[ftpsoft]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/0...udget-092311w/

Thoughts?

[pertikuss]

Sounds like a good idea to me, thought I'm hesitant to agree with everything. I've always believed that reservists and Guardsmen should outnumber active duty in peacetime. Unless we get an outbreak of WWIII or some other conflict of biblical proportions, then I see no legitimate reason to have so many active duty personnel. What I didn't agree with however, and this is moot now since it was shot down anyway, was closing the Selective Service. That should be in place permanently, in peace or war.

[BenWired306]

Sounds like a good idea... IF we can break our habit of trillion dollar safaris in the Middle East. If you call up reservists to repeatedly serve on deployments, not only are you pissing them off (because their education/career plans get dropped into the trash can) - you're not saving money because reservists get payed per diem while called up on active duty (at least that's how I understand it).

Also, there's a few points that sound like pure speculation and wishful thinking to me:

He also recommends canceling an Army plan to assign soldiers to South Korea on three-year tours accompanied by their families. Shutting down that move would avoid spending billions on family-related construction projects, Coffman said. For starters, isn't putting someone on one 3 year tour in Korea cheaper than putting 3 people on 1 year tours (or whatever the current timeframe is)? Also, I really doubt family housing in Korea is going to cost "billions". I know construction is a gravy train (thanks Cheney), but I don't think its THAT expensive, is it?
Shifting active-duty end strength into the Guard and Reserve would save $90 billion over 10 years. The average total annual cost to have one soldier on active duty is $130,000, compared to $43,000 for a National Guardsman and $37,000 for an Army Reserve soldier, according to a statement from Coffman’s office. As I said above, that's assuming we're not constantly calling up reservists to invade random countries.
Long-term savings would be even greater. Coffman said retirement benefits for Guard and Reserve retirees are about one-third of the cost for benefits of active-duty military retirees, which would “yield billions of dollars in lifetime retirement savings and would ease the burden on the currently strained military retirement system.” That's a pretty big assumption, IMO. The vast majority of Active Duty members get out before the 20 year mark - I don't know the stats, but I'll bet a lot more Reservists stay in for the full 20 years than Active Duty.

His letter to the deficit reduction committee is just his latest suggestion about cutting the budget. Earlier this year, Coffman unsuccessfully called for closing the Selective Service System, which he said is no longer needed. Nickles and dimes. Again, I don't know the stats - but I doubt it costs very much to run a website and a roster of names. Just because we don't need a draft now doesn't mean we won't later.

He also has tried to reduce Defense Department spending on tuition assistance, an issue still open for debate as Congress works on the 2012 military budget. Thanks asshole. So I guess soldiers don't "need" education? How much are YOU getting paid to sit in a chair and cut other people's benefits? Go f___ yourself.

[h4z1XBI7]

Oh man, look at all the hysterical user messages at the bottom of the article. OMG the Taliban is going to take over America if we cut the Army! What a laugh.

[hhynmtrxcp]

I see the logic, you can get just as much utility out of the troopers and pay them allot less not to mention defer their retirement for about 20 years. When I was at 8-12 years AD it may have been a very attractive alternative to get back to the same place a few times. I'm pretty confident I would have considered it.

What they should do is open the flood gates for volunteers into that deal, I'm sure they would meet and exceed their goals without any problems.

[Azzi_Kahlila]

The U.S Army (including Reserves/National Guard) total 1,516,000

The USAF, USN, & USMC combined (including Reserves/National Guard) total 1,139,000

Maybe the U.S. Army could use some leaning down...

[DoctorIrokezov]

The Army has more boats than the Navy and more aircraft than the AF. They need to consolidate forces more, such as helicopter pilot training, why do we have several services with several expensive training facilities? Why not send all helicopter pilots to the same place for initial training like Fort Rucker, resulting in an instant billion dollar savings. The AF already does that but the Navy, MC and CG could also. Specialty skills or airframes could be completed in-house at their home bases and therefore save additional TDY funds if required. That's just one example if you multiply that by all career fields think of the possibilities by not having so much duplication of effort, resources, real estate, personnel etc.. Sadly many of the elected officials would be against that idea solely because it would take some funds out of their state due to consolidation savings but if you want to fix the money issues they just need to be managed a little more responsibly.

