Should Progressives Be Demanding Cuts To Military Pay and Benefits?
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Pentagon leaders and military brass continue to propose cost savings from a range of areas including base closings; the end of obsolete and/or trouble-plagued weapons programs; cuts to force size; cuts to troop pay; the rolling back of many benefits such as housing allowances, cost of living adjustments, and retirement pay; and the slashing of beloved military benefits such as commissaries and the post exchange. Naturally, Republicans (being Republicans) are against cuts of any kind when it comes to Defense, even when it comes to worker pay. (Indeed, troops are the only sacred public workers for those on the right.)
Congress has steadfastly refused to endorse many of these changes. Particularly safe in all of this are military bases, with weapons procurement coming in a close second. No one on either side of the aisle wants to see base closures (and the accompanying economic hit) in their district. The loss of district jobs from the end of military weapons programs is likewise terrifying. So there’s an uneasy bipartisan consensus on these proposed cuts. But what about the issue of personnel?
There is a concerted push by some on the left (especially those fine folks at Center For American Progress) who point to escalating, seemingly out-of-control personnel costs to demand significant “reform” of military pay and benefits. CAP, for instance, has in recent years repeatedly called for reductions in both troop pay and benefits. They’ve argued that “the average enlisted member earned approximately $5,400 more in 2006 than his or her civilian counterpart when comparing cash [base pay] compensation, but $10,600 more when selected benefits are included in the comparison,” while at the same time calling for less robust benefits.
It is probably worth considering whether an enlisted member’s compensation should truly be compared to a civilian counterpart in this age of perpetual war. One should even wonder what in the world is meant by a “civilian counterpart”? Turns out, the comparison is made simply based on level of education finished, not the actual duties, let alone dangers, of the job.
Hate war and the military all you like, rail against the lies of the Bush administration and a compliant media that started this war-without-end, but don’t take it out on the troops. Just because you or I disagreed with the war they were sent to fight doesn’t mean that we can conflate these workers with that war and erase their basic humanity. Like it or not, the damage is done. They’re in the Army now, so to speak. Slashing the budget for these workers and their families now will not undo the last decade of war, and it reeks of the very antithesis of progressive thought: that workers are just cogs in the wheel, to be acquired at the lowest possible price, and can just be thrown away when we’re done with them.
When it comes to compensation and those neat perks military families enjoy, remember this: food stamp use among military families has hit a record high in 2013. In fact, a new soldier with a spouse and child has a base salary of just $20,000 per year, and frequent relocation makes it difficult for spouses to find and maintain work, with over 30% unemployed. How in the world would making these families struggle even more promote progressive values? It would do nothing to ease economic inequality, and it will certainly do nothing to stop the next march to war.
There’s also the question of just how much these cuts would actually save. Should force size be reduced? Absolutely. Reduce the number of soldiers and you’ll immediately see a reduction in personnel costs. But involuntary separation amounts to tossing these men and women out into a harsh employment environment. (One which happens to be even more hostile for veterans.)
The same way we decry the sacking of teachers and other public sector workers, we shouldn’t be so flippant about adding more veterans to the mix. You also shift the cost of healthcare from the military to the Veterans budget. Considering the mess the VA system is already in thanks to military decisions that never seem to be thought through for the long term, adding additional burden to the system right now can only make things worse.
In the end, it’s a matter of walking the walk. It’s a consistent tenet of progressives that we don’t balance the budget on the backs of working men and women. Period. What’s so different about these public workers?
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Sandi Behrns
Sandi Behrns is a noted policy nerd, new media & web developer, and consultant to progressive organizations and campaigns. She is a senior contributor to Liberaland, and the Executive Editor of Progressive Congress News.
10 responses to Should Progressives Be Demanding Cuts To Military Pay and Benefits?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
SteveD May 20th, 2014 at 01:04
1. GDP=Federal Spending + Private Spending and Investment + Net exports
“Reform” MEANS CUTS, which means decreases in GDP, which may or may not be offset as these former military types are cast off to “compete” in the private sector.
2. Since the federal government “can’t” and definitely won’t adopt a jobs guarantee program, the military becomes the Employer of Last Resort.
3. “There’s also the question of just how much these cuts would actually save.”
Phrases like, “Federal gov must save,” “we need more revenue,” “must balance the budget”, etc are, for these ECONOMIC times, ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
A fundamental axiom of modern economics (post Aug. 15, 1971) is that, “a monetarily sovereign government never depends upon revenue per se to spend.” This is incontrovertible. The sole issuer of its own currency need not tax or sell securities to complete the act of spending. The sole issuer must spend that “fiat” currency before it can tax or sell securities. It is not the other way around.
Therefore, taxes serve to manage aggregate demand/inflation and selling bonds serves to manage the term structure of interest rates. Neither funds Federal expenditures. The reason is the underlying reality of what a U.S. Dollar actually is: It is simply a promise, by the U.S. sovereign government, that it will accept the Dollar as payment for a Dollar’s worth of taxes. That’s it. In other words, a Dollar is the I.O.U. of the sovereign government. The Dollar says: “I owe you one Dollar’s worth of tax credit.” It is illogical for the Federal Government to “keep” an I.O.U. that says it owes something to itself. Therefore, it is ILLOGICAL to say the government must ‘save.’
Federal government spending works because all the citizens and businesses in the Private Sector are willing to provide goods and services to the Federal Government in exchange for the Dollars they need to pay their Federal Tax bill.
