Plan to shut military supermarkets shows difficulty of cutting defense spending

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/commissary-plan-backlash-show-difficulty-of-cutting-military-personnel-spending/2013/06/01/15fb6c12-c922-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html

 

 

 

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — Motion sensors and razor-wire coils ring the ammunition depot on this vast Marine Corps base. Sentries stand watch in the lobby of the headquarters complex. Military police officers patrol the barracks every few hours. But no building here boasts the defenses of the giant, government-run supermarket, whose bright, wide aisles are stocked with seemingly every brand of every food product available in America — Heinz ketchup, Oscar Mayer bacon, Lay’s chips — all sold at close to wholesale prices.

 

The cost of ordering the goods, filling the shelves and checking out customers is all borne by the American taxpayer.

 

Three summers ago, Richard V. Spencer, a retired investment banker who serves on a Pentagon advisory board, proposed shutting down the commissary at Camp Lejeune and every other domestic military base, a step that would save taxpayers about $1 billion a year.

 

He called several large retailers to see if they would be willing to take over the markets. None were, but Wal-Mart, which has stores within 10 miles of most U.S. bases, proposed offering equivalent discounts to troops, their spouses and their retired brethren. He figured other national chains would follow suit.

 

When the Defense Department bureaucracy that runs the commissaries learned of Spencer’s plan, it sounded an alarm among allies in industry and in Congress. A trade group whose mission is to represent companies that sell goods in military stores fired off a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, warning him it would be “ill-advised” to make major changes. Senators and representatives dispatched similar missives. So did veterans groups. As the correspondence stacked up in his inbox, Gates summoned Spencer and other members of the Defense Business Board.

 

“Richard, my fax machine is vomiting letters of complaint,” Spencer recalled Gates telling him. Worried that congressional anger would doom other Pentagon cost-cutting initiatives, Gates told Spencer to drop his commissary plan.

 

The commissary fight was an opening salvo — and a glimpse of the opposition — in the next big war facing the U.S. military: confronting the enormous cost of pay raises, benefits programs and other taxpayer-subsidized services, which have increased almost 90 percent since 2001 and have become the fastest-growing part of the Defense Department’s budget. With Pentagon spending set to shrink over the next five years, senior military leaders warn that they will be forced to order reductions in troop strength, training and equipment purchases if personnel expenditures are not curtailed.

 

 

[Cat]

Awesome idea - let's keep cutting everything else and not address how fucked the rest of the system is for banks, oil companies, etc.

 

it just doesn't exist, nothing to see here... :whistle:

 

That being said - aren't commissaries the most miserable place on a base? I enjoyed the PX, but I HATED the commissary. All the retirees hang out there and wander around aimlessly - pretty sad. And God forbid if you walk down one of the aisles in the opposite direction of the arrows!

[Homer_Rice]

The commissary fight was an opening salvo — and a glimpse of the opposition — in the next big war facing the U.S. military: confronting the enormous cost of pay raises, benefits programs and other taxpayer-subsidized services, which have increased almost 90 percent since 2001 and have become the fastest-growing part of the Defense Department’s budget. With Pentagon spending set to shrink over the next five years, senior military leaders warn that they will be forced to order reductions in troop strength, training and equipment purchases if personnel expenditures are not curtailed.

The Pentagon should shrink a little. Super-duper, double secret suggestion: fight fewer stupid wars and reduce our military presence in the world to a level more commiserate to the needs of a strong republican democracy and not an overweening imperial power.

 

But the motivating factor here is not surprising. It's simply the application of "outsourcing" as a cover for cost reduction, which is to say: "Government bad...private companies making money off government...good." Hint: taking items "off-book" doesn't necessarily make things less expensive. It just looks that way.

 

I'm a former Ship's Serviceman. Had I served in a shore billet, I would likely have been working at either a commissary or a Naval Exchange. I know a little bit about their operations as the fleet stuff is similar, if on a smaller scale. Prices are established via a modified cost-plus model and profits are generally funneled into separate morale building functions which benefitted the local command. On board ship, iirc, we called it the Welfare and Recreation Committee--which was staffed by fellow shipmates who made decisions on what to do with those funds. I served as a member on such committees (in a reporting function) as it was my job to do the purchasing, transfer, and other sundry balance sheet/P&L bookkeeping for our stores and services. Sssshhh...it was kind of socialistic.