[EbrsaRynleot]

I believe there was talk, a few years ago, about a retirement option that would allow people to serve 10 years active duty, and then draw a reduced retirement starting at the age of 60.

Even this would still be a pretty hot deal, seeing as how very few Americans ever retire and draw a pension or annuity before the age of 60 anyway.

IHMO, the one thing that beats a 20-30 year military retirement is doing 10 years active duty; finishing out the rest in the reserves, and getting a federal civilian job. I just finished 11 years active duty in the Navy, I'm in the process of going into the Army National Guard right now; and I have a federal position right now. 11 years active, and got out - am I crazy? Nope - once I retire, I'll get a federal pension that's higher than a 20-year E7 retirement; my reserve retirement - because of my 11 years active duty - will be equal to about two-thirds of what a retired active duty person of the same paygrade would be getting, in addition to my TSP... which the civil service matches dollar-for-dollar if you contribute up to 3%, and then they match fifty cents on the dollar from there up to 5%. Once I retire from civil service, I'll be living on 100% - if not more - of what my final pay will be when I retire.

I think that the big problem with having a majority reserve force would be that it would result in a big hit to our economy if too many workers that employers are relying on are activated; and in addition, many of the reservists wouldn't be of much use if their civilian occupation is not in the same field as their reserve military specialty. You need a majority active force so that deployed reservists can get the proper OJT to carry out the mission.

[Phassetus]

Only about 1% of the US population are in the military it shouldn't hurt private industry too bad.

I think the military retirement is superior to your scenario and here's why:

You start receiving it at around 40 (that's about 20-25 years before that civil service position and about 22 years before that reserve retirement kicks in at a lower rate) for me at my retired rank that's about 825,000.00 if I never get another COLA raise.
You still have to pay into your retirement plan..... how much? I still have all that money too. The military has the TSP as well.

I have the freedom to do anything I want at this point now, for another 20 years.

There's allot of ways at viewing retirement plans and each model doesn't work well for everyone but I would say I have a pretty sweet deal having served 23 years AD and now just traveling abroad.

[Shemker394]

Sounds like a good idea to me, thought I'm hesitant to agree with everything. I've always believed that reservists and Guardsmen should outnumber active duty in peacetime. Unless we get an outbreak of WWIII or some other conflict of biblical proportions, then I see no legitimate reason to have so many active duty personnel. What I didn't agree with however, and this is moot now since it was shot down anyway, was closing the Selective Service. That should be in place permanently, in peace or war.

Except you forget that there are no jobs waiting for these folks in the civilian sector. They will collect their 2 years of unemployment checks and then what?

[Jorcelirl]

IHMO, the one thing that beats a 20-30 year military retirement is doing 10 years active duty; finishing out the rest in the reserves, and getting a federal civilian job. I just finished 11 years active duty in the Navy, I'm in the process of going into the Army National Guard right now; and I have a federal position right now. 11 years active, and got out - am I crazy? Nope - once I retire, I'll get a federal pension that's higher than a 20-year E7 retirement; my reserve retirement - because of my 11 years active duty - will be equal to about two-thirds of what a retired active duty person of the same paygrade would be getting, in addition to my TSP... which the civil service matches dollar-for-dollar if you contribute up to 3%, and then they match fifty cents on the dollar from there up to 5%. Once I retire from civil service, I'll be living on 100% - if not more - of what my final pay will be when I retire.

Only a couple problems with your utopian scenario. You assume that there is a Federal job for everyone that wants one. You think that "your" federal job is safe from the chopping block (you read much?). You don't see the writing on the wall about "modifying" your retirement.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled dream world.

[abubycera]

Except you forget that there are no jobs waiting for these folks in the civilian sector. They will collect their 2 years of unemployment checks and then what?

Wrong. I don't forget. I can't. Or were you not aware that I'm a veteran? As someone whose military job had no civilian equivalent and thus no decent job lined up upon separating not that long ago, I give you my word that I can empathize with those having bleak employment prospects in the private sector. As for what to do after unemployment benefits run out, which weren't available to me for peculiar reasons, I don't have a magic-wand answer if that's what you're looking for; I'll just say that I sucked it up and admitted to myself that life isn't fair and never will be. That's getting off on a slight tangent, though.

