Military downsizing?

[Carrikature]

Here's the breakdown of the Defense budget from 1962 to present. Veterans' benefits are not included, since they are technically not part of Defense spending and are located elsewhere on the budget (but account for 3.5% of the total):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]334[/ATTACH]

Attachment doesn't work.

[Sam]

Attachment doesn't work.

Clicking through worked for me but here's the source article from Wonkblog. Referenced chart is under Heading 3).

[Carrikature]

Clicking through worked for me but here's the source article from Wonkblog. Referenced chart is under Heading 3).

Thanks.

[Bill the Cat]

I have a hard time understanding how this is relevant.

If it were your head on the chopping block, like mine is, then it'd be relevant, I can assure you.

If we approach our economy with the focus of ensuring jobs for as many people as possible, we'd be better off letting the government hire everybody.

It's not about ensuring jobs for as many people as possible. It is constructively reducing the force through attrition and smarter early retirement. What is being planned is a swift axe to a large group of people.

[Spartacus]

If it were your head on the chopping block, like mine is, then it'd be relevant, I can assure you.



It's not about ensuring jobs for as many people as possible. It is constructively reducing the force through attrition and smarter early retirement. What is being planned is a swift axe to a large group of people.

What is the difference between paying people to do something useless (contracts) and paying them to do nothing in particular (welfare)?

[seanD]

Isn't the gross misallocation of Pentagon funds the 1000 pound gorilla in the room? How could you think about cutting defense spending when trillions in spending is unaccounted for since the 90s?

[Carrikature]

If it were your head on the chopping block, like mine is, then it'd be relevant, I can assure you.

I wouldn't be so sure. I don't approach these things from a personal point of view. I don't vote a certain way because of how it affects my job prospects. Every decision, every policy affects jobs. My job is pretty tightly tied to the economy, though in a different way. Sometimes right decisions are going to hurt, and they may hurt me personally. That doesn't make them wrong decisions. There are a lot of policies I would recommend that would be very likely to hurt me, but I still consider them important and necessary.

It's not about ensuring jobs for as many people as possible. It is constructively reducing the force through attrition and smarter early retirement. What is being planned is a swift axe to a large group of people.

Then show how a swift axe is somehow incompatible with constructively reducing the force. While I support the idea, attrition and earlier retirement are long-term actions that aren't likely to significantly affect today's goals. It's not an either/or.

What is the difference between paying people to do something useless (contracts) and paying them to do nothing in particular (welfare)?

Precisely.

[Darth Executor]

I know. And take a chunk of money out of the economy. But if it doesn't serve an actual military purpose, why are we doing it as part of the military? Why take the people's money through the government, instead of leaving it with the job creators?

The job creators are doing their best to create jobs elsewhere.

[Spartacus]

The job creators are doing their best to create jobs elsewhere.

That's not how I'd phrase it; I suspect that the motivation of many people whom you identify as job creators are more immediately concerned with their own welfare than with the welfare of their current or potential employees. That's not to say that they never take it into account, but that economic self-interest most often takes precedence.

[Bill the Cat]

What is the difference between paying people to do something useless (contracts) and paying them to do nothing in particular (welfare)?

I'm a contractor. I can guarantee you that what I do is not useless. Are you suggesting otherwise?

[Spartacus]

I'm a contractor. I can guarantee you that what I do is not useless. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm just going based on what other people have said on this thread. Even if it's not totally useless, it's not the best use of public funds. We don't need to spend nearly so much as we do on defense spending.

Even that aside, a single mother who is collecting welfare to raise her child(ren) is even further from useless.

[Carrikature]

I'm a contractor. I can guarantee you that what I do is not useless. Are you suggesting otherwise?

If what you do is not useless, how exactly is your head on the chopping block? The major cuts are in active duty personnel, freezes to military pay, and housing costs. Retasking and retirement of aircraft is another big area. Hagel already addressed reformatting civilian personnel, and specifically said that the focus will be on employee compensation instead.

[Bill the Cat]

I wouldn't be so sure. I don't approach these things from a personal point of view. I don't vote a certain way because of how it affects my job prospects. Every decision, every policy affects jobs. My job is pretty tightly tied to the economy, though in a different way. Sometimes right decisions are going to hurt, and they may hurt me personally. That doesn't make them wrong decisions. There are a lot of policies I would recommend that would be very likely to hurt me, but I still consider them important and necessary.

There are a number of ways to accomplish what needs to be done. What is being suggested is not the right way.

Then show how a swift axe is somehow incompatible with constructively reducing the force.

Where will those who get the axe go for a job? Competition for existing jobs that will meet a family's requirements is pretty stiff right now.

While I support the idea, attrition and earlier retirement are long-term actions that aren't likely to significantly affect today's goals. It's not an either/or.

Early retirement worked pretty well in Clinton's reign. And the sheer number that are close to eligible makes it a pretty attractive short-term solution. By 2016, more than a third of the federal workforce will be eligible to retire, according to the Government Accountability Office.

[Bill the Cat]

If what you do is not useless, how exactly is your head on the chopping block? The major cuts are in active duty personnel, freezes to military pay, and housing costs. Retasking and retirement of aircraft is another big area. Hagel already addressed reformatting civilian personnel, and specifically said that the focus will be on employee compensation instead.

There is a certain amount of discretion by the Army to eliminate contracts. Since I work in IT, which is not revenue-generating, I am an easy target.

[Carrikature]

There are a number of ways to accomplish what needs to be done. What is being suggested is not the right way.

I doubt there's any such thing as the right way, and I rather doubt Hagel and his staff haven't considered these other ways.

Where will those who get the axe go for a job? Competition for existing jobs that will meet a family's requirements is pretty stiff right now.

There are two parts to this. In the first place, worrying about where those who will need jobs will find them is beyond Hagel's (or anybody's) ability to accommodate. Second, the issue of available jobs is one that's much bigger than any cuts the DoD may be making. There's an extreme disconnect between personnel training, economic/industrial needs, and work force availability. We simply don't need as many people working, and the ones that are needed have the wrong training. That's true across the board, and it's one (of many) reasons that jobs are such a problem. Even so, both of these reasons are why I made the comment that cutting thousands of jobs isn't terribly relevant. One way or another, there will be personnel cuts. That's unavoidable.

Early retirement worked pretty well in Clinton's reign. And the sheer number that are close to eligible makes it a pretty attractive short-term solution. By 2016, more than a third of the federal workforce will be eligible to retire, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Eligibility to retire is not the same as being able to afford retirement. You're not just talking about pushing early retirement, but about cutting the retirement benefits that they've been counting on. If it's truly a good quick fix, I'd be all for it. I doubt it's as simple as that. For that matter, you're trading unemployment for increased costs in social welfare (medical, for example).

There is a certain amount of discretion by the Army to eliminate contracts. Since I work in IT, which is not revenue-generating, I am an easy target.

This isn't new, though. What's been announced is partially budget cuts but more reduction of overhead costs. By your own admission, what you do is not useless. IT might be considered an easy target by some, but how realistic is that really? Those needs will be increasing, if anything.