Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What's in the defense budget

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 08:56 PM
Original message
What's in the defense budget
Taking Care of Our People

The fiscal 2011 base budget proposal includes $138.5 billion in Military Personnel funding for the pay and allowances of 2.3 million Service Members, an increase of $3.6 billion or 2.6 percent over FY 2010 enacted levels. The request reflects the Department’s highest priority, which is to care for DoD people.

The level of planned spending on Military Personnel reflects the achievement of the significant growth in ground forces announced in January 2007. Additional temporary end strength increases of 22,000 for the Active Army and 4,400 for Active Navy Individual Augmentees are funded in the Department’s Overseas Contingency Operations request.

The budget request also supports personnel through Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding for readiness, training, support for base operating costs, and administrative and headquarters costs. The FY 2011 request contains $200.2 billion for O&M, including $30.9 billion for the Defense Health Program.

The President’s request for FY 2011 includes the following personnel-related highlights:

Pay Raise. The FY 2011 budget includes an increase of 1.4 percent for civilian salaries and military basic pay. The pay raise is equal to the full Employment Cost Index, as prescribed by law, and it will keep military and civilian pay increases in line with those in the private sector.

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Subsistence (BAS). In addition to the military pay raise, the FY 2011 budget request supports an average increase of 4.2 percent in BAH and 3.4 percent in BAS, which maintains these programs at current standards and keeps military pay very competitive with other employment sectors.

Care for Wounded Warriors. Recognizing that the Department has no greater concern than to care for wounded, ill, and injured Service Members, the FY 2010 enacted budget included a substantial increase in funding. The FY 2011 request includes continued increases for care and support. The FY 2011 request also includes $1.1 billion for the treatment, care, and research of Traumatic Brain Injuries and Psychological Health (TBI/PH) issues.

Military Healthcare. The FY 2011 budget request includes $50.7 billion (including $30.9 billion for the Defense Health Program) to fully fund the military health system, which currently serves 9.5 million eligible beneficiaries -- Active Duty Service Members and their families, military retirees and their families, dependent survivors, and certain eligible Reserve Component Members and their families. The FY 2011 budget supports strong programs to prevent and treat mental illness and includes $0.3 billion to support efforts to modernize the Department’s Electronic Health Record and medical information technology infrastructure, while partnering with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the private sector to pursue the Administration’s goal of building a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER).

Military Family Support Programs. In light of the unprecedented demands that have strained the All-Volunteer Force and military families since 2001, DoD is requesting $8.1 billion for Family Support Programs in FY 2011 to lighten the burdens of Service Members and their families during all phases of deployment. This is an increase of about $0.5 billion over the enacted level of FY 2010. Included are funds for child care and youth programs; military spouse employment; morale, welfare and recreation; commissaries; Department of Defense Education Activity schools; financial planning assistance; spousal education and tuition aid; and a Military OneSource Call Center which currently handles 2,000 calls per day.

Build and Sustain Excellent Facilities. The FY 2011 budget requests $16.9 billion for Military Construction and $1.8 billion for Family Housing. This request is lower than in recent years because construction funding requirements to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions have largely been met. The FY 2011 budget does begin a five-year plan to replace and recapitalize more than half of the 194 DoD schools. Funding will address schools in poor or failing condition. In FY 2011, the Military Construction investment for DODEA is $439 million, which will replace or modernize 10 schools.

<...>

Reforming How DoD Does Business

To make the most of the nation’s resources entrusted to the Department of Defense and to carry out its mission more effectively, the Department continues striving to improve the way it does business.

Changing How We Operate. A critical effort involves reforming the processes by which we buy weapons and other important systems through implementation of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. To maintain America’s technological and conventional edge, we are working to achieve predictable cost, schedule, and performance outcomes, based on mature, demonstrated technologies and realistic cost/schedule estimates. To help achieve this goal, the Department is increasing the number of acquisition personnel by 20,000 – from approximately 127,000 in FY 2010 to about 147,000 by FY 2015. The FY 2011 budget request continues support for this transition and includes funds for training and retention programs that will bolster the capability and size of the acquisition workforce. Acquisition reform will provide America’s warfighters with world class capability, while assuring good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The FY 2011 budget also includes $261 million to manage the conversion out of the National Security Personnel System by January 1, 2012, as required by the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. 3.4 percent in BAS, which maintains these programs at current standards and keeps military pay very competitive with other employment sectors.

PDF

More about the conversion:

Obama gives the heave-ho to DOD pay for performance

Critics laud the move, calling the program unfair and dysfunctional

◦By Amber Corrin◦Nov 02, 2009

The National Security Personnel System, the Defense Department's effort to tie salary to job performance, is on its way out. On Oct. 28, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2010 fiscal year, which includes provisions to kill the program.

<...>

Randy Erwin, legislative director at the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), said the NSPS policy stripped employees of their right to collectively bargain pay rates, which can be aided by union backing. Officials familiar with the situation, speaking on background, said the program also allowed managers to play favorites and abuse the system, a charge with which Erwin agreed.

Congress restored collective bargaining rights in 2008 and made other changes to the system intended to assuage its critics.

