DoD wants to grow total budget, cut personnel costs

2015-02-03T10:45:50-05:00

From: Army Times

The Pentagon is seeking an overall budget increase next year, but spending on military personnel will remain essentially flat, squeezed by cuts in the size of the force and recent efforts to scale back troops' pay and benefits.

The Defense Department's budget request for fiscal 2016, which starts Oct. 1, seeks a total budget of $585.3 billion, roughly 4.4 percent more than this year's total defense budget.

Meanwhile, the portion of the budget that accounts for military personnel will tick downward by a small fraction to $139.9 billion, or about $55 million less than the amount approved for this year, according to budget documents released Monday.

Those figures include both the base budget and funding for overseas operations.

Most of the 4.4 percent increase in the overall Pentagon budget will fund new weapons systems and more research and development for new technologies, the budget documents show.

The nominal decline in personnel spending sought for 2016 could make it the fifth consecutive year that the personnel budget account has dropped since reaching a peak of $152 billion in 2010.

The bulk of that reduction stems from a drawdown in the size of the total force, in particular the Army and Marine Corps, which have shed more than 70,000 service members over the past several years and brought the total size of the active-duty force down to about 1.3 million troops.

Specifically, this year's budget projects that the total force will shrink by another 11,900 troops. That includes cutting 15,000 soldiers from the Army while expanding the Navy by 1,500 sailors and the Air Force by 1,700 airmen.

Pentagon officials note that the per-troop costs have risen significantly since 2001 as Congress granted a series of generous pay raises and new benefits to troops during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Top Pentagon officials say that cost growth is unsustainable and continue to seek reductions to military compensation in an effort to scale back the growth in per-troop costs.

"The department cannot allow its personnel costs to crowd out investments in the readiness and modernization portions of the budget which are essential to providing needed training and equipment for its warriors to carry into combat and accomplish the incredible array of missions undertaken around the globe every day," DoD officials wrote in their budget overview published Monday.

The budget request for next year also urges Congress to approve new cuts to Basic Allowance for Housing rates, new health care fees and reductions to the commissary benefit.

Spending on personnel, which includes health care, comprises about 33.5 percent of this year's budget, down from 36.1 percent in 2014, budget documents show.

The budget request includes another modest pay raise for service members next year, a proposed 1.3 percent that would mark a nominal uptick but would fail to keep pace with the projected growth in average private-sector wages. If approved by Congress, the 1.3 percent raise would cut into the real spending power for military families because it would fall well below the estimated 2.3 percent rise in annual private-sector wages, according to DoD budget documents.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/02/dod-wants-to-grow-total-budget-cut-personnel-costs/22757865/

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2015 11:13 AM

2015-02-03T11:13:11-05:00

Doesn't surprise me with the kind of "leaders" we have working at the top.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Feb 3 at 2015 11:25 AM

2015-02-03T11:25:56-05:00

Considering personnel have to be the hardest asset the military has to acquire and make battle ready, why would they drop costs on us?

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Feb 3 at 2015 12:40 PM

2015-02-03T12:40:09-05:00

It is outrageous to put the costs of the DOD on the backs of the troops. Obviously the "leadership" of the DOD has learned nothing from the last 15 years of war.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 3 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-02-03T12:52:30-05:00

Yet never a mention of cutting pay for Congress.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2015 1:27 PM

2015-02-03T13:27:21-05:00

Why is it that when budget issues arise the first thing anyone thinks about is cutting Soldier's pay? Obviously not one of our "leaders" care about anyone but themselves. For the last 10-15 years, the military has been in constant conflict with people in all branches being deployed time and time again. And instead of being thanked and taken care of for volunteering to do this, we get our pay cut and benefits reduced. I really feel ashamed of everyone in our government for this.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 3 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-02-03T13:45:10-05:00

There are times when I might feel hopeless...

Don't you just love these discussions? We complain about wasteful spending, cuts in pay and benefits to those who serve, and frivolous expenditures for weapons nobody wants. We're all pretty much in agreement, but what does it matter?

I can write to plead and beg all I want with my two Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and still both vote in direct opposition to everything I believe in. I can donate to their opponents and knock on doors to encourage voters to replace them, and they are as certain of being reelected as the sun will rise in the east and set in the west every day. Nancy Pelosi, too. They will be reelected until they either die or retire and, even then, be replaced by ideological clones. And, these are the people who will help insure that the madness, including the budget madness, continues forever.

However, I am not without hope. I think that may be the greatest lesson I learned while serving. I will always have faith in my ability to persevere no matter how hopeless the situation. I have faith in the one along side me and the one covering my back that we will ultimately prevail. No matter how many battles are lost, we will win the war.

I look at the young men and women enlisting today and see that they are better, smarter, stronger than those of my generation. No matter how we screw up the budget and hobble them with silly missions or misguided rules of engagement, they too will prevail.

We veterans don't have to stand idly by on the sidelines despairing. We pitch in helping their young families while they are deployed and petitioning for every scrape of pay and benefits that the government can cough up, and this will be enough. Not fair. Just enough.

