Republicans eyeing defense budget cuts, and a look at military retirement

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Monday, September 19, 2011 - 11:13 AM Share

Newsweek has a good piece about how Republicans no longer automatically support defense spending: "The willingness of many in the Tea Party to take the budget knife to defense to stave off tax increases has pitted the vibrant new wing against the GOP's longtime military hawks." The New York Times, apparently back from summer vacation, catches up with July's move to trim military retirement pay.

ProtestPhotos1/Flickr

EXPLORE:ECONOMICS, MILITARY

(9)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

JAYLEMEUX

4:28 PM ET

September 19, 2011

Not sure if the pic was intentionally chosen...

But ANSWER is basically a modern communist party in the US (and I don't throw that term around gratuitously). Definitely not even in the same ideological galaxy as the Tea Party.

TOM RICKS

4:58 PM ET

September 19, 2011

That's the point!

Best,
Tom

WAZEEFAHMAN NEYST

10:37 AM ET

September 20, 2011

Trimming the budget: good place to start

I am digusted that the AF personnel on my FOB in Afghanistan get extra pay for substandard living conditions (don't what the exact term the AF used to pussify this crock of crap).

Great place to start trimming BS.. an E5 here gets the same amount of $$$ per month as I do for family seperation because his quarters don't meet AF standards.

How many more are getting this while DEPLOYED????

What is next, a stipend for having to carry an M4? No offense meant to the AF PJ or TAC..

I am not disgusted at the AF personnel, if entitled, I too would take it, but it is ludicrous to expect joint service personnel to work/fight together but not get the same benefits. This is not a plea for Army/Navy/Marines to get this stipend, but to eliminate it altogether.

I would interested to know how many pensions could have been paid to retirees instead of paying out this assinine stipend. Combat is not meant to be CONUS.

Roz Khosh

BEARCAT

6:29 PM ET

September 19, 2011

Not Communists!!

The Tea Party are not Communists, They Are More Like Radical Nihilists!!

In general "Conservative" has a positive connotation so lots of people that are not conservative like to call themselves Conservatives.

OR "I Style Myself a Conservative, so whatever comes out of My Mouth is (by definition) CONSERVAAATISM". Even if it the craziest thing you ever heard in your life!!

KAYKURI

9:12 PM ET

September 19, 2011

Not necessarily disagreeing, but I think you misunderstood...

"Nihilists! F@#k me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
--Walter Sobchak

The group A.N.S.W.E.R. is likened to communists above, not the Tea Party. Per Tom, the strong contrast was intentional.

OMPHALOS

10:50 PM ET

September 19, 2011

Must be exhausting...

but do they pull the treeger 'til it goes "cleeck"?

SOLDIERSDIARY

4:06 AM ET

September 20, 2011

no, they do not...but if you learn anything from them..."Nobody f*%^s with the Jesus!"

LUVMY91STANG

10:00 PM ET

September 19, 2011

Is there any analyses

Is there any analyses available that breaks down where the increases (as highlighted in the NYT piece) in costs come from? How much of this can be attributed to the costs associated with caring for wounded vets? The only thing I see in the media are rough outlines and have to ask why there is a full court press to reduce benefits with no real data forthcoming. The NYT piece has a graphic that purports to show the retirement costs as an almost vertical function beginning in 2005. What's the story behind this graphic? I know the oligarchs and the tea party retards don't want to pay taxes, but when you send kids off to fight a war and they come back with their brains scrambled because they got hit with too many IED's, then tough luck, you need to suck it up and pay for the rest of that kid's life.

Of course, it's just speculation saying the increase in costs is due to wounded vets. The fact is, I don't know. It would be nice if there was a reporter in the room that could investigate, but nah!! The point is to sell the policy in the media. We don't want to look too closely at pesky little details. That would just detract from the mission.

GREGBUNT

9:54 AM ET

October 9, 2011

George W. Bush

George W. Bush killed a lot more people in many weeks than the apparent zero killed by WikiLeaks snowthrowers2012. The release of the unredacted material was not done by Wikileaks, and those who did that need to be investigated. I would interested to know how many pensions could have been paid to retirees instead of paying out this assinine stipend. Combat is not meant to be CONUS.