This paper should appear factual and formal, which will eliminate your ability to present ideas in first person (“I think…” or “I have seen…” will be off limits, for instance). You’ll need to do some research and find published information (government sources will work in aIDition to articles). Be sure to decide exactly how you feel about the issue because this type of paper will need to argue a point (“Changing the current system is right/wrong because…). The paper will need to focus on proving why your side of the argument is the correct one…………………

 

Page Summary

The United States’ military retirement benefits system is a complex system to understand. Different categories of military personnel are subjected to different systems depending on the available resources and needs. The retirement benefits for the military personnel have been on the rise constantly, despite numerous attempts to cut down on the spending in the department of defense. It has therefore continued to be major government concerns on how to deal with the budget deficits at the same time maintain the national security.

Various groups of people have continued to pile pressure on the government as to why there are so many military bases around the world increasing the cost of spending on military. Some have suggested a closure and withdraw of the military personnel in outdated bases. The government has continued to create wars which impel it to increase its needs to employ more military personnel and retire those who have served the department for a period of more than 20 years.  Continued pressure in regard to the rising inflation and recession has caused the government to increase its budget allocation on military benefits in order to win the unending wars.

The pentagon as a major government’s federal agency, has failed to implement the various recommendations of increasing savings through cuts on military spending. It is attributed to the increased bureaucracy in the agency as everyone feels he or she is in command. Moreover, the TRICARE health system can not just be scraped off. This is because there are a lot of stakeholders involved in the program and such a move will have an impression on the government’s disregarding the health welfare of the military personnel.

Introduction

According to US department of defense directive one is subject to military retirement pay after serving in the military force for a period of 20 years. The person is entitled to a 50 % of the basic pay instantly upon retirement. Any army or air force officer who has over 20 years of service with the military is considered to be retired and is entitled to earn a retired pay. On the other side, the navy retires after 30 years of service in the navy fleet. Military retirees’ pay rises a year after the other, which puts a question to the minds of the citizens if America is preparing for war or economic development. There are various drawbacks of military retirement to the American budget which allocates more money on the department of defense.

Reasons why military retirement is a foe to the government’s wallet

Military retirement is increasingly becoming costly to the government’s funds with increase in costs related to disability compensation, military retired pay and other benefits that the department of defense stipulates must be given to the military. The people who serve as military at the same time as civilians are always called upon from time to time on national duties more than the normal troops. As a result, they are compensated for lost wages. This is very expensive compared to picking on the available troops to carry out the national duties. There are other issues which are very critical for application of the ‘wasted’ funds such as healthcare costs. The funds are needed to provide modern medicine services including the survivors in the war. If the military has to be given most of the money as retirement benefits, it will imply the lives they are entitled to save is being wiped out due to lack of modern medical facilities.

It is unethical to invest heavily in a war that is artificially created by the Americans instead of investing in infrastructure, education, technology, energy among other sectors. Spending heavily on people sent on missions to kill foreigners in the name of terrorists, instead of focusing on peace building strategies is illogical. The government is often worried what budget allocation should go to the department of defense. The military bases in the overseas have increased with time. There are over 700 military bases in over 150 nations around the world. This stipulates to the number of young people being recruited in the military and so to the cost of retirement benefits accrued to them after 20 years of active serving. These costs are continuing to be unbearable. In the near future the budget allocation to the department of defense might go way above 80%. Such actions might lead to slowed economic growth in relation to other nations. It implies therefore the citizens have to dig deeper in to their pockets to fund the escalating in form of taxes. Eventually, the American citizens finance these retirement benefits for the military personnel.

Obama’s presentation of the budget for the fiscal year 2011 proposing a hiked amount by 4.5 % above the estimated amount in fiscal year 2010 totaled to $719 billion. The total allocated to the defense department exceeded the amount budgeted for. Funds meant for other departments are deviated to the department of defense. For example, justice department and the department of treasury which slows down the activities in this departments concerning deliverance of services (Friedman & Preble, 2010). Money is fungible and it is shameful for the government to receive assistance from the foreign governments in support of economic development programs while the nation devotes most of its budget to military support. Most of the funds used in financing defense department are borrowed from the public which strains government’s efforts in other economic departments. In respect to the recession in progress, there are millions of people out of work as a result of concentration on one department neglecting other departments. Military forces continue to enjoy good living at the expense of taxpayers’ pocket. This is a complete drawback to the societal perception.

