| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| CBO: Replacing soldiers with civilians could save $billions |
| 2016-07-10 |
| A federal agency has issued a report suggesting the U.S. military could save as much as $5.7 billion every year by replacing some forces personnel with government civilians. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) used a model which either cut or replaced about 80,000 active-duty positions with civilians. The report, published Tuesday, claims the move would not be new to the Department of Defense (DoD) and could help the military focus on core roles. The CBO outlined three scenarios: a one-for-one civilian replacement for certain service members, a four-for-five civilian to military replacement, and a two-to-three civilian to military replacement. These, according to the report, could eventually save between $3.1 billion to $5.7 billion annually. The CBO report also noted that the federal government would realize savings outside the DoD by replacing military personnel serving in departments such as Veterans Affairs, Treasury, and Education. Daniel Wasserbly of defense and security intelligence group IHS Jane's believes a move to cut military strength is unlikely. "CBO is brainstorming ideas to save money and this is an interesting one, but it's unlikely to be implemented because it would mean a controversial reduction in military end-strength. "The services, particularly the U.S. Army, are in the process of reducing their ranks after growing significantly to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. The service chiefs, and some in Congress, fear cuts may already be too deep," Wasserbly said the U.S. army has set out plans to drop 490,000 soldiers proposed in the 2015 budget down to 450,000 by the end of 2018. And within the CBO report, downsides to reducing the number of active-duty military are highlighted. "Achieving the costs savings depends on cutting military end strength. An action that would reduce the Department of Defense's ability to surge troops in a protracted conflict." |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #18 CBO needs to talk to the guy in the Head and Headquarters company 173 Light Infantry Brigade about their night in the foxholes during Tet of 68. I don't think a DAC would be issued a rifle and a helmet along with their typewriter and whiteout. Of course this could be a back door effort to insert women into the TOA. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2016-07-10 22:45 |
| #17 Besoeker I appreciate your service as a contractor and I am not throwing rocks at you, but war should never become a "business" and money should never be the prime motivation. Prime example - Afghanistan became a debacle once contractors and third party foreign nationals became involved. We lost billions...paid directly to the threat who sat aside our supply lines and contracts. We inadvertently fund (present tense) the Taliban. Thousands and thousands of containers of US and coalition materiel captured by the enemy because we contracted out our supply chain. Result - we contracted our way to a stalemate. |
| Posted by: Tennessee 2016-07-10 21:41 |
| #16 Should be. I know a soldier, who is not the envious type, mention that on return from his first Iraq. When what you said was pointed out, and that a number of ex-military take their learned skill set into the private sector and get paid more for the same job they did in the military, and that it just so happens you had the same skill set, he understood and conceded the point. Losing an experienced employee is frustrating, especially if I know I cannot counter the offer. It was pointed out to soldier that this was his first rodeo where the contractor likely has a lot of experience and shown skill; that a rookie QB does not get paid the same as Tom Brady. On the other had, with soldier's MOS, he has access and use of equipment totally unavailable to contractor. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2016-07-10 18:50 |
| #15 Your second para rather directly speaks to monetary reward as motivation. I began as an 18 year old 'slick sleeved' private making $91. per month mamy years ago. Where that training and experience eventually took me should be my own business, not the envy of those seeking benefits or rewards. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-07-10 17:51 |
| #14 Besoeker - You are correct the original rationalization for contractors was the need for expertise...in the short term. But, as the war drug on...we should have expanded the green Army...but, it was easy politically to hide the true numbers on the ground in Iraq/AFG by stating that only 100K green was on the ground, never mind that 100K white army that is supporting it, as well as the fact that General or Colonel So and So needs an important high paying job when they retire next spring... The impact of contractors making 100K plus serving alongside Sgts/Cpls making 35-40K doing the same job down range was also an un-needed distraction to morale and a drain on qualified green-suiters as the experienced green suiters cashed in early to take high paying contractor jobs. |
| Posted by: Tennessee 2016-07-10 17:40 |
| #13 ...this is from the same group of rationalizers that convinced big Army the contractors were the way to fight the last war. The Army was never so 'convinced.' It the Army could have ridded itself of contractors, it would have done so instantly, possibly sooner. Manpower and expertise in specific technical areas, information systems and the like, were the justifications for contractors. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-07-10 17:28 |
| #12 This is absolutely ridiculous - this is from the same group of rationalizers that convinced big Army the contractors were the way to fight the last war...CIA had contractors that jacked up the interrogations...logisticians had contractors that paid the enemy for the privilege of passing through their AO - paying them for the privilege to fight. Civilians that refused to deploy. We need more green and blue suiters, not less, and get rid of the white civilian contractor army and replace it with real soldiers, marines, and airmen. This is insanity. |
| Posted by: Tennessee 2016-07-10 17:20 |
| #11 RWR: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Second on the list: "I'm from the government and I'm here to save you money." |
| Posted by: Matt 2016-07-10 14:39 |
| #10 More like an army of Gestopo made up of every activist, community organizer, agitator, an pissant dictator you can imagine. All owing their loyalty to their cause or tin plated patron who see the country as a hinderance deserving of no loyalty. It will be, in truth, everything the left accuses it of being now. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2016-07-10 14:01 |
| #9 Think an Army of TSA and DMV employees They certainly have the weaponry and ammo. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2016-07-10 13:55 |
| #8 Think an Army of TSA and DMV employees |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-07-10 10:25 |
| #7 CF, we have met the enemy and he is us. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2016-07-10 10:18 |
| #6 Unionized Military. "Sorry General, I can't transmit these orders, my shift just ended!" What could possibly go wrong? Do they really think the enemy will follow their union rules? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2016-07-10 09:43 |
| #5 Downsizing the military while establishing federal police. I wonder if there's a common thread? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-07-10 09:16 |
| #4 From the beginning, the Founders understood that the military experience was different from civil society, that's why the granted Congress the authority and power to make all laws governing land and naval forces. It's not the same. You can't give two weeks notice and be 'out of here'. You are subject to an entire set of separate laws and disciplines. No civilian government employee is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice stateside, no Article 15 or Courts Martial. Not to mention, the uniform personnel are on duty 24 hours a day. They don't have overtime. If something needs to be done, it's not a question of calling the personnel office for a 'mother may I". |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-07-10 09:01 |
| #3 beat me to it magpie. the key word is UNION. Graft ready jobs from Zero. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2016-07-10 08:15 |
| #2 Really? Or are we replacing military with Civil Service employees, a.k.a. union members, with expanded benefits that will be paid in future by taxpayers and union kickbacks to politicians in the present? Short reply: government money saving plan is an oxymoron. |
| Posted by: magpie 2016-07-10 08:13 |
| #1 Next: replacing people with robots & drones. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2016-07-10 02:57 |