Putting Military Pay on the Table - New York Times Editorial.
Big-ticket weapons like aircraft carriers and the F-35 fighter jet have to be part of any conversation about cutting Pentagon spending to satisfy the mandatory budget reductions known as the sequester. But compensation for military personnel has to be on the table, too —-even though no other defense issue is more politically volatile or emotionally fraught.
After a decade of war, the very idea of cutting benefits to soldiers, sailors and Marines who put their lives on the line seems ungrateful. But America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is over or winding down, and the Pentagon is obliged to find nearly $1 trillion in savings over 10 years. Tough choices will be required in all parts of the budget. Compensation includes pay, retirement benefits, health care and housing allowances. It consumes about half the military budget, and it is increasing…
Comments
Just one more negative side effect of opting for a containment strategy for dealing with the post WWII world. Standing, war fighting militaries are expensive; non-drafted militaries are doubly so. Then there are the costs associated with the half-dozen "conflicts of choice" we got into largely because we had the ready capacity on hand to do so.
Cutting pay or retirements is insanely symptomatic and shifts focus from the real problem: Our lack of an effective strategy for how to be the US in the world we actually live in, and our military being far too large and poorly prioritized.
Military Pay is a big topic and big bited can choke an elephant. For a smaller bite let's look at just military retirements with "A Framework for Restucturing the Military Retirement System". It is loacted here:
https://publicportal.carlisle.army.mil/sites/mobile/Pages/Discourse.aspx