 

Not surprisingly, a move like this will harm the ranks. Why? Because, fuck them, that's why. Support our troops my ass.

[Go Skins]

I have been living in the DC area for 30 years, and grew up reading The Washington Post.  There are over 4,000 comments on this article, rarely does any article break 1,000 comments.  I haven't set foot in a commissary since I was a kid (my dad was in the Navy) and I remember how cheap the prices were then.  There was a picture in the print edition of this that shows how cheap common foods still are.
 

 

[|Numbers|]

Awesome idea - let's keep cutting everything else and not address how fucked the rest of the system is for banks, oil companies, etc.

 

it just doesn't exist, nothing to see here... :whistle:

 

That being said - aren't commissaries the most miserable place on a base? I enjoyed the PX, but I HATED the commissary. All the retirees hang out there and wander around aimlessly - pretty sad. And God forbid if you walk down one of the aisles in the opposite direction of the arrows!

 

...and the majority of those retirees have earned the right to wander aimlessly through those aisles.  It is sad when I see rude active service members basically running their carts around like it's their own private expressway and how dare those who have retired interfere in their shopping experience...  Yes, retirees frequently do the same but by a wide margin it is usually the spouses of the active duty counterpart who are the rudest of the entire store.  Maybe it is different than the store you went to but I doubt much different as I've been in commissaries up and down the East Coast and some in Europe.  I just went there last week and watched an "Army Wife" rudely ram her cart into an old lady almost knocking her down.  No sorry, excuse me, or help at all.  The little old lady was in tears at the rudeness displayed by this "Army Wife" and I was embarrassed that it had happened in a store on a military post.  I talked with this old lady and found that her husband had passed away some time ago and she was on a fixed income barely getting by.  I ensured her that there are more good people than bad people coming into the store and hopefully she is not scared away from coming back. 

[Jamie_B]

The Pentagon should shrink a little. Super-duper, double secret suggestion: fight fewer stupid wars and reduce our military presence in the world to a level more commiserate to the needs of a strong republican democracy and not an overweening imperial power.

 

But the motivating factor here is not surprising. It's simply the application of "outsourcing" as a cover for cost reduction, which is to say: "Government bad...private companies making money off government...good." Hint: taking items "off-book" doesn't necessarily make things less expensive. It just looks that way.

 

I'm a former Ship's Serviceman. Had I served in a shore billet, I would likely have been working at either a commissary or a Naval Exchange. I know a little bit about their operations as the fleet stuff is similar, if on a smaller scale. Prices are established via a modified cost-plus model and profits are generally funneled into separate morale building functions which benefitted the local command. On board ship, iirc, we called it the Welfare and Recreation Committee--which was staffed by fellow shipmates who made decisions on what to do with those funds. I served as a member on such committees (in a reporting function) as it was my job to do the purchasing, transfer, and other sundry balance sheet/P&L bookkeeping for our stores and services. Sssshhh...it was kind of socialistic.

 

Not surprisingly, a move like this will harm the ranks. Why? Because, fuck them, that's why. Support our troops my ass.

 

 

The beatings will continue until moral improves.

[Cat]

 

...and the majority of those retirees have earned the right to wander aimlessly through those aisles.  It is sad when I see rude active service members basically running their carts around like it's their own private expressway and how dare those who have retired interfere in their shopping experience...  Yes, retirees frequently do the same but by a wide margin it is usually the spouses of the active duty counterpart who are the rudest of the entire store.  Maybe it is different than the store you went to but I doubt much different as I've been in commissaries up and down the East Coast and some in Europe.  I just went there last week and watched an "Army Wife" rudely ram her cart into an old lady almost knocking her down.  No sorry, excuse me, or help at all.  The little old lady was in tears at the rudeness displayed by this "Army Wife" and I was embarrassed that it had happened in a store on a military post.  I talked with this old lady and found that her husband had passed away some time ago and she was on a fixed income barely getting by.  I ensured her that there are more good people than bad people coming into the store and hopefully she is not scared away from coming back. 

 

No, that sounds about right. I went there ONCE for personal shopping, it was so gawddamn crowded with rude people (just like you described), I never went back except when I had to run there for a work function, and it was as I described - retirees yelling at you if you ducked into an aisle the wrong direction (even without a cart). I found it all very depressing.

