Pentagon budget: top 3 winners and losers

In Pentagon parlance, the word “cut” is a relative term. The Defense Department’s base budget decreases from $553 billion this year to $525 billion in 2013, but it rebounds steadily to $567 billion in 2017. With this in mind, here are the top three winners and losers:

Loser No. 3: future troops

Panetta emphasized that “the most fundamental element of our strategy” is “our people” and that “they, far more than any weapons system, far more than any technology, are the great strength of our United States military.”

That said, US military personnel costs are skyrocketing: When taken together, military pay, health care, and retirement benefits have grown nearly 90 percent since 2001.

The Pentagon’s budget allows for “full pay raises” for troops in 2013 and 2014 that will “keep pace with increases in private-sector pay.” After that, though, “We will achieve some cost savings by providing more limited pay raises beginning in 2015,” Panetta said. “This will give troops and their families fair notice and lead time before these proposed changes take effect.”

Panetta emphasized that “nobody’s pay will be cut.” But there will be more costs to troops in the area of, say, health care. “We decided that to help control the growth of health-care costs, we are recommending increases in health-care fees, co-pays, and deductibles.” This involves only current retirees, since senior military officials have emphasized the need to “keep faith” with the soldiers who have fought two wars in the past decade and have been promised certain benefits.

Current US forces will be grandfathered in, but future troops may be looking at reduced benefits as they begin to enter the US military. Panetta told reporters that he will ask Congress to establish a commission with authority to conduct a comprehensive review of military retirement benefits. It is a review that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates championed as well, as he warned that the current military retirement system – with generous benefits for troops who have served 20 years, for example – all but encourages service members to leave the military after that time.

6 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.