Déjà vu, all over again?

For some of the ‘old timers’ who read this blog these defense cuts are nothing new.  We went thru much the same thing after Vietnam (Carter) and after Gulf War I (Bush 1).  Many of the reductions offset growth due to Iraq and Afghanistan.  I’m not suggesting these reductions are necessarily a good thing and certainly the cuts in personnel costs affecting both the Active, Reserve and Retired ‘forces’ will have to be looked at carefully.

For example, in this Stars and Stripes article the statement is made that the ground forces will be reduced to ‘…slightly more than on Sept. 10, 2001, before the wars began.’  I recall very clearly the reductions that took place in the early to mid-90s and much of the agony that those restructurings and changes brought to many.

In my opinion, one of the interesting comments made by SecDef and his senior leaders is that the military today is one that is ‘…seasoned by combat.’  This is certainly true, but like the military that was equally seasoned by combat, particularly the ground forces, in Vietnam, that edge was lost fairly quickly as the junior leaders moved up or moved out to civilian life.  The younger Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and ‘Airpeople’ that came in after combat operations ceased were no longer ‘seasoned’ and while well trained, did not have the experience of real combat that many of us know differs from any training experience.  So, in 5-7 years, the time of this DoD transition, our combat experienced military will be mostly a military of experienced senior officers and NCOs and untested junior officers, NCOs and grunts.  I’m mentioning this principally because, again in my opinion, this “seasoned by combat” rationale does not hold much water for the longer term, unless there’s a future war in the planning.

It is good that the SecDef has said that there will be no reductions in pay or benefits for those currently serving.  Of course that statement means that the DoD (probably) won’t make any such proposals in its budget submissions; it certainly does not mean that the Congress won’t decide to work its will in this area.

These force reductions and possible base closings will mean some sort of reductions in the DoD civilian workforce as well as contractor work forces.  The question not addressed and certainly not answered is…”Where will they work when they leave the military and government employment?”  Or, will the unemployment rolls increase because of these folks having lost their jobs?

Happily, the Veteran’s Groups have already come out of their corners swinging in terms of the possible cuts to benefits for both active and retiree members of the military.  However, I think their argument about finding the savings by cutting waste and fraud does not help them build their case.  This is the same old argument that’s gone on for decades.  In fact, one of the areas that the DoD will be looking at according to the SecDef is a reduction in waste and fraud.  Thus the Veterans Groups need to find another target in order to build their case.  Frankly though, there will be some changes that will be made, Congress will have to bite this bullet.  As the current conflicts get further away on the horizon of history, the ‘need’ to protect the benefits of the military will be placed much higher on the chopping block.  We (you and I dear reader) need to make sure we make enough noise that any such changes that do get looked at seriously are also looked at equitably in terms of other federal beneficiaries.  One of the proposals I read about was the idea of ‘means testing’ healthcare premiums for military retirees.  This is absolutely the worst proposal I’ve ever heard; how many other federal health plans (other than Medicare) means test premiums?  But, even Medicare does it across the board, not for a select subset of federal retiree.

To get a sense of how Congress is viewing this announcement by the SecDef and his Generals, one only needs to read this article from House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. McKeon and the related Press Release.  I strongly encourage you to read both of these items.  We cannot balance the bloated federal budget on the back of our national security.  And, what I’m afraid of, is that many will come out with the position that the ‘savings’ from the DoD reductions should be transferred to other programs designed as ‘giveaways’ with no effective reduction in the federal deficit.  The opening salvo in this particular battle has be sounded by  physician associations.  You can read the letter they’ve sent to Congress HERE (just scroll down and click on “Sign-on letter to Conferees re: SGR Repeal, January 23, 2012.”  It’s a PDF file and should download to your computer.

Great fun in an election year!  Let the battles begin!!

___________________________________________________________________

If you’ve found this update of interest, please share it. If you received this as an email from someone else, you can subscribe for your own copy at: www.ofnetwork.wordpress.com.

Contact the OFMeister at ofnetwork (at) sbcglobal (dot) net with any questions or comments.

Disclaimers

This newsletter and blog is solely for the enjoyment of its readers. There is no warranty or guarantee stated or implied in the content by the author. None of the information contained in this newsletter or on the blog is to be considered as legal or financial advice as the author is neither a lawyer or financial advisor. The author is not liable for any consequences that results from actions taken by the reader relative to the contents of this newsletter or blog. A complete set of disclaimers are available on the website.

*****************End of Transmission*****************