 

When I used to work the gates, the dependents were the WORST. We had to salute the blue DOD stickers (officers)... and the fucking dependents would slow down the traffic, even stop if they didn't "get their salute". I have no doubt what you described in the commissary is absolutely true.

[Homer_Rice]

Government subsidies of commissary system run approx 1.5 bilion per annum. Compare that to this.

 

“Over the last six fiscal years, DOD obligations for contracts performed in the Iraq and Afghanistan areas of operation were approximately $160 billion and exceeded total contract obligations of any other U.S. federal agency,” CRS found.

 

The CRS report comes in the wake of a recent GAO report that the United States spent $195 billion for contractor services in 2010, or twice what it spent on contractors in 2001, before the start of the war in Afghanistan.

 

***

But the CRS and GAO reports did more than simply document how much was being spent on contractors. They also explored contractor oversight and DOD’s ability to track contractor work.

 

Taken together, they amount to yet another indictment of how the Pentagon deals with private workers. CRS found that the Pentagon lacked the ability to document the work each contractor is performing. It also found even when the government has information on contractors, it’s often inaccurate and doesn’t reflect the actual work being done. This leaves the Pentagon unable to determine if the hundreds of billions it’s spending are leading to effective results.

 

 

[|Numbers|]

Government subsidies of commissary system run approx 1.5 bilion per annum. Compare that to this.

 

 

Your point may actually bring up another discussion on "contractor" use.

 

On the surface it is a buttload of money the government is putting into "contractor" work in foreign countries.  Would you equate the current word contractor to that of a mercenary ?  As bad as I make this sound does this also alleviate the need to put military soldiers in harms way ?  Every life may indeed be precious but as a contractor they are paid to perform the "security work" our soldiers are not providing.  Yes, contractors do actually perform non-combat type of roles but if I am not mistaken Jamie had a friend that performed "contractor" type of work and Jamie may be able to elaborate.  Lastly, is it possible the US is just as involved in sending US personnel to overseas locations to the amount equal to or exceeding that of previous years of the current administration ?  With the governments inability to track this information (as stated in the article) we may never know.

 

The CRS report comes in the wake of a recent GAO report that the United States spent $195 billion for contractor services in 2010, or twice what it spent on contractors in 2001, before the start of the war in Afghanistan.

 

Not sure if I am being clear after re-reading my words above.

 

What looks worse on the administration; a contractor dying or a military member dying ?  I am always hearing on TV about a military member dying but know there are "contractors" dying but those "contractors" rarely receive the constant media attention a military member does.  Does public perception of war change for the better or worse when a contractor dies or when a military member dies ?  Is all of this BS just simply a diversion for our attention to be placed where the information and action is not happening ?

 

Our involvement in foreign military wars is appearing to actually increase in expenditures instead of going in the opposite direction.  Sure it is much cheaper to send a soldier instead of a "contractor" but with public perception of foreign wars being pulled out of by our military they might get the wrong idea that the US entanglement is decreasing when in reality it is increasing.

[Homer_Rice]

I think some of them are mercenaries--those who more or less get in harm's way or take over security functions which formerly were performed by troops. Some other contractees--like those who work in service areas--not so much. The main issue, for me, is best summed up by a recent piece by a retired general. The concept of citizen-soldier is on the wane and that has never boded well for imperial powers.

[|Numbers|]

I think some of them are mercenaries--those who more or less get in harm's way or take over security functions which formerly were performed by troops. Some other contractees--like those who work in service areas--not so much. The main issue, for me, is best summed up by a recent piece by a retired general. The concept of citizen-soldier is on the wane and that has never boded well for imperial powers.

 

Some of their comments are somewhat disturbing in regards to the so called draft lottery.  Do not know if this is similar to the program you participated in back in the day but you could probably comment with some authority on the subject as to the quality of military personnel during that time frame.

 

 

 

Let’s start with a draft lottery. Americans neither need nor want a vast conscript force, but a lottery that populated part of the ranks with draftees would reintroduce the notion of service as civic obligation.

Other measures to strengthen citizen engagement with the military should include decreased reliance on contractors for noncombat tasks, so that the true size of the force would be more transparent; integrating veteran and civilian hospitals and rehabilitation facilities, which would let civilians see war’s wounded firsthand; and shrinking self-contained residential neighborhoods on domestic military bases, so that more service members could pray, play and educate their children alongside their fellow Americans. Schools, the media and organs of popular culture also have a duty to help promote civic vigilance.