From the outgoing secretary Robert Gates, he noted that US should spend as much as they can on national defense, nevertheless, not a single penny more should be spent in the defense department. This shows concern over the government’s efforts to reduce the budget on national defense. Much of these funds are channeled towards military retirement. Contrary during Gates’ time, the budget allocated for military increased form $ 450 billion to an amount above $ 550 billion after a period of four years (Department of Defense, 2011). However much the pentagon tries to reduce the budget, they find themselves in situations where an increase in spending on defense must increase. It is not just wars that this argument is trying to aIDress, but there are other non-war defense expenses that are overwhelming. The government needs funds to pay military retirement benefits, the government needs money to replace or redeploy the retired military force. As the system stipulates, any military personnel who retires after 20 years of service in the national duty, but has not yet attained 60 years of age, can be redeployed. Redeploying the retired military has the implication that his or her benefits have to be increased by 2.5 %. This is too much for the government to bear.

The 2010 report on the sustainable defense task force recommended a cut of $ 960 billion between the year 2011 and 2020. It is to take effect if only the pentagon can take actions on them. But as pentagon views, this would be a great threat to the national security. This is because Pentagon as the federal agency can not make an autonomy decision to make the cuts. The normal bookkeeping procedures can not enable the pentagon to track the spending, any fraud, and ravage. With the growing spending on defense budget due to continuing deployment of troops in Iraq, Afghan and Libya, it does not give room for such measures to be implemented. It will be executed only if the war in these countries comes to an end. Empirically, making a cut on the defense budget in the time of war is a tough nut to crack for the pentagon given the current predicament of the budget. The cuts are a huge pressure to the government as long as there are no new strategies in dealing with the war occupation in a bid to make the desired budget line a reality.

According to Erwin’s article in the national defense magazine in (2010), if strategic framework is not present the pentagon can easily lose its control over the cuts on military spending. This is because everyone in Pentagon thinks he is in control leading to lack of a coherent message to a proper solution. Therefore, the military bases that are outdated will continue to be in effect without an appropriate agreement between the officials in pentagon.

According to the Report of the Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, Volumes I & II, 2008, currently the military compensation inclusive of the tax advantages and house allowances are not considered in pay rise computation that are attached to adjustments in the civilian department. The premiums assigned for the department of defense’s health care program, are lower which egg on the military retirees, who are receiving a full amount of civilian salaries, to opt for TRICARE. This is even though the coverage on health is accessible via their employer who is the government (Philpot, 2009). Even though there are suggestions to reform the TRICARE to save more according to the CBO report of 2009, such a restraint strategy would be a hard rock to climb. This is due to the many stakeholders involved in the whole system as it would raise eyebrows towards the government about their concern for the health welfare of the military personnel in the nation.

To aID salt to the wound, the prediction of inflation and in comparison to the accepted GDP measure for the next 10 years, is too worrying for the government with the current spending on military. The government thinks of a deficit reduction while not considering a cut in security budget. The security budget stands at $ 400 billion, but as the uncertainties holds, in the defense department there are not accurate estimates on contemplated savings with the looming inflation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Benjamin H. Friedman and Christopher Preble, (2010), “Budgetary Savings from Military

Restraint,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 667, September 21, 2010

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, (2010) Washington: Government Printing

Office

Department of Defense, 2011 Report

Report of the Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, Volumes I & II, 2008,

Washington: Department of Defense, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,

Robert Higgs, (2010), that’s right: more than $1TRILLION a year, the Independent Institute

Sandra Erwin, (2011), National defense, National defense Magazine

Tom Philpot, (2009), “Gates: Retiree TRICARE Fees Should Rise,” Military.com

 

 

 

 

Order your task now