Response by SGT William Howell made Feb 3 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-02-03T14:09:14-05:00

So let me get this strait. We are buying new planes that cost $100 of millions yet the F-15 has never been shot down, the A-10 still is the deadliest plane on the battlefield, and B-52 still drops bombs weekly. Yet, the people that make this things work are not going to be taken care of.

How about this, stop buying shit we don't need and take care of the troops!

Response by SGT James Elphick made Feb 3 at 2015 4:15 PM

2015-02-03T16:15:51-05:00

I see 2 things wrong when it comes to DoD personnel where they could make cuts. First, the "tail" is too long. That is we have support personnel and contractors doing the same job. So let's quit paying Halliburton twice the pay of the service member doing the same job and leave it to our forces. Second, we have nearly as many General Officers as we did during WWII. The only problem is during WWII we had some 16 million men under arms, today, including the Reserves and National Guard, we have just over 2 million. We have contingency commands in place to we can have more 4-star Generals with a place to go. So there is a good place to start with "Personnel Costs".

Also, and I saw this in numerous posts, we have wasteful spending and an even more wasteful procurement system that allows DoD to spend billions of dollars and then decide not to purchase or have Congress cut it or find out it was a useless endeavor in the first place and just for good measure the F35.

Response by MSgt Chris Adams made Feb 3 at 2015 6:43 PM

2015-02-03T18:43:38-05:00

What sucks about being military, we are outnumbered by the populace. While as a whole, we are a large voting block; but we are from different states and unable to concentrate our votes to do anything. Also it seems to me our vote is not as important as they may have been in the past. While I was active, I was an absentee voter every election cycle, many of us are and were. Politicians would only care if say all of us were from California, the LA or SF area, and could swing the vote their way.

F22, F35, Global Hawk and other new technologies are going to continue being the focus because where they are made sways more votes. Crappy, yes. Changeable...I hope so but at present don't see a way.

The shell game continues and our pay/benefits are the little red ball being hidden.

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Feb 3 at 2015 6:59 PM

2015-02-03T18:59:45-05:00

How come when the cuts come along it always the personnel that that have to account for the cuts. Why the heck are we decreasing our Military capabilities in at this time. Just another case of refusing of keeping what have maintained, so when we need it, it is ready to be used, and properly staffed.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Feb 3 at 2015 7:26 PM

2015-02-03T19:26:00-05:00

Flag Officers want to pad their retirements by making sure future employers look favorably on them by getting them DoD contracts that don't require a final product.
Please tell me no one is surprised by this revelation...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2015 10:35 PM

2015-02-03T22:35:07-05:00

The easy way to do that AND potentially grow the Total Force into the bargain, would be to move force structure from the Active Component and into the Reserves. Savings of 2/3 on each billet moved.

We could be honest with the public as well and not talk of force structure as though the Army only consisted of the Divisions and BCTs.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 6:07 AM

2015-02-04T06:07:45-05:00

Translation: more money for toys, less money for troops.

Result: fewer troops shouldering more of the burden.

But then, I guess the corporations making the toys donate more to the re-election campaigns than the military.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 7:28 AM

2015-02-04T07:28:01-05:00

Anyone else notice too the pieces are being moved to go back to Iraq?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 12:33 PM

2015-02-04T12:33:20-05:00

I find this problematic. The current fight we are in- -an asymmetric, unconventional, global fight against terrorists and state sponsored proxies--requires people. Yes, power projection and being able to intimidate conventional adversaries is strategically imprortant. However, both state and non-state actors are using unconventional tactics to well...beat us. SOF Imperative: pe

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 3:05 PM

2015-02-04T15:05:31-05:00

Equipment fails, people perservere thats my two cents. We could have the fanciest shit in the world. Without the properly trained and competent Military Member behind the controls its a useless piece of plastic and metal.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Feb 4 at 2015 3:47 PM

2015-02-04T15:47:02-05:00

I've read the proposed budget gives the Navy more money than they asked for. Funny thing is, on the same site, another article talks about the cuts to benefits and support of the sailors.
Isn't that kinda like my boss not giving bonuses this year so she can get an extra big one for "cost saving measures". Which of course she'll buy a new car with.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 10:35 AM

2015-02-05T10:35:40-05:00

I am somewhat perplexed as to why, after over a decade of conflict, we still do not have a comprehensive strategy to degrade terrorist organizations. What I would submit is that technological innovation is probably not the lynchpin that will determine success. In my opinion, we have the most technologically advanced military in the world, so, while I support appropriations for continued research and development, I would say that we need to be selective in what we invest in.

Terrorism is an ideology, and, in my opinion, you can only defeat an ideology with another ideology. Our ideology is democracy, and if we want to defeat the ideology of terrorism, then we need people to spread that democracy. That would require us to flood countries and villages with a lot of people for many decades. The U.S. Military is ideally suited, and capable of fulfilling this role. That does not necessarily require us to kick in doors and take down bad guys, although sometimes we will.

We need a comprehensive strategy and focus that maintains our current level of innovation, while removing our fourth points of contact from a mechanized/motorized mindset, to one of a boots on the ground constabulary type force, similar to what we did in Germany and Japan post WW II and Korea post Korean War.