For Lawmakers, Military Benefits Will Be a War on All Fronts

ARLINGTON, VA - FEBRUARY 24: U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (L) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey (R) depart after answering questions at a press conference at the Pentagon February 24, 2014 in Arlington, Virginia. Hagel and Dempsey spoke about the upcoming Defense Department budget requests during the press conference. A proposal released February 24, plans to shrink the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels.
National Journal
Stacy Kaper
Feb. 24, 2014, 4:16 p.m.

The Pentagon’s push to slash mil­it­ary be­ne­fits in the up­com­ing de­fense budget is about to make things awk­ward for Con­gress.

Law­makers are un­der pres­sure to demon­strate fisc­al re­straint while show­ing sup­port for troops who have served in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan — and all dur­ing an elec­tion year.

The De­fense De­part­ment’s re­quest to cap pay in­creases, in­crease health care fees, re­duce hous­ing al­low­ances, and phase out com­mis­sary dis­counts, un­veiled Monday, is tan­tamount to a de­clar­a­tion of war against or­gan­iz­a­tions that rep­res­ent ser­vice mem­bers, an im­port­ant con­stitu­ency in both parties. Al­though these be­ne­fits are only a small part of over­all fed­er­al spend­ing, they are dif­fi­cult for law­makers to cut.

Com­plic­at­ing mat­ters, Con­gress set up a com­mis­sion to come up with a com­pre­hens­ive over­haul of mil­it­ary com­pens­a­tion and re­tire­ment be­ne­fits, which is not due to make re­com­mend­a­tions for an­oth­er year. And law­makers have made it clear they are loath to act un­til it weighs in.

“That can’t be done,” said House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Buck McK­eon. “Or if that could be done, it shouldn’t be done.”

Sev­er­al sen­at­ors also ex­pressed con­cerns about the pro­posed per­son­nel cuts Monday, par­tic­u­larly Re­pub­lic­an Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee mem­bers John Mc­Cain and Kelly Ayotte and rank­ing mem­ber James In­hofe.

Mc­Cain echoed McK­eon’s sen­ti­ment that it would be hard for Con­gress to act on per­son­nel changes be­fore the com­mis­sion is­sues its re­port. “The tend­ency will be to a sig­ni­fic­ant de­gree to not make any ma­jor de­cisions un­til we get that,” he said.

Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in said that the Pentagon will have an up­hill chal­lenge to val­id­ate the cuts. “There’s go­ing to be a very tough road for them, I think. That doesn’t mean they can’t suc­ceed but it means they’ve got a real chal­lenge and a bur­den to prove that these are ap­pro­pri­ate, that they won’t af­fect mor­ale, that they won’t af­fect re­cruit­ment, that they will have a sig­ni­fic­ant im­pact in terms of budget sav­ings,” he said.

In­deed, law­makers know they are about to get it from all sides.

On one hand, they will be forced to find any dol­lar above the Pentagon’s re­quest else­where, and the budget se­quester has shown that the tide has shif­ted away from un­fettered de­fense spend­ing. On the oth­er hand, vet­er­ans groups just proved how strong their lob­by­ing can be with the rap­id re­peal of a piece of the bi­par­tis­an budget agree­ment that would have re­duced mil­it­ary pen­sions. The re­peal sailed through Con­gress earli­er this month, less than two months after the meas­ure had been signed in­to law.

Ser­vice-mem­ber or­gan­iz­a­tions are pre­par­ing to un­leash an on­slaught of out­reach on Cap­it­ol Hill. Mike Hay­den, a dir­ect­or of gov­ern­ment re­la­tions with the Mil­it­ary Of­ficers As­so­ci­ation of Amer­ica, who co­chairs the 33-group Mil­it­ary Co­ali­tion, said his or­gan­iz­a­tion is fo­cused on quan­ti­fy­ing the cost of the pro­posed cuts as they did in pre­vi­ous cam­paigns.

An av­er­age ser­vice mem­ber with a fam­ily of four who has served for 10 years would lose $1,400 by the end of 2015, thanks to a 1 per­cent cap on pay raises and a 5 per­cent re­duc­tion in hous­ing al­low­ances that the Pentagon is pro­pos­ing, ac­cord­ing to Hay­den’s group. The out-of-pock­et loss for the same two cuts would be about $2,100 for an Army cap­tain with a fam­ily of four who has served for 10 years. Those costs do not take in­to ac­count the in­crease in health care or Tri­Care fees, which the Pentagon has yet to de­tail, or the phaseout of dis­counts at com­mis­sary stores, which would lose $1 bil­lion of their $1.4 bil­lion sub­sidy over three years.

“As Sec­ret­ary Hagel said, “˜We ex­pect this is go­ing to be a tough up­hill battle,’ “ Hay­den said. “We agree.”

Ana­lysts, lob­by­ists, con­gres­sion­al aides, and de­fense-in­dustry in­siders ar­gue they have a hard time see­ing the Pentagon suc­ceed­ing in all of its re­quests, but that does not mean that per­son­nel ex­penses are safe from the chop­ping block. Be­cause Con­gress ap­proved re­du­cing eli­gible cost-of-liv­ing pay in­creases from 1.8 per­cent to 1 per­cent last year for mil­it­ary per­son­nel, the Pentagon has an easi­er case to make for pre­vail­ing in its bid to ex­tend them an­oth­er year and to freeze the pay for gen­er­al and flag of­ficers.

“I ex­pect Con­gress to be­grudgingly go along with the pro­posed pay freeze for flag and gen­er­al of­ficers and pay raise of 1 per­cent for every­one else,” said MacK­en­zie Eaglen, a fel­low with the con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute. “But mem­bers will re­ject out­right the base-clos­ure re­quest, the com­mis­sary sub­sidy re­duc­tion, and plan to ask for a small con­tri­bu­tion to ser­vice mem­bers’ hous­ing al­low­ances.”

Health care fee in­creases are a con­stant battle, and are only ex­pec­ted to con­tin­ue, so there may be a way for Con­gress and the Pentagon to find some middle ground. The re­duc­tions in hous­ing al­low­ance and com­mis­sary be­ne­fits are new­er and ex­pec­ted to be con­tro­ver­sial, so their out­comes are un­clear.

Ul­ti­mately, though, it’s the act­ive-duty forces, rather than the re­tir­ees, vet­er­ans, or seni­ors, who may be the most vul­ner­able to the Pentagon’s budget ax.

“The poor act­ive-duty people can’t or­gan­ize,” said Lawrence Korb, a seni­or fel­low with the left-lean­ing Cen­ter for Amer­ic­an Pro­gress. “The act­ive-duty people can’t start call­ing their con­gress­men or get people out there, but oth­er groups can.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×