However, many criticisms remained. “There is evidence that pay for performance was discriminatory and used as a way to take money from lower-paid employees and routed it to higher-paid employees,” Erwin said.

more


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. If anyone deserves a pay raise....
.... it's the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Why?
I got an idea to give em a raise. Cut the military drastically and have more funds to spread around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Why not? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Ever heard of burden of proof?
If someone suggests they *most deserve* a raise, Id imagine there is some reasoning for it?

Why is any/every working group not the most deserving of a raise? Most often, there isn't an answer as to why not, as surely as there isn't an answer as to why so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Maybe because they're getting SHOT AT? And how about this:
consider how much Blackwater/Xe/Whatever were being paid to perform the same jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. So danger in a job is the benchmark for getting a raise?
Our society doesn't reflect this, or else, soldiers, roofers, fishermen, line workers, etc, would be making millions. If it is not a natural truth determined by the state of human existence, how truthful is this really? Can you objectively prove this is a benchmark that people should go by in determining pay and raises?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Actually, it does. If you look at some of the most dangerous jobs
they all pay more than comparable relatively harmless jobs.

And, again, compare their pay to the pay of those performing comparable services in the private sector. military pay is a fraction of private mercenary pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. So a lumberjack gets paid more than a pharmaceutical rep?
No, no and no.

They get paid what the market determines is a necessary wage to supply the needed labor force. This wage depends on many criteria, some of which hinges upon the demographic needed to do the labor (socioecnomic factors are considered).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Those 2 jobs aren't comparable. Apples and oranges.
Yes, the market determines the wage, which is why I KEEP stressing "look at the private mercenaries". But one of the market considerations is the amount of danger involved.

So, our military deserves a raise as much or more than anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. As much as...
:)

Private mercs don't normally do what soldier do. They protect VIPs and valuable private infrastructure (paid down by very rich people). So again, its really apples to oranges. Mercs are not private soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. In many cases, they were doing EXACTLY the same job.
And frankly, I find your seeming disdain of our brave men and women in uniform a little disgusting. But IIRC you "jumped ship" and moved to Canada, so I don't think your opinion on what we pay our military holds any validity, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Asking someone what the basis of their assertation isn't the same as...
"showing disdain of our *brave men and women*"

Teehee. Soldier worship much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohiodemocratic Donating Member (188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I'm with you in thinking that there's no link between high salary and danger level
Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 06:25 PM by ohiodemocratic
The median salary for a gynecologist is $220,000 a year, whereas a fire-fighter earns less than $40,000.
Yet I don't remember the last time a gynecologist was shot to death by a psychotic vagina.

Here's more: These are the 10 deadliest jobs in 2009 in America (Fishers and loggers are #1 and 2). http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/americas-deadliest-jobs-2009-top-10-list
Now look at this list of most highest paying jobs in America:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/content/oohinfo_faq.stm#earn4

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Because they put their lives at risk?
It does not matter if the wars they fight in are needless, they joined the military when many would not. Where they go to is not up to them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. A lot of jobs put peoples lives at risk
Compensation & benefits is normally set at the amount needed to attract the necessary labor force to do the job (without of coarse raising the cost of production too much). The military met their recruiting goals last year (for the first time in decades). This would suggest the price of labor in the military is set correctly.

I find the worth of their jobs less valuable to human existence than farmers. Risk or not, Id rather see the typical ma & pop farmer get a raise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. A farmer wouldn't have the skills to protect you if your country was being invaded.
Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 12:21 PM by Jennicut
I am against the war in Afghanistan and have been against the war in Iraq for years...but a simple raise for being in the military does not seem out of line to me. And my own husband almost became a line worker, very dangerous job (and he turned it down because of that). Would get paid way more then anyone in the military would get paid. Is electricity more important? How to do place what is of important in terms of dangerous jobs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I eat every day. How often is the country invaded?
The reality is most people think the military deserves a raise because of neo-fascist soldier worship dictates they are the best citizens the country has. When asked "why" regarding many soldier worship myths, you get hit with crickets or waffling.

There is no real objective reason for the initial, unsupported statement, which MANY automatically agree with prior to really thinking it out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I guess the answer is that really, a person could do both.
I grow my own food anyway, now I just need to learn how to shoot a gun...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. IMO, "shooting a gun" is easier than growing food
Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 12:34 PM by Oregone
If you already know how to do one, you probably are smart enough to learn to do the other well enough. So good luck with that. :)

They actually complement eachother if you don't like gophers. Learning how to fight in war is probably a whole other thing though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Ha! No one ever warns you about corn earworms. Those things are nasty.
I guess shooting a gun can't be THAT bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. And money to close Gitmo, and a new VA Hospital...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
19. Audit the Pentagon first.
Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 01:49 PM by avaistheone1
Then we will see where things stand. The Pentagon can not account for trillions of dollars. Time for a little responibility in that department. Why should we send them more money to piss away? Most of these Pentagon funds should be cut.

The whole thing is shameful. We spend more than the rest of the world altogether on this killing machine.


Time for change. Cut the Pentagon budget. Bring the troops home.

Sick of the same old shit with a new nice smiley cover on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC