UPDATED January 2, 2012
The Future Military: Your Budget Strategy
Your cuts
$0
billion0% towards $450 billion goal
-
CategoryCutsPct.
-
Benefits--
-
Salaries--
-
Personnel--
-
Weapons--
-
Nuclear, Missile--
-
Operations, Maint.--
Benefits
The Pentagon’s health insurance, Tricare, now costs a military retiree and his or her family $520 a year, far below what they would pay for a private carrier. (Active-duty military pay nothing for health care.)
Increase Tricare Prime fees for military retirees younger than 65
The annual fee for family coverage would about double to $1,100.*
$28 billion
Raise co-pay for drugs under Tricare
Would increase various co-payments for drugs for dependents of active-duty military personnel as well as for military retirees and their families. (It would not affect active-duty service members.) A 30-day prescription for a generic drug filled at a retail pharmacy would cost $15, up from what had been $3.**
$26 billion
Exclude military retirees from Tricare Prime
Military retirees and their dependents would not be permitted to enroll in Tricare Prime, the most generous Tricare option. Instead they could enroll in Tricare Standard or Extra. Maximum annual out-of-pocket costs would increase to $7,500 per family, from $3,000.
$105 billion
Institute an annual fee of $200 for Tricare-for-Life
Would institute an annual $200 fee for military retirees older than 65 who transition to Tricare-for-Life, a supplement to Medicare that is now free.
$6.7 billion
Introduce minimum out-of-pocket requirements under Tricare-for-Life
Tricare-for-Life would not cover the first $550 of cost-sharing payments under Medicare and would cover only half of the next $4,950 in such payments.
$43 billion
Military retirement: Choose one or none
Cut back military retirement pay for new entrants.
A recruit joining now who works for 20 years would not receive retirement pay until age 60; it would be 40 percent of the average of the last five years of salary. Currently, military personnel can retire after 20 years and immediately receive 50 per cent of the average of the last three years of salary.
$86.5 billion
Change military retirement system for new entrants to a private-sector 401(k) model
A new entrant could make $16,500 in tax-deferred annual payments to a retirement fund and $5,500 in annual tax-deferred "catch-up" contributions for those over 50. Vesting would occur after four years.
$35 billion
Salaries
The salaries of military and civilian workers make up a huge portion of the Pentagon's costs. Many analysts see opportunities for savings here, although cuts would risk hurting morale and recruitment.
Cap increases in basic military pay
Military wage increases from 2012 to 2015 would be capped at half a percentage point below an average of private-sector wage increases. Since 1982, military pay has risen considerably faster than private-sector pay.
$17 billion
Freeze salaries of civilian work force at the Pentagon for three years
Would represent a pay cut, in effect, because of inflation. In 2009 and 2010, Pentagon employees received a raise of about 6 percent, more than the rise in inflation or the raises of private-sector workers.
$15.5 billion
Change military compensation calculation
Would slow the rate of growth in tax-exempt military allowances for housing and food by combining them with basic pay. The vast majority of military personnel receives these allowances, which have grown at a faster rate than basic military wages.
$55 billion
Personnel
The Army and Marine Corps are shrinking now that the war in Iraq is over and the war in Afghanistan is starting to wind down. Some analysts think they can shrink further. But how big a force is required to deter adversaries and protect American security interests in a changing world?
Ground Force sizes: Choose one or none
Reduce ground forces — Army and Marines — to 657,400, a cut of 15 percent, over next 10 years
By 2020, there would be 482,400 troops in the Army, from 570,000 today. Marines would number 175,000 from 202,000 now. Reducing ground troops would constrict the Pentagon if it faced two major conflicts at the same time.
$147 billion
Reduce Army and Marines to 505,000, a cut of 35 percent, over next 10 years
By 2020, there would be 360,000 troops in the Army, from 570,000 today. Marines would reduce to 145,000, from 202,000.
$387 billion
Civilian work force: Choose one or none
Reduce Pentagon civilian work force to 630,000, a 20 percent cut, over next 10 years
The reductions would come chiefly through attrition. Many military analysts say a smaller military requires fewer civilian support personnel and that a reduction of 20 percent is smaller than cuts made between 1991 and 2001.
$73 billion
Reduce Pentagon civilian work force to 550,000, a 30 percent cut, over next 10 years
These staff reductions would also come largely through attrition, but some analysts say such deep cuts would risk serious shortages and may eventually require hiring more expensive contractors.
$105 billion
Weapons and Procurement
Beans and bullets are cheap; stealthy jet fighters and new aircraft carriers are expensive. After a decade of war, the question is which equipment should be repaired and which retired – and what new weapons will the Pentagon need in the years ahead?
Joint Strike Fighters: Choose one or none
Replace F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with F-16s and F/A-18s
Some analysts say that upgraded F-16 and F/A-18 fighter jets are sufficient to meet foreseeable threats, but those opposed say F-16s and F/A-18s lack the stealth features to evade enemy radar.
$48 billion
Cancel Navy and Marine Corps Joint Strike Fighter and replace with F/A-18E/Fs
Instead of canceling the entire F-35 program, this would be a compromise, keeping the Air Force version but canceling the variants planned by the Navy and Marine Corps.
$6 billion
Reduce aircraft carriers to 10 from 11, and Navy air wings to 9 from 10
An air wing consists of as many as 70 aircraft, including fighter jets, surveillance aircraft and helicopters, that operate from a carrier. This could reduce American flexibility in the Pacific.
$7 billion
Reduce Navy ship buying
Would cancel the purchases of five amphibious ships, retire six Ticonderoga-class cruisers, buy one instead of two Virginia-class submarines per year and buy 12 instead of 55 littoral combat ships.
$55 billion
Cancel V-22 Osprey in FY 2016, stop total procurement at 363 aircraft
The Marines love the Osprey, which takes off like a helicopter and flies like an airplane, but at $70 million per aircraft, it is expensive and has a mixed history.
$8 billion
Delay Army Ground Combat Vehicle until 2025
Would delay for a dozen years a new combat vehicle that is larger, more secure and more advanced than the Army's existing tanks.
$6 billion
Cancel the Air Force's “Next Generation” long-range stealth bomber
The new bomber, which is in the early stages of development and is not expected to go into service until the 2020s, would be stealthier and have a longer range than the existing B-52, B-2 and B-1 bombers.
$38 billion
Cancel the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical and the Joint Tactical Radio System
The Army's Warfighter Information Network would provide faster and more secure communications for troops on the battlefield and the Joint Tactical Radio System would allow for better communications between different types of military radios. Both are upgrades to existing systems.
$15 billion
Nuclear and Missile
One of the largest expenses the Pentagon faces is replacing its aging strategic nuclear forces. While America’s nuclear warheads are relatively inexpensive to maintain on a day-to-day basis, all three legs of the nuclear triad that can deliver the punch – submarines, bombers and ground-based missiles – are reaching the end of their service life at just about the same time.
Eliminate nuclear weapons from bomber aircraft, the "third leg" of the nuclear triad
Would eliminate one of the three delivery possibilities for nuclear weapons, bomber aircraft, while retaining nuclear weapons based on land and on submarines.
$39 billion
Curtail experimental national missile defense programs
President Obama has reconfigured missile defense to take advantage of existing technologies. This would eliminate some of the most expensive experimental programs that would not reach fruition for decades.
$30 billion
Terminate the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS)
MEADS is an air and missile defense system under joint development by the United States, Germany and Italy that is intended to replace the Patriot system, but the United States, Germany and Italy have no plans to buy it. PTSS, under design by the Missile Defense Agency, is intended to be a constellation of satellites that track enemy ballistic missiles.
$13 billion
Operations and Maintenance
Waste and redundancy have forever been a choice target of budget-cutters. But finding the waste and then the political will to cut it is rarely easy.
Reduce military personnel in Europe and Asia from 150,000 to 100,000
Proponents argue that conventional ground forces stationed in Western Europe and some islands in Asia were originally part of a Cold War strategy.
$69.5 billion
Consolidate Defense Department commissaries and retail stores
The Defense Department operates a chain of more than 250 commissaries, or groceries, on military bases around the world, plus three separate chains of retail stores. This would reduce government subsidies for the commissaries, raising some prices, and consolidate the management of the commissaries and retail stores.
$9 billion
Cut most college tuition assistance for active-duty military
In 2009, the Tuition Assistance Program reimbursed 377,000 service members up to $4,500 each for college courses taken while on active duty. This would largely eliminate the benefit, which is also available for active-duty service members in the G.I. Bill.
