HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Panetta to recommend pay ...

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:51 PM

Panetta to recommend pay cut for military

Source: CNN

Just days before he leaves office, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is recommending military pay be limited, effectively decreasing troop salaries next year.

Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a 1% increase in 2014. The Pentagon has calculated that the Labor Department's 2014 Employment Cost Index is expected to be above 1% but wants to still cut back on pay because of "budget uncertainties," a department official told CNN. In 2013, a 1.7% increase was approved, based on the index, which has been the basis for military pay for the last several years.

.......

The recommendation is tied to the Defense Department's 2014 budget recommendation, which was expected to be sent to Congress this month, one of the officials said. But the officials acknowledge it is going to be seen as an effort to push Congress to stop the automatic budget cuts that could go into effect if no deal is reached on spending reductions.

The decision comes as the secretary is stepping up the rhetoric about dire cuts at the Pentagon if sequestration goes into effect. President Obama in 2012 walled off military pay from cuts, so if this current pay plan goes into effect, it's widely seen as "cutting our pay," one military officer familiar with the plan told CNN. "It's a smart move, it puts it in Congress' hands," he said.

Read more: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/06/first-on-cnn-panetta-to-recommend-pay-cut-for-military/?hpt=hp_t1

53 replies, 4579 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Panetta to recommend pay cut for military (Original post)
Redfairen Feb 2013 OP
MADem Feb 2013 #1
actslikeacarrot Feb 2013 #32
robinlynne Feb 2013 #2
littlewolf Feb 2013 #6
Hosnon Feb 2013 #14
rwt1960 Feb 2013 #29
1983law Feb 2013 #43
atreides1 Feb 2013 #24
Joe Bacon Feb 2013 #21
CreekDog Feb 2013 #22
Squinch Feb 2013 #51
AllyCat Feb 2013 #3
justabob Feb 2013 #4
littlewolf Feb 2013 #7
justabob Feb 2013 #8
timdog44 Feb 2013 #50
earthside Feb 2013 #5
nicky187 Feb 2013 #39
earthside Feb 2013 #41
judesedit Feb 2013 #9
Carnage251 Feb 2013 #20
all american girl Feb 2013 #25
MADem Feb 2013 #34
nicky187 Feb 2013 #40
Carnage251 Feb 2013 #42
marybourg Feb 2013 #37
James48 Feb 2013 #10
NMDemDist2 Feb 2013 #27
zipplewrath Feb 2013 #31
Kolesar Feb 2013 #36
pinboy3niner Feb 2013 #44
gussmith Feb 2013 #11
NutmegYankee Feb 2013 #38
mwrguy Feb 2013 #12
Scalded Nun Feb 2013 #13
Mnemosyne Feb 2013 #15
Myrina Feb 2013 #17
Mnemosyne Feb 2013 #18
libdem4life Feb 2013 #16
Mnemosyne Feb 2013 #19
nineteen50 Feb 2013 #46
Mnemosyne Feb 2013 #47
RedstDem Feb 2013 #23
Deep13 Feb 2013 #26
forestpath Feb 2013 #28
babylonsister Feb 2013 #30
actslikeacarrot Feb 2013 #33
Crowman1979 Feb 2013 #35
Scuba Feb 2013 #45
Ash_F Feb 2013 #48
Third Doctor Feb 2013 #49
FiveGoodMen Feb 2013 #52
Ian Iam Feb 2013 #53

Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:01 PM

1. That is a force shaping technique--lower the salaries (in effect) and attrition increases.

When they add in increased adherence to physical readiness standards, tougher tests for promotion in an "up or out" environment, more rigorous and frequent drug testing, increased uniform inspections and well, more general "pissiness" in the way that regulations are applied, it makes the Services less attractive and encourages personnel to leave on their own rather than being TERA'd or outright given the boot. It often happens as a transition to a peacetime environment comes to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:54 PM

32. Correct.

...saw this first hand in the Navy. When they introduced PTS (perform to serve) I saw the writing on the wall and started getting my ducks in a row for transitioning to civilian life. Supposedly there is an algorithm in a computer somewhere that they plug all your info in and the computer spits out an "approved pts" or a "denied pts." Would love to see the program that makes those decisions.


