The Presidential Commission's Gift to Vets

Funny that now it's Veteran's Day, the Presidential Commission is considering a 3 year pay freeze for all military personnel in order to pay for the national deficit. Funny how they don't propose to cut frivolous spending in other areas or in programs that have lived far beyond its usefulness. Personally, I doubt this proposal will see the light of day as a bill in Congress, but to think that this is even proposed pisses me off.

http://www.military.com/news/article/presidential-panel-freeze-military-pay.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

fla-gypsy

I too have not been impressed with what they have come up with. There are plenty of ways they could cut that have not been mentioned yet.

Vulchor

2 things-----First, I agree its a $hitty way to start cutting things and seemingly political suicide. HOWEVER, Secondly....people want cuts. We cant make cuts into little crap that makes up 10% of the budge...we need cuts in the big programs (ie military, entitlement, SS, medicare/caid). Its the old damned if you do or dont....smaller budget and less defecit spending-----but no matter what is decided to be cut, youre bound to hurt someone who thinks they deserve theirs more than others.

laker1963

fla-gypsy:
I too have not been impressed with what they have come up with. There are plenty of ways they could cut that have not been mentioned yet.

Gypsy, I am interested in hearing where you would advocate trimming spending. I am NOT baiting you here, I like to hear where people who think money needs to be saved by governments think the money should be shaved. It is a VERY complex problem, and Vulchor is right, you are damned if you do or damned if you don't. If you try to shave from places where there are no significant amounts of money to be saved then you end up shaving nickels and dimes across the entire economy, and not saving enough in the end. OR, you choose one or two BIG expenditure items and trim them. This shows up immediately and is always open to critics, but if not done, then the critics argue that you did not go far enough.

To criticize without offering your suggestions seems like a partisan position, criticize everything. Regardless of who is doing it.

Amos Umwhat

Listened to Jim Bohannon (sp?) on the radio last night, he and his guest were proposing that now that the Republicans will control the House of Representatives that they would freeze ALL government salaries for the next three years. I haven't heard this elsewhere, but haven't really looked for it, either. Anyone know?

Their reasoning was that, according to them, government employees generally make twice as much as their civilian counterparts. That didn't sound right to me either.

xmacro

Amos Umwhat:
Their reasoning was that, according to them, government employees generally make twice as much as their civilian counterparts. That didn't sound right to me either.

Partly true; partly false. On average, it's 20% more, but there are plenty of Gov't jobs that pay 2x what the private sector does: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

To me, there's 2 solutions: 1) Cut spending, and 2) Cut taxes. The spending cuts would come partly from repealing/replacing Obamacare (that's about $2.3 trillion over 10 years right there), and cut SS/medi benefits for those below age 30, or at the very least, allow them to opt out, since they're the ones with enough earning potential and enough years to make up/exceed the difference.

The tax cuts will be needed to grow our way out of the deficit. As things stand now, the economy is about $14.6 trillion, but growth is around 2%. If we can cut taxes and attain the growth from the Reagan years (around 7-9%), we can grow the economy enough to pay off the debts. That, combined with spending cuts, can go a long way towards alleviating the deficit/debt, which currently stands at $13.7 trillion dollars. Our total national debt is 93% of our national work product.

Under past presidents, the federal outlay/spending as a share of GDP was historically kept around 18% (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, etc); under 8 yrs of Bush, it went up to 20%. Obama, in only 2 years, has pushed it up to 24%. Don't you think that the first thing we can do is stop Obama from spending more?

It took G. W. Bush 8 years to add 2% to the federal outlays/spending; Obama added 4% in 2 years - I don't want to think what it'd be if he got his way for another 2 years.

Krieg

Amos Umwhat:
Listened to Jim Bohannon (sp?) on the radio last night, he and his guest were proposing that now that the Republicans will control the House of Representatives that they would freeze ALL government salaries for the next three years. I haven't heard this elsewhere, but haven't really looked for it, either. Anyone know?

Their reasoning was that, according to them, government employees generally make twice as much as their civilian counterparts. That didn't sound right to me either.

