This one came over the transom a couple of hours ago… and it’s NOT pretty…
This was a continuation of the effort begun in 2010, which identified more than $150 billion in savings over five years allocated among the three military departments, the defense agencies, combatant commands, and the Secretary’s staff. This left less room for additional reductions to meet the new target of $259 billion over FY13-‐17. Nonetheless, we did find about $60 billion in new projected savings over FY13-‐17. Examples include:
More skillful contracting practices to increase competition, reduce costs, and increase buying power (But workforce is being cut)
Better use of information technology (currently at least 2 years behind on the upgrades)
Better use of business and enterprise systems (not working real well)
Streamlined staff (less people doing the work)
Limitations on official travel (for those who actually DO the work)
Better inventory management (yeah, right)
Reductions in contract services (even fewer people to do the work)
Deferral of some military construction to align our facilities more closely with the size and posture of our future force (Can you say BRAC- again!)
Reductions in planned civilian pay raises (Yeah, like THAT is going to bring the best and brightest into Government…)
Other excerpts…
To ensure sufficient resources to protect these strategic priorities, we will reduce the number of ships by slowing the pace of building new ships and by accelerating the retirement of some existing ships. These include:
Retiring 7 cruisers early .. 6 did not have ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability, and the seventh with BMD capability is in need of costly hull repairs. (but we’re already short handed to meet commitments; so plan on even longer deployments)
Slipping a large deck amphibious ship (LHA) by 1 year (Plan on even longer deployments)
Slipping 1 new Virginia class submarine outside the FYDP (Plan on even longer deployments)
Reducing Littoral Combat Ships by 2 ships in the FYDP (Plan on even longer deployments)
Reducing Joint High Speed Vessels by 8 in the FYDP (Plan on even longer deployments and slower transits)
Retiring 2 smaller amphibious ships (LSD) early and moving their replacement outside the FYDP (Plan on even longer deployments)
With respect to tactical air forces, we concluded that DoD could, at minimal risk, disestablish six Air Force tactical--air fighter squadrons (out of 60) and one training squadron. As we reduce air force structure, we are protecting aircraft with multi--role capabilities versus niche capabilities. The resultant force will be capable of handling our most demanding contingency plans including homeland defense. (But they will get to spend billions on a new bomber)
Now ‘here’ is where it gets good…
We will continue to invest in our responsibilities to the NATO alliance. We will adjust the posture of land forces in Europe in concert with overall Army transformation including eliminating two heavy brigades forward–]stationed there. DoD will nevertheless maintain NATO Article 5 commitments and ensure interoperability with allied forces by allocating a U.S. based brigade to the NATO Response Force and by rotating U.S. based units to Europe for training and exercises. We will also forward station ballistic missile defense ships in Rota, Spain. (Plan on even longer deployments, and we have to re-open that base)
Another one…
Under the new strategic guidance, we will maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. This budget protects all three legs of the Triad .. bombers that provide both conventional and nuclear deterrence, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and ballistic
missile submarines. To this end, we are committed to the procurement of a new bomber.
Bold/underline are mine… Gonna buy new bombers, but push the new SSBN out even further, qualifies as a below average on headwork… It takes 20 years to get a new submarine or large ship through development/design/build; and we “cannot” extend SSBNs beyond their hard life stops due to safety concerns…
However, we will delay the new Ohio submarine replacement by two years without undermining our partnership with the UK. While this delay will create challenges in maintaining current at--sea presence requirements in the 2030s, we believe this risk can be managed. An ongoing White House review of nuclear deterrence will address the potential for maintaining our deterrent with a different nuclear force.
Now remember how we are going to ‘maintain’ all our NATO committments, etc. above, right???
In this budget, we plan to reduce the size of the active Army from a post-‐9/11 peak of about 570,000 in 2010 to 490,000 and the active
Marine Corps from a peak of about 202,000 to 182,000. The Army plans to remove at least eight Brigade Combat Teams from its existing structure; however, the future organizing construct of the Army is under review. Even with these reductions, the Army and Marine Corps will be larger than they were in 2001.
While the U.S. does not anticipate engaging in prolonged, large-‐scale stability operations requiring a large rotation force in the near-‐ to mid-‐term, we cannot rule out the possibility.
(But there is a major shift to Asia/Pacific/China/N. Korea in a major response posture)
If such a campaign were to occur, we would respond by mobilizing the Reserve Component and, over time, regenerating Active Component end strength. Additionally, even as troop strength draws down, the Army, Marine Corps, and U.S. Special Operations Command will preserve expertise in security force assistance and counterinsurgency training.
Yeah, hey NG and Reserves, don’t get to comfortable at home, you’re gonna be living on the road…
And lastly… One more hit…
Military Pay. Instead of reducing military pay, we created sufficient room to allow full pay raises in 2013 and 2014 to keep pace with increases in private sector pay. We will achieve some cost savings by providing more limited pay raises beginning in 2015. This will give troops and their families fair notice and lead time before these proposed changes take effect. We will, therefore, achieve some savings in the later years to invest in force structure and modernization. Despite this change, military personnel will see their pay check increase every year across the FYDP.
Health Care. Military health care has seen rapid growth relative to the rest of the defense budget. Most of the changes made in this budget will not affect active duty personnel or their families. We are also exempting medically retired and survivors of those who died on active duty from all health care changes. Those most affected will be working-‐age retirees under the age of 65 still likely to be employed in the civilian sector. These proposed changes include:
Further increasing and adding new enrollment fees for retirees under age 65 in the TRICARE program, using a tiered approach based on retired pay that requires senior-‐ grade retirees to pay more and junior-‐grade retirees less; the resulting fees remain below comparable civilian equivalents
Establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE-‐for-‐Life program for retirees 65 and older, again using a tiered approach; the resulting fees will be well below comparable civilian equivalents
Implementing additional increases in pharmacy co-‐pays in a manner that increases incentives for use of generics and mail order
Retirement. We will ask the Congress to establish a commission with BRAC-‐like authority to conduct a comprehensive review of military retirement in the context of total military compensation. The goal of the commission would be to recommend changes in order to meet the personnel needs of the DoD in a cost effective manner. DoD strongly supports protecting the retirement benefits of those who currently serve by grandfathering their benefits. Any reforms should only affect future recruits.
I will now stop bitching and go back to my corner, but I’d like to leave you with this thought…
Have we heard the first thing about cuts in Entitlement Programs???
