Pentagon budget: 4 ways White House wants to change the military

Here are the top four things the new Defense budget reveals about the White House’s priorities for the US military.

3. No more big pay raises for troops

Carolyn Kaster/AP
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel briefs reporters at the Pentagon on the department budget on Feb. 24.

The Pentagon’s personnel costs for both civilians and military forces make up roughly half of all defense spending, and military analysts project that they will continue to grow.

That’s not sustainable, defense officials warn. The Defense Department has already put in place a three-year pay freeze for civilians. Now, with demands for cost-cutting, “no realistic effort to find further significant savings can avoid dealing with military compensation,” Hagel said.

Pay for US troops since 2001 has risen some 40 percent more than growth in the private sector, due in large part to the fact that Congress has hiked pay raises well above levels requested by the Pentagon.

The 2015 budget recommends a 1 percent pay raise for US troops, while generals and admirals will see their pay frozen for one year. Troops will also see a cut in tax-free housing allowances – currently the military covers 100 percent of housing expenses. Now troops will be expected to make a 5 percent out-of-pocket contribution.

Veterans groups are not impressed. “Here we go again. Washington is trying to balance the budget on the backs of those who have sacrificed the most,” said Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America founder Paul Rieckhoff, in a statement.

But defense analysts point out that costs are high and some cuts are necessary. “Right now the military is spending 10 percent of its budget on health care, and that percentage is expected to go up,” says Benjamin Freeman, policy adviser for the National Security Project at the Third Way think tank in Washington. “So it’s good to see them trying to rein in costs.”

3 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.