All I can say to the general military populace is, try to keep your chin up, and just keep chugging along. I'm using the two GI Bills that I and fellow taxpayers paid for, to open up new windows of opportunity that would've never been open to me otherwise. I'm not finished yet, but I'm close.

[doolarsva]

If you have the right skill set there are plenty of jobs on the civilian side, if not start working on obtaining a marketable skill set or an education level that will produce the results you deserve.

[johnlohanmclee]

Only a couple problems with your utopian scenario. You assume that there is a Federal job for everyone that wants one. You think that "your" federal job is safe from the chopping block (you read much?). You don't see the writing on the wall about "modifying" your retirement.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled dream world.

For one thing, with the downsizing of the military, one thing I can tell you is this - my civil service job is far more secure than my job in the military was; that's for sure. In addition, the specific federal agency for which I work is actually growing. On top of that, because I am now "in the system" - even in the highly unlikely event that my job went to the chopping block, getting another would be far easier than if I simply had "veteran's preference."

You can now return to drinking your Hatorade!

[ArrichMer]

Only about 1% of the US population are in the military it shouldn't hurt private industry too bad.

I think the military retirement is superior to your scenario and here's why:

You start receiving it at around 40 (that's about 20-25 years before that civil service position and about 22 years before that reserve retirement kicks in at a lower rate) for me at my retired rank that's about 825,000.00 if I never get another COLA raise.
You still have to pay into your retirement plan..... how much? I still have all that money too. The military has the TSP as well.

I have the freedom to do anything I want at this point now, for another 20 years.

There's allot of ways at viewing retirement plans and each model doesn't work well for everyone but I would say I have a pretty sweet deal having served 23 years AD and now just traveling abroad.

But here's the problem with military retirement - you CAN'T stay in as long as you want. 30 years, and you're done - and that's only if you reach the highest enlisted or officer paygrade. In the typical case - let's say someone retiring at 20 years as an E6, or even 23 or 24 as an E7 - your military retirement is not going to be enough to live off of. After retiring from the military, you STILL have to work. And you've still got a lot of time before you're eligible to draw social security.

The common argument might be to retire from active duty military after 20 years, then go into civil service. The only problem with that scenario is that if you retire from active duty, you can't count that military service toward your civil service unless you waive your military retired pay and have those 20 years merely used in your calculation of the federal annuity. However, if you DON'T retire from active duty, and then opt to go into the reserves, you can count that active duty time toward both your civil service and reserve retirement, without either affecting the other.

If you actually did the 20 years active and then went ahead and sucked up 30 years of civil service on top of that, assuming that you joined the military at the age of 18 upon graduation from high school (which sure as hell isn't everybody who joins) and IMMEDIATELY landed a civil service job upon retirement from active duty, you wouldn't be fully retired until the age of 68.

I, on the other hand, can still retire at the minimum retirement age (57) as long as my 30 years of service are met by then (which they will be).

Might your full active duty retirement + full 30 year civil service beat out my 11 year active/9 year reserve + 37 year civil service retirement? I doubt it, but if it did for argument's sake; here's the dealbreaker: TSP. Sure, the military has it - but the military doesn't have the matching contributions that I was talking about earlier.

[stutnerman]

Just for clarification, do I agree with this system? No - if I had it my way, military would have the same matching TSP contributions as civilians; and retired active duty personnel wouldn't be required to waive all of their military retired pay in order to count their military service toward civil service retirement.

However, I can't change laws, so I have to go with the system that's currently in place.

[wbondarmunw]

I could have actually went to 37 years AD if I wanted too, did you ever hear about that rule for Warrant Officers? However I chose to retire at 23 for my family and myself that was quite enough. I'm in a position now that I don't have to work elsewhere.... I did for about 5 years but I ended up quitting my j-o-b and moving to Tokyo with my family, we travel the states during the summer months. Like I said everyone is in a slightly different scenario but I am an example of retired at 47 unless I decide to work again I suppose but financially there is no need because of several really good choices I made along the way. I would also say the cost of living here is right up there with most other large expensive cities too.

I'm glad you feel that your journey is the correct one for you but I would submit that it's certainly not the only one and not really the best one for everyone.

It's hard for me to count how many Veterans I have met post AD that have told me that wished they would have stuck it out to retirement just food for thought.

I do have a friend that sort of did what you are doing, it took him several years to get there but he is a GS-15 now.

