The Virginian-Pilot
©
Plans announced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years could affect the paychecks of Hampton Roads' military community, increase health care costs for military retirees, and reopen the possibility of base closures.
Defense officials said they want to keep intact the Navy's fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, but a top Pentagon official noted that some East Coast naval operations would be shifted to the Pacific to boost the U.S. military presence closer to Asia.
Panetta and other senior defense officials presented some spending details and proposed changes Thursday as a prelude to the expected February release of the Obama administration's proposed defense budget. The spending plan would be subject to approval by Congress.
Members of the military would get pay raises next year and in 2014 "to keep pace with increases in private sector pay," according to the plan, but raises in 2015 would be "more limited" because of rising costs.
Panetta said the plan gives "troops and their familiesfair notice and lead time before these proposed changes go into effect."
Health care for active-duty service members would continue to be provided without cost, but rising health care expenses - now $50 billion annually - would require retirees to pay higher fees and co-payments that would be phased in over five years, Panetta said. Their share would remain considerably lower than the fees paid by nonmilitary retirees, he said.
Panetta also proposed that Congress set up a commission to review and possibly make changes to military retirement benefits. If a new system is developed, the changes won't apply to anyone currently in the service, he said.
Panetta released the preliminary budget report three weeks after he announced that the Obama administration is pursuing a new postwar defense strategy that calls for significant cuts in Army and Marine Corps personnel while focusing more attention on smaller elite forces, such as Navy SEALs, and high-tech defense systems.
The new defense strategy appears to favor the Navy and Air Force in that it puts a greater emphasis on mobile platforms. However, the desire to focus on the Pacific leaves unclear how Hampton Roads' Navy operations might be affected.
"You're going to find a gradual shift in the Navy's force structure from East to West," said Adm. James Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "And so, in terms of aircraft carriers, submarines, logistic ships and the like, you'll see that gradually flowing over there. And I'll leave it to the Navy to articulate that over the coming week or so."
Lt. Nate Curtis, a Navy spokesman, said afterward that Navy leaders can't discuss any details until the administration presents its budget.
Panetta also is asking Congress to approve establishing a new Base Realignment and Closure Commission - known as BRAC - to select military installations for closure.
During the last round of BRAC in 2005, the commission considered shuttering Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, in part because of concerns about encroachment of urban development.
Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms said Thursday he believes that the base is considerably less vulnerable today because the city and the state have strengthened their relationship with the Navy. The governments have spent millions of dollars buying properties around the base.
"But we're not taking anything for granted," added Sessoms, who said he's been in contact with the region's congressional delegation.
U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said in a statement that he understands the need to cut spending to deal with a $15 trillion national debt but doesn't want to consider any U.S. base closings without first looking at cutting back overseas facilities, particularly in Europe.
U.S. Reps. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, and Scott Rigell, R-Virginia Beach, who both serve on the House Armed Services Committee, raised strong objections to the spending plan.
Rigell said he opposes increasing health care fees and a proposal to slow down production of Virginia-class submarines, which are a joint project between Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Conn.
Forbes said in a statement: "This Administration is not building a military that is lean, agile, and flexible. It is dismantling our nation's greatest strategic asset and accepting grave risk in the process."
Bill Bartel, 757-446-2398, bill.bartel@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
if you could do it better
Then go run for a position in the government.
Bloated Costly extravagant defense budget
U.S. military spending has almost doubled since 2001. The U.S. spent $698 BILLION on the military in 2010, an 81% increase over the last decade. The U.S.spends more than the next 17 nations COMBINED. China? U.S. spending is almost SIX TIMES that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion), and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion). The Department of Defense budget in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 19% of the United States federal budget and 28% of estimated tax revenues. The U.S. alone accounts for 40% of the entire world’s yearly defense outlays. This is exactly what President Eisenhower warned us against.
Smart post, so I looked it up
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/xls/BUDGET-2012-TAB-3-1.xls
Defense Spending was $304 billion in 2001 and $768 billion in 2011. And of course, in your favor, that is more than doubled. So I take your point about the bloat.
My admonition to some of the liberals who are gleeful about it, is that it pales in comparison to the human resources portion of the budget with a magnitude and growth that is unsustainable.
Human Resource costs were $1.2 trillion in 2001 and $2.5 trillion in 2011. Our population did not double, just the number of people placed into the custodial class. In my opinion, any executive action by Obama which does not address it, but avoids at all costs, is being dishonest about the state of the union.
Can't See the Trees through the Forest
When will the liberals stop blaming George Bush for Obama's blunders? It is amazing as to how far Obama has escalated the debt...16 Trillion+, and yet, we have uninformed people who still want to blame President Bush...it's mind blowing as to how uninformed these obama followers are. Unfortunately there seems to be no end to Obama's wreckless and irresponsible spending. Now that his re-election campaign is shifting into high gear, every speech (to include the comments from the other nights State of the Union Speech)he gives is promising more money that we do not have. If I managed my home budget, as he is mis-managing our government spending, I'd be in jail because I couldn't pay my bills. Our country desperately needs new leadership!
Fluff
I work at a military command, and trust me, there is plenty of fluff that can be trimmed without affecting national security. Let's start with closing the revolving door that allows senior officers to create their own GS-15 civilian job to step into without missing a paycheck after they retire. There is no more "state of emergency" that allowed the practice by Executive Order (recently renewed by Obama). If the civilian job didn't exist on Friday, we don't need it on Monday.
I agree with Panetta
We don't have the problem with Iraq or Afghanistan that we have had for 10 years....thank you George W. for going to war on a creidt card and now the bill is due. Every thing has to be cut to get us out of that recession that George W created, again thank you.
Actually Bill Clinton had
Actually Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to take Osama out, but apparently was too busy. In one instance he was playing golf and was notified by intelligence that they had him in their sights, and Clinton wouldn't pull the trigger. As for Iraq, they did no cooperate with WMD inspectors, and as a result we had to go to war. Obama has done nothing. No exit strategy, no money for Vets, no job creation for those who retire from the military to go to. Nothing.
Are Carriers becoming just large targets?
Perhaps it would be better to allocate military budget on newer more advanced high tech weaponry and development. China's military is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers. The missile is designed to be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier from a distance of more than 900 miles. The new weapon, the “D” version of China’s DF-21 medium-range missile, involves firing the mobile missile into space, returning it into the atmosphere and then maneuvering it to its target. This would give China the ability to reach and hit U.S. aircraft carriers well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back.
Military Cutbacks
Instead of cuttting back on the companies and contractors that are milking the government establishment, they will take it from the men and women sacrificing their time and lives for this country!! Shows how much this country really supports the troops!! I can only see the future lengths of deployments that will be forced on our servicemembers due to the cuts in military spending. Do more with less!! Better get out now while you still can! They need to fire Panetta!! They can't support the arguement that the military is costing too much, when all the idiot politicians will spend the money gained on establishing a permanent moon base to save all of the NASA jobs!!
May I suggest,
That we consider changing how we structure the military? During WW2 we developed the concept of a "jeep Carrier" it cost less and supported the forward deployed Fleet Carriers. These small carriers were quite capable all by themselves and were able to handle small engagements and operations without the help of the main carrier forces. (read about the USS Gambier Bay CVE-73). Perhaps we can go "Back to the Future" and find ways to maintain a good balance of forces and still maintain the level of manning we need. BTW, the story of CVE-73 is a darn good read!