How Out of Control Entitlement Spending Is Draining the Defense Budget
hcobb
According to the CRS, "an average military service member is about 45%
more expensive, after adjusting for inflation, in FY2009 than in
FY1998." Spring and others at Heritage have long maintained that a
floor of 4 percent of GDP is required for defense spending to stay
effective in the face of rising costs. If this seems too high,
consider that this proposed benchmark is "only 40 percent of total
spending on the three major entitlement programs."
The fix for out of control per-servicemember costs is to switch to a
more cost effective military service.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/05/mil-090515-afps01.htm
"The average Marine costs the country about $20,000 less than the next
closest service man in other services."
So simply merging the USAF under the USMC would save at least seven
billion dollars a year. (And yield both more timely combat supply and
better ground support.)
The fix for entitlements is to earn them.
Universal government subsidized health care for anybody with an
honorable discharge, their spouses and minor children living with them
could easily pass the Congress and would be a powerful pro-family
message.
-HJC
Jack Linthicum
> http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090702404-how-out-of-contro...
> According to the CRS, "an average military service member is about 45%
> more expensive, after adjusting for inflation, in FY2009 than in
> FY1998." Spring and others at Heritage have long maintained that a
> floor of 4 percent of GDP is required for defense spending to stay
> effective in the face of rising costs. If this seems too high,
> consider that this proposed benchmark is "only 40 percent of total
> spending on the three major entitlement programs."
>
> The fix for out of control per-servicemember costs is to switch to a
> more cost effective military service.
>
> "The average Marine costs the country about $20,000 less than the next
> closest service man in other services."
>
> So simply merging the USAF under the USMC would save at least seven
> billion dollars a year. (And yield both more timely combat supply and
> better ground support.)
>
> The fix for entitlements is to earn them.
>
> Universal government subsidized health care for anybody with an
> honorable discharge, their spouses and minor children living with them
> could easily pass the Congress and would be a powerful pro-family
> message.
>
> -HJC
That is real interesting. Why does that bother the military. All you
have to do is put the screws to Congress and get that entitlement per
person funding reduced. I wonder where that idea of ignoring Congress
came from?
"ENTITLEMENT SPENDING refers to funds for programs like Medicare/
Medicaid, Social Security, & veterans' benefits. Funding levels are
automatically set by the number of eligible recipients, not at the
discretion of Congress.
Each person eligible for benefits by law receives them unless Congress
changes the eligibility criteria. Entitlement payments represent the
largest portion of the federal budget."
Beausaber
> http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090702404-how-out-of-contro...
> more expensive, after adjusting for inflation, in FY2009 than in
> FY1998." Spring and others at Heritage have long maintained that a
> floor of 4 percent of GDP is required for defense spending to stay
> effective in the face of rising costs. If this seems too high,
> consider that this proposed benchmark is "only 40 percent of total
> spending on the three major entitlement programs."
>
> The fix for out of control per-servicemember costs is to switch to a
> more cost effective military service.
>
> "The average Marine costs the country about $20,000 less than the next
> closest service man in other services."
SNIP
And just HOW was that calculated? The USMC is vitally dependent on the
other services to provide essential support that it does not provide
itself. Examples - USN povides all medical and legal pesonnel (theer
ae some Marine lawters, but they are detailed to the Navy and all the
overhead inn the organization is provided by the USN); the USMC runs
one school that branch qualifies one specialty (Infantry) - all other
officers and NCO's attend an Army school to be branch qualifed
(tankers go to Ft Knox, artillerymen to Ft Sill, etc). The USMC
historically has had to be beefed up with Army medium & heavy
artillery, armor and tarnsportation assets , among others, when
engaged in sustained combat. So USMC claims of being a "lean, geen,
fighting machine" with such a great tooth to tail ratio ae largely
specious.
Dan
> So simply merging the USAF under the USMC would save at least seven
> billion dollars a year. (And yield both more timely combat supply and
> better ground support.)
That is the stupidest statement I have heard in a LONG time...
Dan
Hermann
Might be worth a study.
Arved Sandstrom
Although your argument has much merit, let me nitpick one observation of
yours. Just because a Marine school is aboard the base of another
service doesn't necessarily mean the school is run by the other service.
I attended both 0811 and 0861 schools at Fort Sill, but those are
completely run by the Marine detachment there. I believe the main
advantages of training at Fort Sill are the better impact ranges ( at
least over Camp Lejeune).
With other schools your observation is quite true. My NGF spotter school
at Little Creek was largely a USN affair. A later school in amphibious
warfare, also at Little Creek, also involved significant USN support.
I might add, your point that the USMC claim that it is lean, because
Marine units would have to be beefed up Army in sustained combat, is
specious, is in and of itself somewhat specious. The Marine divisions
are light infantry, period. They are certainly not armour, and they're
not even mechanized the way the USA understands the term. The Marine
divisions are, however, self-sustainable every bit as much as an Army
division is provided that you use the Marine force in its role, and not
outside of it.
AHS
Jack Linthicum
Yeah, by RAND the Air Force's pet "independent study organization".
All of this type of study are front-loaded with the answer, the study
aim is to supply the reasons for the answer.
hcobb
> I might add, your point that the USMC claim that it is lean, because
> Marine units would have to be beefed up Army in sustained combat, is
> specious, is in and of itself somewhat specious. The Marine divisions
> are light infantry, period. They are certainly not armour, and they're
> not even mechanized the way the USA understands the term. The Marine
> divisions are, however, self-sustainable every bit as much as an Army
> division is provided that you use the Marine force in its role, and not
> outside of it.
>
> AHS
And that role is to handle nation building, the three block war,
humanitarian relief and winning the hottest battles.
What else is there for a military force?
Just compare Marines vs Army in say Belleau Wood, Chosin Reservoir,
Combined Action Program in Vietnam or the two battles for Fallujah.
-HJC
Dan
But that is not the blanket statement made above... Not to mention that
the reasons for the "savings" and the amounts are straight out of
someone's ass!
Dan
hcobb
> But that is not the blanket statement made above... Not to mention that
> the reasons for the "savings" and the amounts are straight out of
> someone's ass!
>
> Dan
Well the first thing to be cut once the USAF is merged under the USMC
will be those fat asses.
Time to get in shape. Just think of the fuel that would be saved by
flying non-overweight airmen around.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/04/airforce_fat_AF_042808w/
55 percent of airmen overweight
-HJC
hcobb
> hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :Time to get in shape. Just think of the fuel that would be saved by
> :flying non-overweight airmen around.
>
> They don't fly airmen around, you stupid ass.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_prfr/is_200306/ai_1908331567/
Crew chief circles Earth 104 times
-HJC
hcobb
> Note that he's not an airman, he's a tech sergeant.
>
> Fuckwit.
Tech sergeants are still airmen and not officers.
-HJC
hcobb
> Airman is a rank, you stupid fuckwit. Tech Sergeants are not airmen.
> They're sergeants.
It is also used as a generic term for enlisted USAF personnel of all
ranks.
http://www.maxwellgunterdispatch.com/article/20090702/DISPATCH01/90702014/1114/DISPATCH
Tech. Sgt. Jennifer S. Laufer, chaplain assistant with the 42nd Air
Base Wing, is among the top enlisted members of the Air Force after
being named one of the 12 Outstanding Airmen for 2009.
-HJC