[Cucoulkrory]

The U.S Army (including Reserves/National Guard) total 1,516,000

The USAF, USN, & USMC combined (including Reserves/National Guard) total 1,139,000

Maybe the U.S. Army could use some leaning down...

This just in.....

The Army is preparing to launch in March a five-year, nearly 50,000-soldier drawdown, using a combination of accession cuts and voluntary and involuntary separations, similar to the post-Cold War drawdown of the 1990s, according to Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, service personnel chief.

[remstaling]

This just in.....

Whats funny is the Army just stood up about 5 more BDE's. Now they're looking at drawing down a ton of people. The Army had a good idea for once and then the budget screwed it up.

[Aaron757]

Let's tale a look at all of these and decide what our reductions could be if we closed but just a small percent of them:

Overseas
List of United States Army installations in Afghanistan
List of United States Army installations in Belgium
List of United States Army installations in Bosnia-Herzegovina
List of joint US-Bulgarian military bases
List of United States Army installations in Germany
List of United States Army installations in Italy
List of United States Army installations in Iraq
List of United States Army installations in Japan
List of United States Army installations in Macedonia
List of United States Army installations in Kosovo
List of United States Army installations in Panama
List of United States Army installations in South Korea
List of United States Army installations in Kuwait
List of United States Army installations in Saudi Arabia
List of United States Army installations in Spain
Pine Gap Satellite Tracking and Joint Forces Military Reservation, Australia
US Marines
Overseas
Afghanistan
Camp Dwyer
Camp Leatherneck
Camp Rhino
FOB Delhi
FOB Delaram
FOB Fiddler's Green
FOB Geronimo
PB Jaker
Germany
Camp Panzer Kaserne, Böblingen
Japan
Marine Corps Base Camp Smedley D. Butler, Okinawa. Note: these camps are dispersed throughout Okinawa, but still under the administration of the MCB complex.
Camp Courtney
Camp Foster
Camp Gonsalves (Jungle Warfare Training Center)
Camp Hansen
Camp Kinser
Camp Lester
Camp McTureous
Camp Schwab
Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa
Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Yamaguchi Prefecture
Camp Fuji, Shizuoka Prefecture
US Navy
Overseas
Bahrain
Naval Support Activity Bahrain
Naval Detachment Dubai
British Indian Ocean Territory
Diego Garcia
Brazil
Sao Paulo, Naval Support Detachment
Cuba
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
Spain
Rota Naval Station
Japan
United States Fleet Activities Yokosuka
United States Fleet Activities Sasebo
Naval Air Facility Atsugi
Naval Forces Japan, Okinawa
Guam
Naval Base Guam
Italy
Naval Support Activity Naples
NCTS Naples
Naval Air Station Sigonella
Naval Support Activity Gaeta
Israel
The Port of Haifa maintains facilities for the United States Sixth Fleet.
Greece
Naval Support Activity Souda Bay, Souda Bay, Crete
South Korea
Commander Fleet Activities Chinhae
United States Air Force
Afghanistan
Bagram Airfield
Shindand Airbase
Kandahar International Airport
Bulgaria
Main article: Bulgarian-American Joint Military Facilities
Bezmer Air Base
Graf Ignatievo Air Base
Germany
Ansbach
NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen, Geilenkirchen
Ramstein Air Base
Spangdahlem Air Base
Greenland
Thule Air Base
Guam
Andersen Air Force Base
Italy
Aviano Air Base
Sigonella Naval Air Station
Camp Darby (Pisa-Livorno)
Japan
Kadena Air Base, Okinawa Prefecture
Misawa Air Base, Misawa, Aomori
Yokota Air Base, Tokyo
Qatar
Al Udeid Air Base
Singapore
Paya Lebar Air Base
South Korea
Kunsan Air Base
Osan Air Base
Kyrgyzstan
Transit Center at Manas
Netherlands
Joint Force Command Brunssum
Portugal
Lajes Field, Azores
Spain
Morón Air Base, Andalusia
Morón de la Frontera, Andalusia
Turkey
Incirlik Air Base
United Kingdom (tenant facilities only)
RAF Lakenheath, Brandon, Suffolk
RAF Menwith Hill, Yorkshire Dales
RAF Mildenhall, Mildenhall
RAF Croughton, Upper Heyford
RAF Alconbury, Cambridgeshire