensely.

I'm not saying it's all daisies & sunshine but you only have a quarter of the whole picture.