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since PrezBo took office, according to USA TODAY. Since Barack Obama took office, we have lost how many millions of jobs? Families have re-adjusted their budgets to fall more in line with the "new economy," and yet federal worker salaries have DOUBLED since Obama took office? Something isn't adding up! So the proposal starts with this: a three-year pay freeze for most federal employees, saving $15.1 billion by 2015. Then, 10% of the federal workforce is cut. Gone. See ya.

Go to the unemployment office and let your government skills carry you in the private market place. This will save us another $13.2 billion by 2015. Trust me, the Democrats will do everything they can to protect these government workers .. after all, this is one of their core voting blocks!

Note, please, that The Community Organizer is currently proposing a 10% wage increase for Federal workers. Well .. what would you expect from someone who thinks America's greatness comes from government.

Amos Umwhat

No doubt we need to cut spending, entitlements, and, well, more spending. Big budget items, too. How we can cut taxes and still pay the bills, I'm not sure, but I think the place to start is with small business taxes, which are prohibitive to growth.

I'm currently reading an interesting book, Shop Class as Soulcraft, by Matthew Crawford. Crawford believes we have lost something in our cooperative society, where no one person (or relatively few) are actually responsible for producing an entire product. Craftsmanship is dying as a result. An interesting point he makes, referring to Toqueville: (paraphrased) Toqueville predicted that Americans would fall victim to "soft despotism" wherein we would become increasingly dependent on a nanny-state government. Crawford takes this a bit further, in that large corporations are guilty of the same "nanny" tendencies. Toqueville believed that the answer to this problem lay in the small business community, entrepreneurism, grass-roots capitalist solutions would essentially prevent the need of state controlled coercion as a remedy, since the people would probably solve most of the problems on their own, given opportunity. Sounds right to me.

Rob1110

I got into a discussion with my cousin the other night about pot and legalization. I don't smoke pot, never have, probably never will. However, I do see the financial prospects that legalization brings through regulation and taxation. People are spending like crazy right now on drugs. Take one that's really, essentially harmless and make it profitable. Regulate the market, tax the market and you're also saving money on chasing those doing wrong in the market. I'm sure there will still be illegal activity as there is in other legal markets (alcohol or anything you can bootleg), but the government will come out as the winner after everything is taxed.

I know this sounds like it has nothing to do with Wayne's post, but it was the idea that the discussion turned to ways in which the government can cut to save or make money.

ellinas

completely retarded. the military is putting their life on the line for this country and this is how they get repayed?

Amos Umwhat

ellinas:
completely retarded. the military is putting their life on the line for this country and this is how they get repayed?

which ties into all this...how?

wwhwang

Amos Umwhat:
ellinas:
completely retarded. the military is putting their life on the line for this country and this is how they get repayed?
which ties into all this...how?

Because the Presidential commission isn't proposing a pay freeze on all government employees. The pay freeze will target every military service member specifically. That's why I'm not happy at all about this proposal. Being enlisted is great if you're single. But if you're married and have a kid or two, you're already below the poverty line unless you have some supplemental pay (which not everyone has). What's even worse is that they're proposing that the pay freeze hit housing allowances as well. If this actually goes forward, military members and their family may end up paying a lot of money out of their own pockets to live where the Department of Defense sends them.

PuroFreak

Amos Umwhat:
ellinas:
completely retarded. the military is putting their life on the line for this country and this is how they get repayed?
which ties into all this...how?

This is kinda what this whole thread is about...

That being said, there needs to be deep cuts across the board! Yes, there does need to be defense spending cuts, but not on the pay of our military members. Maybe stop spending billions of dollars on R&D of things that will NEVER be approved for use? That would be a good place to start!
We need to cut entitlement spending dramatically, and one that I KNOW I will get bashed for but, hey, how about we cut the Dept of Education? We keep throwing more and more money at it but the problem gets worse every year. How about instead of throwing money down that hole we revamp the system, put more control back into the hands of the states, and cut that dept by at least 10-15%?
Then start a voluntary end to Social Security for people who do not want to take part in it? If the program is such a great idea then why not make it voluntary? That would produce long term reductions in spending that would benifit this nation for decades...