$5 billion
Close Defense Department elementary and secondary schools
Would close the 66 Department of Defense elementary and secondary schools serving 26,000 students at 16 military installations in the United States. Many of the schools are in poor condition, although closing them would be a hardship for students who live on remote bases far from local public schools, or where public schools are in worse condition than the on-base schools.
$10 billion
Reduce Defense Department travel costs
Would reduce Defense Department domestic and international travel by about 15 per cent, to some $7.5 billion per year, in large part by lengthening tours at military bases from four to six years instead of one to three years.
$14 billion
Replace military personnel who perform commercial activities
Would replace 88,000 military personnel who are working in supply, transportation, communications and support jobs — including trash pick-ups at bases — with 62,000 civilians, who would be paid less.
$53 billion
Standardize spending on base support
Would set a consistent standard for per troop spending on support services (like grass-cutting and electricity) at military bases, which now varies from a low of $10,800 per servicemember in the Marine Corps to $17,500 per servicemember in the Air Force.
$20 billion
Audit the Pentagon
The Defense Department is one of the few federal agencies that has never passed an independent audit of its finances. Proponents of this option say that if Congress forced an audit, it would be possible for the Pentagon to save less than half of 1 percent of its base budget each year, or $25 billion over a decade.
$25 billion
Reduce recruiting expenses
Recruitment spending could be cut as wars draw down and ground forces shrink.
$5 billion
Cut military intelligence spending by 3 percent and then freeze it for 10 years
Would remove some duplication between military and non-military intelligence roles and responsibilities.
$26 billion
Cut 10 percent of the research and development budget
Would direct the Pentagon to cut 10 percent of its research and development funding for two years, then freeze it at that level for the next eight years. Proponents say this is not an onerous cut, but opponents say research and development is vital for future technologies and to keep the United States ahead of its adversaries, particularly in cyber warfare and intelligence gathering.
$79 billion
Scale back military bands
The Pentagon spends more than $300 million a year on what are now 154 military bands. Historically bands offered morale to troops on the battlefield. This proposal would cut their funding by two-thirds.
$0.2 billion
Sources and where they were used
Sustainable Defense Task Force, “Debt, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward,” June 2010
Interview with Arnold L. Punaro, member of the Defense Business Board and former staff director, Senate Armed Services Committee; Office of Actuary in Office of Secretary of Defense, December 2011
Center for a New American Security, “Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity,” October 2011
Congressional Budget Office, “Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,” March 2011
Defense Business Board, “Modernizing the Military Retirement System,” July 11, 2011
Michael E. O'Hanlon, “The Wounded Giant,” November 2011
Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies, “Triad, Dyad, Monad? Shaping the US Nuclear Force for the Future,” December 2009
Office of Management and Budget, “Living within Our Means and Investing in the Future: The President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction,” September 2001
Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), “Back in Black: A Deficit Reduction Plan,” July 2011
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, “The Moment of Truth,” Dec. 2010
Interview with Todd Harrison, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, December 2011
Bipartisan Policy Center, The Debt Reduction Task Force, Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, Co Chairs, “Restoring America’s Future: Reviving the Economy, Cutting Spending and Debt, and Creating a Simple, Pro-Growth Tax System,” Nov. 2010
By ELISABETH BUMILLER, SHAN CARTER, MATTHEW ERICSON, ALICIA PARLAPIANO, KEVIN QUEALY, THOM SHANKER and LISA WAANANEN
*The Pentagon recently raised the fee for family coverage to $520 from $460, so savings would be slightly less than $28 billion.
**The Pentagon recently raised drug co-pays, including the cost of a 30-day supply of generics to $5 from $3, so actual savings would be slightly less than $26 billion.
Cutting the Defense Budget
Later this month, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta will reveal his strategy that will guide major defense reductions — and with it the Obama administration’s vision of the military that the United States needs to meet 21st century threats. You followed a link to a way another reader made those reductions. Study those choices, then make and share a plan of your own. Good luck!
An earlier version of this graphic gave the incorrect date for the Office of Management and Budget report “Living within Our Means and Investing in the Future: The President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction.” The report is from September 2011, not September 2001.