It happens after every war, my uncle told me to watch out for it (vietnam vet).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:04 PM

2. government employees have pay increases? 1.7% last year?

why/ how? I understand people wanting cost of living increases, but the rest of us have been taking repeated pay cuts for years!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:11 PM

6. not sure what Gov't employees get

the military got 1.7%. you can leave your job if you don't like the pay cuts
the military can't.

and of course you have to leave your family for 6 months (in case of a navy deployent) or a couple of years (in case of a USMC or Army deployment.)

never mind the dangers.
if it is so good, join.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlewolf (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:33 PM

14. It's voluntary and they can know that going in.

Budgets are reality-based. If the money isn't there, neither is the raise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hosnon (Reply #14)


Response to Hosnon (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:43 AM

43. Bwahahaha.

 

Wait, you were serious about federal budgets being reality based? But i agree with the rest of your post--just as long as those that are supposed to get raises eventually do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlewolf (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:41 PM

24. Civilian Employees have had their pay frozen for the last two years

The only exceptions have been for merit pay or step increases...and merit pay has been going to those who already make high 5 or 6 figures.

Word is that the pay increase that president Obama signed for federal civilian employees will not pass Congress...so it'll be at least another 2 years of a pay freeze.

It's funny, paychecks are either stagnant or falling...but prices are always increasing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:22 PM

21. My pay has been FROZEN for the past couple years

I'm a Federal employee. my pay hasn't just been frozen, it's gone down because my health insurance has gone way up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:23 PM

22. I don't think Gov. employees have gotten a raise in 2 or 3 years

I don't think Military pay should be cut. I don't think the wages or salaries of working, middle class people should be cut, they should be increased until our middle class stops shrinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:09 PM

51. 5 years for me (city payroll.) But I agree, don't cut the military pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:07 PM

3. No, no, no, no, no!

This is not how you reduce the expenses of the Dept of Offense. Stop the gazilliion dollar wars for the marketplace and building dumb weapons that have no legitimate (even by the military's standards) use. Leave the people who have sacrificed everything for their families and country alone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:08 PM

4. how much will that save?

Really.... soldiers don't make that much money as it is. It seems to me that canceling the order for ONE jet would save more money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justabob (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:13 PM

7. agreed, the congress saddles the military

with weapon systems the military doesn't even WANT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlewolf (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:16 PM

8. right

It is crazy and incredibly frustrating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justabob (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:01 PM

50. Agreed.

I just had an argument with my uncle over taxes. He always sends me stuff about military jets and ships, etc. So I did a Wiki peak ata what the cost of some of these things cost and had to change my underpants. Cancellation of one jet or bomber would pay for a nice raise for the military people. Elimination of one nuclear submarine, of which we have "many" would pay for relief here in the states for the northeast and give a nice raise to the soldiers. And help them medically when they get home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:10 PM

5. Cut pensions, too.

I would also suggest that retired careerist military personnel under the age of 60 have their pension payments cut by five to ten percent.

I am all for encouraging people to understand that the military is a dead-end occupational choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:13 PM

39. Is this comment for real?

I think you forgot to use the #sarcasm tag. #sarcasm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nicky187 (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:29 PM

41. No sarcasm.

A lot of Americans have had their retirement income cut or even disappear since the beginning of the 2008 recession.

I know plenty of under 65 military careerists now drawing another salary from military contractors ... the gravy train needs to end for the military-industrial-complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:18 PM

9. Are they fucking crazy?Military people are so underpaid it's not funny.I am an ex-Army wife.They're

nuts! Let them cut their own pay and benefits that we pay for first. They make obsene amounts of money while millions of children starve in this country and around the world. There are at least 300 millionaires in Congress, people. Vote the bums OUT asap! They don't give a shit about anyone in this country but themselves and their owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to judesedit (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:17 PM

20. 1st it is not a cut

2nd the military has some of the best benefits (healthcare, dental, food, housing, college, etc.) that are offered to people today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carnage251 (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:32 PM

25. That's right, we do have very good benefits...

I wanted my husband to get out of the Army, but we decided to stay in because of the benefits, not the pay. The thing about the pay is this....you get pay raises with promotions or so many years in. My husband was a Cpt for 7 years (the norm at that time), he got a raise when he was promoted, and I think one more when he hit a certain year mark. If it wasn't for the cost of living raise, he would not have had seen a pay increase the other years.

Yes, my husband made a career with the Army, and many times I was not thrilled, but he has pretty much always been paid under the civilian equivalent in the pay area....and we do have out of pocket expenses that many don't have.

That said, it seems this might be a ploy to get congress to do their job. The military can't do budgetary plans like this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to all american girl (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:46 PM

34. Those time in service raises are called "fogeys." If you look at a pay chart, you see where they

pop up. It's how someone in a pay grade can make less than another person in the same pay grade before factoring in the tax burden; it's all down to time in service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carnage251 (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:17 PM

40. You can't spend benefits.

I personally knew of quite a few of my senior enlisted (Navy) whose families were on food stamps because of low military pay. Don't begrudge pay to the military. If you rationalize because "it's not a cut" ... take a look at the real purchasing power of those wages and you won't make the argument that military pay is commensurate with civilian wages ... which are too low anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nicky187 (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:48 PM

42. And you don't spend your salary on benefits either

The enlisted have full medical coverage for their families and get to go to college with the GI Bill. My family did extremely well because of the military, I know people who have gotten surgeries covered with military healthcare that wouldn't have been covered through ordinary plans.

Can you name any other jobs that come with benefits as good as the military for people without degrees?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to judesedit (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:31 PM

37. Who is making obscene amounts of money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:22 PM

10. Let's clear up a few things-

As a retired military soldier, and current federal employee- let me clear up a few things that obviously some folks have gotten wrong already in this thread.


#1. A raise of 1% instead of 1.7% is still a raise, it's NOT a pay cut.

#2. Soldiers have gotten significant pay boosts over the last decade or more. In fact, the current pay system is set up so that it gives military people +0.5% MORE than the Department of Labor cost of wages. It has been that way in law for more than a decade (90's gave military 0.5% MORE than DoL cost of wages since late 1990's).

#3. Which is exactly the opposite of the law for federal employees, which says to give federal employees 0.5% LESS than the increase in the cost of wages in D of Labor data.

#4. Soldiers have gotten increases every year.

#5. Federal employees have been frozen for the now into our THIRD YEAR, and the current proposal is to raise it 0.7% in March this year, rather than in January when it should have been given (by the legal formula, it has been January every year since the Reagan administration ) .


Federal employees don't mind helping cut spending, but we've had no increases for three years, and we feel we've done our share to help with the budget.

Soldiers generally feel we've done well, and getting only 1% instead of 1.7% in a raise is still a raise, and we're thankful with the support the American people have given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:37 PM

27. ^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^ n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:52 PM

31. #6 classic

#6 on the list is that this is classic politics, and really budgetary conflict 101. You are forced to cut, so you propose cuts in the most painful of places. This incentivizes the budgeting authorities to either reconsider the cuts, or dictate the "less painful" cuts themselves. Either way, THEY bear the blame for whatever cuts are realized.

Basically this is "put up or shut up" on the part of the DoD. Congress either proposes what cuts THEY want to happen, or the DoD will ensure that the most politically painful cuts are implimented as part of sequestration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:10 PM

36. the mayor had all the public trashcans removed when the new tax failed

She did it immediately as some kind of a retaliatory message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:00 AM

44. AKA the Washington Monument Ploy

Or 'Syndrome,' as a wiki entry calls it:

Washington Monument Syndrome, also called the "Mount Rushmore Syndrome", is the name of a political tactic allegedly used by government agencies when faced with reductions in the rate of projected increases in budget or actual budget cuts. The most visible and most appreciated service that is provided by that entity is the first to be put on the chopping block. The name derives from the National Park Service's alleged habit of saying that any cuts would lead to an immediate closure of the wildly popular Washington Monument. The Washington Monument Syndrome emerged as a euphemism for cutting the most visible services after George Hartzog, the seventh National Parks Director, closed popular national parks like the Washington Monument and the Grand Canyon for two days a week in 1969. The intent of the closures may not have been to get people to complain to Congress, but the effect was that Congress received complaints, Hartzog was fired, and the funding was restored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:23 PM