 

 

 

There certainly would be a benefit to their ideas about medical care and contractors.  Not so sure this is even possible to do but it would "enlighten" some of those who are very quick to condemn those who have medical issues related to service.

[Homer_Rice]

I enlisted at 17, so I never registered. Lots of guys on my first ship were at the tail-end of their 2 year enlistments. Competent workers, but radicalized in many 60s-ish ways. Most had enlisted as a pre-emptive means of chossing their branch of service. Surprisingly, not many guys wanted to go creeping around in the jungles of Vietnam!

 

Personally, I see the same danger as Eikenberry does. A selective draft (his proposal) might have the kind of effect I would like to see, which is to get kids to connect to their nascent political power and to have an interest in how we shape our foreign policy.

[|Numbers|]

I enlisted at 17, so I never registered. Lots of guys on my first ship were at the tail-end of their 2 year enlistments. Competent workers, but radicalized in many 60s-ish ways. Most had enlisted as a pre-emptive means of chossing their branch of service. Surprisingly, not many guys wanted to go creeping around in the jungles of Vietnam!

 

Personally, I see the same danger as Eikenberry does. A selective draft (his proposal) might have the kind of effect I would like to see, which is to get kids to connect to their nascent political power and to have an interest in how we shape our foreign policy.

 

IF the military can continue to get qualified personnel that are educated as high as any other time in military history then I see no reason for a draft other than what you state regarding connections with the political powers that be.  What I would want is someone who wanted to be where I was and not someone who is merely marking time.  Initiative might take a hit and camaraderie might diminish as well.  That is not to say a "volunteer" force is without problems.  There is not a need to create new problems by adding people who's only reason for being there is they were selectively selected...

 

What would be the problem with incorporating a mandatory political class modeled after debate class ?  Thereby encouraging children/young adults to take a side they may or may not agree with and debate the points of the matter.  Something like this might fit into Social Studies course of instruction and would be a whole lot less dangerous for our children than a job field which is hazardous to a persons health (mental and physical).

[Enon Bengal]

Aren't there several countries in Europe that require each individual to serve in some capacity? When I was in London, the father of my daughter's friend was telling me, (that he grew up in Greece), and everyone had to serve two years in government service. Some were police, some enlisted in the military, some carried the mail, whatever. Personally, I like this idea because I believe in service to one's community. I'm sure others would disagree.

[Homer_Rice]

 

IF the military can continue to get qualified personnel that are educated as high as any other time in military history then I see no reason for a draft other than what you state regarding connections with the political powers that be.  What I would want is someone who wanted to be where I was and not someone who is merely marking time.  Initiative might take a hit and camaraderie might diminish as well.  That is not to say a "volunteer" force is without problems.  There is not a need to create new problems by adding people who's only reason for being there is they were selectively selected...

 

What would be the problem with incorporating a mandatory political class modeled after debate class ?  Thereby encouraging children/young adults to take a side they may or may not agree with and debate the points of the matter.  Something like this might fit into Social Studies course of instruction and would be a whole lot less dangerous for our children than a job field which is hazardous to a persons health (mental and physical).

It's all about having a skin in the game, imo. A draft would do that. A class, not so much. I say this lovingly, but you were a lifer and it's the lifers who have to provide the continuity in the services. I think they do that fairly well. Any boot, whether a draftee or a volunteer, has to be indoctrinated in the way things get done, the whole, "there's a right way, a wrong way, and the Navy way" mindset. The problems which were evident during the Vietnam years were mostly about the nature of that war and not so much about the process by which the military perpetuates itself. Imo, that's one of the primary reasons why the volunteer forces were introduced--because it is easier to indoctrinate a person into the fundamental ethic of the military ("we aren't political, we do the bidding of the civilian leader") who have chosen to be there--as opposed to being a genuine citizen-soldier, who is there to serve the policies of the country.

[Jamie_B]

I'm completely in favor of a draft for government work, not so much completely military wise. I think as Homer said, if people had skin in the game, it might give us a better functioning government because people would understand its role on a day to day basis and we might get some better ideals on how to make it work for us better.