Army "Right Sizing"

[lowflier03]

I think this article puts it in perspective well. http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=569
"In other words, the deal congress has just attempted to make mandatory for everyone has been an option for a dozen years. Most turned down the $30k bonus on the assurance that we would receive full retired pay. In doing so, we acted in reliance on a promise Congress now seeks to break."

And my favorite quote from him. "In this environment, a bird in the hand may be the only one you ever get."

 

[lowflier03]

Words....

While I'm sure there are some smart people in charge, just being smart doesn't solve any problems. Look at the methods the Navy in particular has used to "shape the force" and the shitty contracts we have bought into.

I would argue that part of our problem with the contract and budget issues is that we the military, and military leadership in particular is its own enemy. We have no concept of public relations, or a unified voice when it comes to fighting off getting shafted. We let the media destroy public perception of us, we walk piecemeal into acquisitions processes that bankrupt us and hamstring the development of necessary equipment.

How about all the service leaders sit down together, discuss the problems and work together for a solution? Then we have a unified voice to go to SecDef and Congress to argue what the problem is as we see it, and what our collective response should be. (As absurd as the comparison is, even the heads of Detroit auto companies realized they were in the shit, and all sat down in a car together and drove to Washington to come up with a way forward. How is it that in a "Joint" world, the Service Chiefs can't do the same?)

Everyone here can point to that useless civilian government employee pulling in 6 figures, that can't be fired, or some overbudget, behind timeline new piece of gear that we really dont need anymore, but are stuck buying.

Instead just look at the response to this proposed retirement cut. The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Service Chiefs have been suspiciously absent from any discussion on the matter.

 

[robav8r]

The comments I am hearing the most on the interwebs lately is: "had I known this was coming, I would have made different decisions before taking that next set of sea duty orders, overseas orders, geobachelor orders, etc." I suspect we will see an increase of those choosing to vote with their feet earlier, rather than later.

 

[picklesuit]

How about all the service leaders sit down together, discuss the problems and work together for a solution? Then we have a unified voice to go to SecDef and Congress to argue what the problem is as we see it, and what our collective response should be. (As absurd as the comparison is, even the heads of Detroit auto companies realized they were in the shit, and all sat down in a car together and drove to Washington to come up with a way forward. How is it that in a "Joint" world, the Service Chiefs can't do the same?)

Everyone here can point to that useless civilian government employee pulling in 6 figures, that can't be fired, or some overbudget, behind timeline new piece of gear that we really dont need anymore, but are stuck buying.

Instead just look at the response to this proposed retirement cut. The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Service Chiefs have been suspiciously absent from any discussion on the matter.

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/DefenseBudgetPrioritiesChoicesFiscalYear2014.pdf

They did, they suggested this and asked for the reductions in end force (except Navy) as well as trimming the "unsustainable costs of military personnel."

A good read if you want to see where priorities are for the budget.

Pickle

 

[Renegade One]

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/DefenseBudgetPrioritiesChoicesFiscalYear2014.pdf

They did, they suggested this and asked for the reductions in end force (except Navy) as well as trimming the "unsustainable costs of military personnel."

A good read if you want to see where priorities are for the budget.

Pickle

You had me at "except Navy". Tells me where the priorities may be…

"The Department’s new strategy calls for the U.S. military to be engaged globally to build partnerships and deter adversaries. It will be increasingly difficult to respond to a crisis if forces are not already in the vicinity. This puts a premium on presence.

The Navy provides global stabilizing presence by deploying naval forces to build relations with partner nations, demonstrate commitment to allies, deter potentially aggressive adversaries, counter terrorism, conduct humanitarian and disaster relief operations, and immediately project power in the event of war."

"Virtual presence" = "actual absence".

 

[HercDriver]

I think this article puts it in perspective well. http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=569
"In other words, the deal congress has just attempted to make mandatory for everyone has been an option for a dozen years. Most turned down the $30k bonus on the assurance that we would receive full retired pay. In doing so, we acted in reliance on a promise Congress now seeks to break."

And my favorite quote from him. "In this environment, a bird in the hand may be the only one you ever get."

The author doesn't cover that the $30K bonus will get you 40% of base pay, vice 50%, and makes it seem like the 1% COLA adjustment is the only thing affected by accepting the $30K.

 

[Pags]

The comments I am hearing the most on the interwebs lately is: "had I known this was coming, I would have made different decisions before taking that next set of sea duty orders, overseas orders, geobachelor orders, etc." I suspect we will see an increase of those choosing to vote with their feet earlier, rather than later.

I'm surprised to see it happen to existing retirees. Most, myself included, seemed to think that there would've been a grandfather clause. That said, I think there's som value to a 401k type retirement that allows those who don't reach 20 to still have garnered something.

@lowflier, I'd be curious to hear what your solution for acquisitions is. Having spent a few years getting a glimpse behind that curtain I can tell you that it's a challenging beast for the SYSCOMs, OPNAV, COCOMs, and other players to make happen. There are plenty of ways to get needed gear to the fleet, but after many posts of you despairing every acquisition program you seem to confuse the needs of lowflier with the needs of the Navy.

 

[Spekkio]

How about all the service leaders sit down together, discuss the problems and work together for a solution? Then we have a unified voice to go to SecDef and Congress to argue what the problem is as we see it, and what our collective response should be. (As absurd as the comparison is, even the heads of Detroit auto companies realized they were in the shit, and all sat down in a car together and drove to Washington to come up with a way forward. How is it that in a "Joint" world, the Service Chiefs can't do the same?)

How do you know that they haven't? Do you tell your subordinates every time a superior disagrees with a policy or direction you want to take?

I think we're privy to like 0.01% of conversations that happen between closed doors, and there are dozens if not hundreds of documented examples in the second half of the 20th century where military leadership was told to shut up and color by civilian officials when they disagreed with a policy objective. I'm not saying military leadership is perfect, but they're in a tough position and no one really has the unilateral authority to change any of it. As a good Marine once told me, when more than one person is responsible, then no one is responsible. So when you have 535 people authorize a budget with the input of dozens of flag and general officers along with cabinet members...yep.

"had I known this was coming, I would have made different decisions before taking that next set of sea duty orders, overseas orders, geobachelor orders, etc." I suspect we will see an increase of those choosing to vote with their feet earlier, rather than later.

I will preface this by saying I think there ought to have been a grandfather provision.

However, one is making a very misguided decision if he's relying on a benefit to be exactly as it is now 10-15 years from now, and you've got to try real hard to not know that the federal government has been having budget issues and is looking to cut costs. I would also say one's heart is in the wrong place if a 1% cut to CPI increases is making or breaking the decision to commit to more service. In that same vein, someone who will walk away at the 12-19 year mark because he's pissed about a 1% cut to his retirement CPI increases is highly beneficial to the government's objective of cutting retirement costs.

 

[Brett327]

How about all the service leaders sit down together, discuss the problems and work together for a solution?

Unfortunately, that kind of consensus is hard to come by in the Tank. Service parochial interests will always trump the kind of cooperation when there is competition for resources. Times of drawdown and leaner budgets make this problem worse, not better.

 

[jmcquate]

Unfortunately, that kind of consensus is hard to come by in the Tank. Service parochial interests will always trump the kind of cooperation when there is competition for resources. Times of drawdown and leaner budgets make this problem worse, not better.

Self preservation is priority one for all bureaucracies. It will trump doing the right thing every time.

 

[lowflier03]

@lowflier, I'd be curious to hear what your solution for acquisitions is. Having spent a few years getting a glimpse behind that curtain I can tell you that it's a challenging beast for the SYSCOMs, OPNAV, COCOMs, and other players to make happen. There are plenty of ways to get needed gear to the fleet, but after many posts of you despairing every acquisition program you seem to confuse the needs of lowflier with the needs of the Navy.

See my PM, I have a decent amount of experience with this process, even have that stupid fkn flowchart around here somewhere still. I have yet to meet anyone who actually supports this process after they see the true extent of the mess. I could spend all day listing examples of fucked up programs (on behalf of all the services) that have come out if it. Not saying I have the perfect solution, but I know some smart guys who do this kind of analysis and I'm sure they, and people like them, have offered up ideas, only to be lost to the machine.

I would also say one's heart is in the wrong place if a 1% cut to CPI increases is making or breaking the decision to commit to more service. In that same vein, someone who will walk away at the 12-19 year mark because he's pissed about a 1% cut to his retirement CPI increases is highly beneficial to the government's objective of cutting retirement costs.

That 1% adds up to quite a bit in the long haul. ie 20% cut by the time you hit 62. And as has been said here before, its not the 1% that is the only problem. You add up all the issues that have been piling up for service members over the past 10+ years and this can easily be the final straw. If 20+ years of broken body, home, and mind aren't enough to warrant keeping the faith with retirees, then why not say screw the military as a whole. Dump the services, contract everything out to Blackwater/XE/etc. At least there you get adequate compensation up front knowing you better have your own retirement plan.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I hope each and every one of you are taking the opportunity to write/call your respective elected officials:

Ma'am, Do you intend to address any of the tens of thousands of active and retired military members in your state with respect to the budget deal you will presumably vote for this week?

I personally will not cast a vote for you again; however, you may find it useful to explain your position and vote to the countless other affected individuals who may still not understand exactly what this legislation means to them. They may not understand that you voted for a plan that takes money from the pockets of military retirees to affect $6 billion of savings for a national debt in excess of $17 trillion. If you do that math, it comes out to %.03. Is this really the best, and only method to affect those minuscule savings?

Please take an opportunity to visit and address the countless service members who continue to serve while their nation violates a vital covenant. If you find the time to make these appearances, I respectfully request that you let these uniformed voters know whether or not the COLA adjustment will affect retired Congressmen and Senators.

Thank you for your consideration,

Xxxx Xxxxxx
Anacortes, WA

 

[Spekkio]

That 1% adds up to quite a bit in the long haul. ie 20% cut by the time you hit 62. And as has been said here before, its not the 1% that is the only problem. You add up all the issues that have been piling up for service members over the past 10+ years and this can easily be the final straw. If 20+ years of broken body, home, and mind aren't enough to warrant keeping the faith with retirees, then why not say screw the military as a whole. Dump the services, contract everything out to Blackwater/XE/etc. At least there you get adequate compensation up front knowing you better have your own retirement plan.

I don't follow the leap from cutting CPI increases by 1% to disbanding the military.

As for the past 10 years, let's not forget that military personnel compensation has doubled during that period, with an average 3.5%/year increase in AD compensation. Retiree spending is 1/5 of the personnel budget and growing. Five to ten years from now, when OEF and OIF are in the rearview mirror and a generation who never knew the old NYC skyline grows up, John Q. Public is going to want to know why servicemembers get free healthcare, free college, free housing, and 50% pay as retirement (I know it only amounts to about 25-33% of total compensation but they don't) as early as 38 when they are paying $500+/mo for 'affordable care', had to pay for their own college, have to pay their own rent/mortgage, and have to contribute to their own 401k. "Because they're fighting the GWOT" is not going to fly and the world's smallest violin will play for someone who voluntarily signs a contract for which he is paid and then complains about moving/stress/danger/whatever.

I just think that the writing is on the wall until the next war. I don't like it, but we need a better argument than 'we did what we signed up to do for 20 years, so we deserve to be paid to no longer do it for 40 years after we stop.'

 

[robav8r]

I don't follow the leap from cutting CPI increases by 1% to disbanding the military.

As for the past 10 years, let's not forget that military personnel compensation has doubled during that period, with an average 3.5%/year increase in AD compensation. Retiree spending is 1/5 of the personnel budget and growing. Five to ten years from now, when OEF and OIF are in the rearview mirror and a generation who never knew the old NYC skyline grows up, John Q. Public is going to want to know why servicemembers get free healthcare, free college, free housing, and 50% pay as retirement (I know it only amounts to about 25-33% of total compensation but they don't) as early as 38 when they are paying $500+/mo for 'affordable care', had to pay for their own college, have to pay their own rent/mortgage, and have to contribute to their own 401k. "Because they're fighting the GWOT" is not going to fly and the world's smallest violin will play for someone who voluntarily signs a contract for which he is paid and then complains about moving/stress/danger/whatever.

I just think that the writing is on the wall until the next war. I don't like it, but we need a better argument than 'we did what we signed up to do, so we deserve to be paid to no longer do it for 40 years after we stop doing it.'

Dude - you scare me. I think many in uniform view this as the "first crack in the dam" so to speak. Many people, both within and outsde of uniformed service are going to watch this very carefully. My worst fear is that this will be the beginning of further cuts (and more broken promises) to come. A "leap to disbanding the military?" I am deployed in 5th Fleet now and the roar from family members to service members on "what's coming next" and "why should we stay" is getting louder. I guess we'll see how the whole retention thing plays out. But you're right, the writing is on the wall . . . . .

 

[Spekkio]

I'm not the one you need to be scared of. You need to be scared of the 95%+ of US population who has never served a day in the military and has no concept of what people in the military actually do. They will have no idea why we even collect a paycheck let alone get a compensation package that is relatively generous to what one can make in the private sector, and as OEF and OIF get put in the past the whole "But servicemembers put their lives on the line everyday!" thing is going to go away as a reason they will buy. And you can't ignore them because they vote.

As for what to tell those families: good news: 5% aggregate increase to BAH next year.
Bad news: They're considering cutting it 20% for 2015.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articl...tes-up-5-percent-2014-program-changes-horizon