11. Really

Is a military pay cut the only answer Panetta sees? Open your eyes and cut some airplane development projects that the military services don't even want. Trim before you cut, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gussmith (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:06 PM

38. DOD can't do that without Congressional Authorization.

Congress told them (executive branch personnel running the DOD) to spend the money. They can spend 9% less, but they can't kill programs without Congress acting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:28 PM

12. Get ready for crying and wailing

from a bunch who are allegedly serving the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:30 PM

13. Spare me the grief

The military has had its 'fat' years for a decade now and troop pay is a part of that as well. It is bad politics to go after the military during crisis, but foreign deployments are about to (hopefully) start ramping down. Historically, whenever the military has not been needed they are subjected to many 'cuts'.
And just where the readiness crisis will be? The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) will see to it that there will be staffing issues (uniformed and not contractor) and planes may very well be grounded (to save fuel, but the contractors will be paid whether we fly planes or not). Military personnel may not get bullets for their weapons or even pencils to fill out reports, but bloated contracted programs will continue unchecked. The muscle will be either cut or be allowed to atrophy, but the fat will grow and grow. Come time for another conflict and we will be just as screwed as we are every other time new conflicts arise after times of 'peace'.
The sad thing is that the MIC does not even care about what they do to the country, as long as they line their pockets. Not much different that the banks, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and the list goes on. They have all (or most) of the decision makers in their pockets, and that holds for both parties.
Only a true awakening in this country by the voting public will bring about real change and that process is being (and has been) gamed by those currently in control. Can we bring about the change? I pray we can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:36 PM

15. Hopefully those furloughed can get one of those awesome new jobs at Home Depot. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnemosyne (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:40 PM

17. Don't forget, WalMart wants to hire vets, too!

Double bonus! They can have part-time jobs at both!
That's what ya get when you risk your life to defend 'democracy' these days ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:45 PM

18. They can only have a pt job at both IF the companies will work with them on availability. Roflmao

Plus think of all the great tax breaks those corps will get for each hire on food stamps! And then they get to do it again next year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:36 PM

16. We have a political/social disease called "Corporatocracy"

corporatocracy 1. A social and economic class of rulers, defined by their involvement in the ownership and management of large corporations.
2. The social and economic structures that empower and protect such rulers.
3. The political culture that serves such rulers.
We can't get this bill passed because the corporatocracy doesn't want it.

Growing ever nearer to Kleptocracy

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, (from Greek: κλέπτης - kleptēs, "thief" and κράτος - kratos, "power, rule", hence "rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:47 PM

19. Not a mention of the upper echelon taking cuts to their freaking entourages and limos.

Just bullshit cuts to the lower pay grades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnemosyne (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:47 PM

46. We should cut the

general to enlisted ratio to what it was during WW2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nineteen50 (Reply #46)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:18 PM

47. I'm for anything that will take away from these spoiled prima donnas. What was the ratio then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:29 PM

23. tuggin on the ole heart strings

do and say anything to keep the moolah rollin in....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:33 PM

26. I recommend cuts CEO compensation and estates held in trust. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:37 PM

28. While military contractors are catered to by special meetings with Obama.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:48 PM

30. How is a 1% increase a pay cut? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:55 PM

33. Its not...

...and most service members understand that, though the clueless one's are always the loudest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:47 PM

35. Like they couldn't lay off some of these generals/admirals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:36 AM

45. Yeah, 'cause it's those wealthy Tech Sgts that are eating up the defense budget. Yeah, that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:21 PM

48. ...then current and veteran military DUer's and spouses freak out at you for criticizing the US gov

...for its rampant militarism. They could avoid this by limiting a few useless weapon systems. But our politicians seem to think bigger guns = bigger dicks. And you get a pay cut.

When will you drones get it. They don't care about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:31 PM

49. WTF???

You average enlisted person is already underpaid and now they want to cut their pay? Isn't that a repudiation of the contract the enlisted person signed? Then again I'm probably wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:15 PM

52. So OUR side doesn't genuinely support the troops either.

But we'll keep giving the MIC every penny it wants.

Fuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:48 AM

53. For the brass, I agree.

 

For the grunts, I do not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread