WHO WE ARE:


The VFW's Capitol Hill blog was recently disabled because of a system-wide problem with Google. In the meantime, we created a temporary blog where veterans and advocates can learn about the VFW's ongoing work on Capitol Hill. The issue has since been resolved. You can once again visit the VFW's Capitol Hill blog at: http://thevfw.blogspot.com

Friday, January 27, 2012

VFW Reacts to Pentagon Budget Priorities


Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta unveiled the Pentagon’s budget priorities this week for fiscal year 2013, reflecting the Administration’s calls for a leaner, more agile force as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. In light of pledges from the Pentagon to ensure that the U.S. military remains a lethal and effective force, VFW leaders voiced their concerns over proposed cuts that could dilute the quality of America’s military and possibly threaten the continued viability of the all-volunteer force.

The Defense Department is expected to request $525 billion as a baseline budget for FY2013, with an additional $88.4 billion for overseas contingencies; $6 billion and $27 billion less, respectively, than FY 2012. Five key strategies for DoD include driving the future military force, which will be smaller and leaner; repositioning with more emphasis on Asia-Pacific and the Middle East; strengthening through better alliances and partnerships; and developing an extremely agile and deadly force, which will be second-to-none in technology and capability.

Some key priorities and choices that could be made over the next five years include:
• To reduce the active Army from 570,000 to 490,000 soldiers, and the active Marine Corps from 202,000 to 182,000.
• To reduce the number of Air Force tactical air squadrons from 60 to 54, but maintain the current bomber fleet, as well as the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers, 10 air wings and big-deck amphibious fleet.
• To fund a new bomber, increase cruise missile capacity in future Virginia-class submarines, and increase investments in cyber capabilities, special operations, homeland missile defense, countering weapons of mass destruction, and projecting power into denied areas.
• To provide service members full pay raises in 2013 and 2014, but begin limiting increases starting in 2015.
• To ask Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the military retirement system, while grandfathering all current retirees and service members into the existing system.
• To recommend increases in healthcare fees, co-pays and deductibles for military retirees using a tiered approach, based on their retired pay, as well as create a TRICARE for Life enrollment fee for retirees age 65 and older. Exempt would be medical retirees and survivors of those who died on active duty.
In response to the announcement, VFW leaders said they continue to be wary of plans to change the current military retirement system and potentially saddle military retirees with higher health care costs.

“We are pleased to continually hear pledges from the White House and Pentagon that retirees and those serving in uniform today will be grandfathered under the old system, but our concern is for tomorrow's recruit,” said VFW Executive Director Bob Wallace. “Asking someone to first donate 20 or more years of their youth in return for the immediate receipt of a modest retirement pay is a contract, which cannot be compared with any civilian occupation or retirement plan. We are concerned, however, that by introducing civilian retirement plans into a military world it has zero in common with, could signal the end of the all-volunteer force. A lot of trial balloons have been floated, so we have to wait for details.”

Traditionally, only eight percent of America’s military men and women serve until retirement age. With already low retention of career service members, the VFW is concerned that too many new proposed incentives for highly-trained and highly-qualified leaders to leave the military early could thin the force to such an extent that the last person standing, not the best qualified, could serve as the next service chief or senior enlisted leader. Plus, too many incentives to leave could also mean a watered down G.I. Bill for veterans.

VFW leaders went on to say that increasing enrollment fees and copayments while reducing services for retirees is a breach of faith with all who choose to serve; a sentiment the VFW has consistently voiced since launching the “10 for 10” campaign against military and veterans’ benefits cuts last summer.

When discussions of an overhaul to the military retirement first surfaced, the VFW polled readers on this blog about their inclinations to serve a full career with watered-down retirement benefits. The results, which can be viewed here, indicated to VFW leaders that such changes would threaten the continued viability of the all-volunteer force by incentivizing the best and brightest to leave early in their military careers.

Your VFW will continue to fight against these proposals, ensuring that America’s military remains strong and sustainable for future generations. Keep posted to this blog for updates.

(Image: Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brief the press on major budget decisions stemming from the defense strategic guidance at the Pentagon, Jan. 26, 2012. DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley.)

Bookmark and Share

8 comments:

  1. Our military, who write blank checks to the government that included up to their lives when they enlist. Should get the same retirement and medical as the ones who decide to send them into a conflict (congress) get. full retirement benefits period end of discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's review Congressmen & Senators retirement and health care plans.

    Gerald J Noll SFC E-7 Retired

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Anonymous, the Congress should give the retirees everything we were promised when we enlisted and gave the best years of our lives to this country. Otherwise, Congress men/women should get the same retirement system that retirees get, i.e. do 20 years in Congress and get only 50% retirement pay. If they are elected out, before 20 years they would not get any retirement pay. Because then they are just citizens like everybody else.

    MSgt E-7 Clyde Swann, USAF

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good points gentlemen thats assuming they as in the majority would themselves sacrifice their securities and well-being in light of the ever growing deficite they and the american people so blatently helped to bring about, which through moral and ethical decline and sin the nation continues to fall. Key points of why I feel our country and Government is suffering is 1) Godlessness and 2) Corrupt political, social, and private practices by an overwhelming amount of citizens and outsiders of the nation. To get back to a values based simple easy does it american way of life. This may seem bleak in the face of so many corrupting influences on our nation. Turning this around CAN happen but when will ALL our people be willing to be that God loving, values dedicated, and couragious minded nation we must be to survive these destructive forces that are sweeping our country today in this new age.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of the major problems is the lack of financial oversight in the Department of Defense Budget. It has been exempt from Audit - the excuse has always been security. But when DOD admits it can't account for billions of dollars, especially the pay to and performance of military contractors, it's time to do the audits and make people responsible. We were accountable for equipment we signed for - the entire system should be the same. And why are we paying contractors to do things we can do for ourselves. I see no proff it's cost-effective. Urge your representatives to push DOD for these things - it should help find a lot of the cash in that DOD Deficit.
    MSG (ret) Sandy Phillips

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem is gentlemen is that these are not servicemen and women, their civilians who THINK they know how the military system works. They make decisions in DC which in most cases have no meaning or direction in military affairs. Give them a rifle or side arm and let them serve a year or so before they open their mouths again. That said, Non of these elected officials give a damn about your service in the first place, it's all lip service. ENOUGH SAID!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Congress members and Senators should NOT have any retirement system. There should be term limits. All representatives should receive only GS-4 or GS-5 pay for the job they perform and receive very basic travel allowances. They spend very little time doing the "peoples" work. Most time is spent taking care of themselves by campaigning for the next election. Whenever a Federal Holiday comes around, they take 2 to 3 weeks off which is more than an American worker or soldier can do. They seek political office and most are wealthy to begin with and those that are not when elected are wealthy when they leave or retire from office. They obtain many perks and are able to do insider trading to grow wealth, something that is illegal for just us citizens. Prior military service should be a requirement for a person seeking political office (waivers could be acquired for perhaps disabled persons).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps, in order to maintain the nation's defense economically, a 'no exception' draft could be the answer, along with doing away with civilian contractors that are performing jobs that the military once did.

    ReplyDelete