4. INFLATION?
How does our massive military spending not cause inflation? (Uncontrollable inflation should be the ONLY reason to cut military spending, never because we cant “afford” it. We can!) We spend over a trillion dollars a year on military, defense, and national security related items. This welfare state for engineers and computer nerds is money spent by the government that does not result in any commensurate production of goods and services to absorb to the new spending. Most of what this spending creates are intangible items such as “security”; what physical items it does produce are mostly either consumed abroad (bombs, bullets), or not really used at all (ships, planes, all the other array of high-tech vehicles that we pay millions to design, billions to produce, fly/send around the world a few times and then dump in the Southwestern USA desert). Then, when we spend trillions to pay all the millions of DoD, CIA, NSA, and DHS employees and their contractors. HOWEVER, they do take this money and use it to CONSUME OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES in the American economy. So much of what the federal government does produce low-utility military surplus, and even this does not produce much inflation!
SteveD May 20th, 2014 at 01:21
I myself of course, would prefer more “noble efforts.” Fat chance of that happening in DC, either from Democrats or Republicans. Stop being delusional Sandy. It is all about increasing the wealth gap. If it makes rich people richer, then it is good for the economy. If it narrows the gap by benefitting the middle class or poor, then of course we can’t “afford” it and it can’t/won’t be done. The days of Democrats or progressives (all two of them in Washington DC) giving a shit about the middle class/poor, are long gone.
SteveD May 20th, 2014 at 01:04
1. GDP=Federal Spending + Private Spending and Investment + Net exports
“Reform” MEANS CUTS, which means decreases in GDP, which may or may not be offset as these former military types are cast off to “compete” in the private sector.
2. Since the federal government “can’t” and definitely won’t adopt a jobs guarantee program, the military becomes the Employer of Last Resort.
3. “There’s also the question of just how much these cuts would actually save.”
Phrases like, “Federal gov must save,” “we need more revenue,” “must balance the budget”, etc are, for these ECONOMIC times, ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
A fundamental axiom of modern economics (post Aug. 15, 1971) is that, “a monetarily sovereign government never depends upon revenue per se to spend.” This is incontrovertible. The sole issuer of its own currency need not tax or sell securities to complete the act of spending. The sole issuer must spend that “fiat” currency before it can tax or sell securities. It is not the other way around.
Therefore, taxes serve to manage aggregate demand/inflation and selling bonds serves to manage the term structure of interest rates. Neither funds Federal expenditures. The reason is the underlying reality of what a U.S. Dollar actually is: It is simply a promise, by the U.S. sovereign government, that it will accept the Dollar as payment for a Dollar’s worth of taxes. That’s it. In other words, a Dollar is the I.O.U. of the sovereign government. The Dollar says: “I owe you one Dollar’s worth of tax credit.” It is illogical for the Federal Government to “keep” an I.O.U. that says it owes something to itself. Therefore, it is ILLOGICAL to say the government must ‘save.’
Federal government spending works because all the citizens and businesses in the Private Sector are willing to provide goods and services to the Federal Government in exchange for the Dollars they need to pay their Federal Tax bill.
4. INFLATION?
How does our massive military spending not cause inflation? (Uncontrollable inflation should be the ONLY reason to cut military spending, never because we cant “afford” it. We can!) We spend over a trillion dollars a year on military, defense, and national security related items. This welfare state for engineers and computer nerds is money spent by the government that does not result in any commensurate production of goods and services to absorb to the new spending. Most of what this spending creates are intangible items such as “security”; what physical items it does produce are mostly either consumed abroad (bombs, bullets), or not really used at all (ships, planes, all the other array of high-tech vehicles that we pay millions to design, billions to produce, fly/send around the world a few times and then dump in the Southwestern USA desert). Then, when we spend trillions to pay all the millions of DoD, CIA, NSA, and DHS employees and their contractors. HOWEVER, they do take this money and use it to CONSUME OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES in the American economy. So much of what the federal government does produce low-utility military surplus, and even this does not produce much inflation!
SteveD May 20th, 2014 at 01:21
I myself of course, would prefer more “noble efforts.” Fat chance of that happening in DC, either from Democrats or Republicans. Stop being delusional Sandy. It is all about increasing the wealth gap. If it makes rich people richer, then it is good for the economy. If it narrows the gap by benefitting the middle class or poor, then of course we can’t “afford” it and it can’t/won’t be done. The days of Democrats or progressives (all two of them in Washington DC) giving a shit about the middle class/poor, are long gone.
fahvel May 20th, 2014 at 02:04
cut a bit off of all parts of military except benefits for personnel serving and served.
granpa.usthai May 20th, 2014 at 03:00
what about the equipment active duty personnel need to stay the best?
the illegal (by international standards) invasion of Iraq proved that inadequate equipment (eg: un-reinforced floors in vehicles) resulted in more casualties .
do we really want our military reduced to 3rd world status when nations like China will surely become first rate?
fahvel May 20th, 2014 at 02:04
cut a bit off of all parts of military except benefits for personnel serving and served.
granpa.usthai May 20th, 2014 at 03:00
what about the equipment active duty personnel need to stay the best?
the illegal (by international standards) invasion of Iraq proved that inadequate equipment (eg: un-reinforced floors in vehicles) resulted in more casualties .
do we really want our military reduced to 3rd world status when nations like China will surely become first rate?
Budda May 20th, 2014 at 07:51
How about we start by closing a couple of hundred overseas bases.
Budda May 20th, 2014 at 07:51
How about we start by closing a couple of hundred overseas bases.