http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n2/v29n2-1.pdf

Paying Tomorrow's Military
Non-cash benefits may not be the best way to attract and retain service members

Methinks the info in this article is somewhat dated. In fact I noticed many of the figures were only current through FY2004, eh?

'Twas either very early this year or late last year I saw a congressional appropriations summary that noted pay and benefits for active duty members, military retirees and their civil service counterparts now ate up about 50% of the actual military budget, eh? Methinks the tremendous increase in maintainin' TRICARE benefits at current levels, establishment of the TRICARE For Life program, increased costs for payin' reservists/National Guard called to active duty on Federal Service under Titles 10 or 32 of the U.S. Code and bringin' their dependents into TRICARE account for almost all the increase.

Remember too there's a big chunk of change in the Department of Defense budget that has nothin' to do with military expenditures. This includes things like CIA expenditures tucked into it, and other so called "Black Budget" items.

When I hear folks like Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Barbara Lee call for reductions of up to 50% of the military budget to spend on things they consider more important methinks I'm always wantin' to hear specifically what they would cut out. Havin' written both of them in March to find out I'm still wonderin' 'cause neither provided the courtesy of a response of any kind.

IAC methinks consideration of the premise of the article cited in the original note is difficult at best. Pressures by congress critters to cut further into it, for whatever reason, makes it seem even more unattainable, eh?