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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
Republican Polling Shows Close Race
Roundup: National Polling Remains Inconsistent
4 hours ago

The national polls, once again, tell very different stories: Clinton leads by just one point in the IBD, Rasmussen, and LA Times tracking polls, while she shows a commanding 12 point lead in the ABC news poll and a smaller but sizable five point lead in the CNN poll. The Republican Remington Research Group released a slew of polls showing Trump up in Ohio, Nevada, and North Carolina, a tie in Florida, and Clinton leads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. However, an independent Siena poll shows Clinton up 7 in North Carolina, while a Monmouth poll shows Trump up one in Arizona

Colin Powell to Vote for Clinton
7 hours ago
Cook Report: Dems to Pick up 5-7 Seats, Retake Senate
9 hours ago

Since the release of the Access Hollywood tape, on which Donald Trump boasted of sexually assaulting women, "Senate Republicans have seen their fortunes dip, particularly in states like Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Pennsylvania," where Hillary Clinton now leads. Jennifer Duffy writes that she now expects Democrats to gain five to seven seats—enough to regain control of the chamber.

"Of the Senate seats in the Toss Up column, Trump only leads in Indiana and Missouri where both Republicans are running a few points behind him. ... History shows that races in the Toss Up column never split down the middle; one party tends to win the lion’s share of them."

Tying Republicans to Trump Now an Actionable Offense
11 hours ago

"Some Republicans are running so far away from their party’s nominee that they are threatening to sue TV stations for running ads that suggest they support Donald Trump. Just two weeks before Election Day, five Republicans―Reps. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), David Jolly (R-Fla.), John Katko (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running for an open seat that’s currently occupied by his brother―contend that certain commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide false or misleading information by connecting them to the GOP nominee. Trump is so terrible, these Republicans are essentially arguing, that tying them to him amounts to defamation."

Former Congressman Schock Fined $10,000
11 hours ago

Former Illinois GOP Congressman Aaron Schock "recently agreed to pay a $10,000 fine for making an excessive solicitation for a super PAC that was active in his home state of Illinois four years ago." Schock resigned from Congress after a story about his Downton Abbey-themed congressional office raised questions about how he was using taxpayer dollars.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.