There are so many more places we could cut... It just takes some common sense and a lack of the "me me me" mentality...

Jetmech_63

I saw that article in Navy Times the other day. I was offended. Like Wayne sad it is an across the board freeze to Base Pay, Housing Allowance and Subsistence(food) allowances. I have 3 points.

1. Our pay increases arent your typical "raises" per se. And this freeze would extend to retirees paycheks as well who get yearly inflation raises. Housing allowance amouts are dictated by the area you live in. A service member living in san diego will get more than say someone in Tinker Oklahoma. Our "raises" are really in fact inflation raises. As the price of food and housing goes up so does our pay. For a long time through the Clinton and first term bush era's(not a poke, just a fact) Our raises stopped. During second term bush is when they came back at aboutthe rate of 4% a year of base pay. Averaged out over the next 5 years it brought the military back up on par with the current market. Just as housing alowances go up with inflation, they have gone down as well as markets have recovered......so its not completley a one way street. You still get a raise when you get promoted and after every two years of active duty, just as you get longevity and promotion raises on the outsde. Food allowances are the same across the board, seaman to admiral

2. Further offending is the article cited that we already recieve those allowances tax free and should consider that privelege enough. True, our housing and food allowances are not taxed but our base pay, flight deck pay, sea pay, flight pay, submarine pay......well everything else that ends in "pay" is. So if tax money pays for my paycheck, why do i pay taxes on any of it. Jot it down on paper and youll see my confusion. I'm an E-7, ive worked very hard to get where i'm at. I gaurantee none of us do this for the money, because it aint great and we do it for other reasons. However that is no reason for one of my sialors who is married, with 1 kid, wife works, has 1 car payment, lives on base and not beyond his means to have to apply for wic and food stamps just to make ends barely meet. Some do it for college money. Now since they realized they were pumping too much money into the GI Bill/ Tuition Assistance program, Only a certain percentage every month are approved for the benefit.

3. I agree we need to cut our spending. I'm 100% onboard with everything Puro stated above, especialy the Social Security....hell you can keep everything i already paid into it! But before you reach into the pockets of the servicemen and women who work 24 hour days in every climate, every condition, on every sea and in every continent who place themselves in situations so heinous you wouldnt even tell your own children about....it better be your last resort, on not a convienent way to save 14.2 billion over 15 years......not even pocket change compared to the current deficit.

Its hard to not be passionate about this subject. We dont have the "me me me" mentality(just using your example puro), if we were there wouldnt be marines jumping on grenades to save their buddies, or sailors runnning into fires burning around 1000lb bombs to save their ship and shipmates. We dont do it for the money and the money aint great, but this should be the last group of people to have to suffer from their already shallow pockets.

Amos Umwhat

PuroFreak:
Amos Umwhat:
ellinas:
completely retarded. the military is putting their life on the line for this country and this is how they get repayed?
which ties into all this...how?
This is kinda what this whole thread is about...

That being said, there needs to be deep cuts across the board! Yes, there does need to be defense spending cuts, but not on the pay of our military members. Maybe stop spending billions of dollars on R&D of things that will NEVER be approved for use? That would be a good place to start!
We need to cut entitlement spending dramatically, and one that I KNOW I will get bashed for but, hey, how about we cut the Dept of Education? We keep throwing more and more money at it but the problem gets worse every year. How about instead of throwing money down that hole we revamp the system, put more control back into the hands of the states, and cut that dept by at least 10-15%?
Then start a voluntary end to Social Security for people who do not want to take part in it? If the program is such a great idea then why not make it voluntary? That would produce long term reductions in spending that would benifit this nation for decades...

There are so many more places we could cut... It just takes some common sense and a lack of the "me me me" mentality...

doh! my bad, I had picked up at the end, after flipping through several posts, after several malt beverages and a churchill size stogie. thought about this today, and, well, of course! That was where we started!

And on that note, the folks who've pointed out that taking it out on the soldier is not the place to start are absolutely right!