Showing posts with label America's Global War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America's Global War on Terror. Show all posts

September 10, 2011

Establishment Using 10-year Anniversary of 911 to Instill Greater Fear

Will government commandeer private pension plans, 401Ks and IRA’s in return for a government guaranteed annuity; will these retirement plans be traded for US Treasuries; or like one bill says, limit the amounts that can be removed and how many times you can remove funds?...Tax loopholes will be closed, Social Security and Medicare will be capped in the midst of roaring inflation, and tax brackets will be adjusted to increase the tax bite. This exercise is called Cut, Cap and Balance. HR 2560 only perpetuates the status quo. The sad fact is there is no balance in this idea. There is no real attempt to cut anything, except Social Security and Medicare, so the military industrial complex can continue to reap profits and kill off our young in undeclared no-win wars, only designed to plunder countries. Of course, the excuse for this is the global war on terror, which has never and does not exist. Wars are to be endless and perpetual in the search of peace. - Economic Recovery Remains Elusive, International Forecaster Weekly, July 23, 2011

9/11 Hype: False Flag Programming in Full Bloom

By Zen Gardner
September 10, 2011

They're at it again big time, folks, and really cranking it up. Beware. Not of the terrorists....of THEM!.

The "warnings" generated by the Big Brother State are coming at us fast and furious. And following patterns and narratives engrained in our brains for decades now. We've seen this before from Waco to Oklahoma City, from overseas "attacks" on military targets by "extremists" to 9/11, we've been TOLD who the enemy is. Period. And it's bogus.

Here's how the sheeple will be "primed" for the next "attact":

Sources: Authorities Concerned About Possible Dirty Bomb, Times Square Strike

Say Al Qaeda Eager To Hit Where They Failed, Just Like 9/11 Following 1993

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Just two days before the 10th anniversary, New York City is on high alert.

Federal and local authorities have beefed up security after receiving intelligence about a credible threat. The alleged plot by al Qaeda involves detonating car bombs on bridges and in tunnels in New York and Washington D.C. to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.

"Freak Out, Everyone"

One thing about warning people is you have to be credible. Problem is, when it comes to warnings about your supposed safety, we all tend to err on the safe side. So it's pretty easy for them to corral the populace through fear. After all, they're the "authorities" and have been herding the sheep for ages.

Such manipulation it's infuriating.

The Shifty Face of Fear

But look at the would-be fear generating "pot shots" being taken at us from all sides:

  • Obama says recently look for the lone gunman...(last year he said mini-nukes)

  • Napolitano now says watch for bomb-laden vehicles..including dirty bombs..as if some of them are clean.. (last week it was small planes...)

US Alert Over 'Credible 9/11 Terror Threat'

Officials say manhunt is under way for suspects as New York and Washington raise security ahead of attacks' anniversary.

US officials have said they are investigating a credible but unconfirmed threat of a terror attack, reportedly involving bomb-laden vehicles ahead of this weekend's 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

"There is specific, credible but unconfirmed threat information," the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on Thursday.

"We have taken, and will continue to take all steps necessary to mitigate any threats that arise," the department added in a statement.

Law enforcement sources said a manhunt was under way for two or three suspects, the Reuters news agency reported. Source

Credible Threat? What does that mean?

Anyone can say that about anything! Earthquakes? Credible. Nuclear war? Credible. That our government is run by idiotic despots?....VERY credible....

Can anyone can say anything about anything and it gets reported as credible?

No. The catch is that's really only the case, when it's about terrorism.

Getting the picture?

And Now the latest: Whoever it is, THEY'RE AMERICANS!

2 Terror Suspects May Be U.S. Citizens

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al Qaeda may have sent American terrorists or men carrying U.S. travel documents to launch an attack on Washington or New York to coincide with memorials marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11, government officials say.

One U.S. official says al Qaeda dispatched three men, at least two of whom could be U.S. citizens, to detonate a car bomb in one of the cities. Should that mission prove impossible, the attackers have been told to simply cause as much destruction as they can. source

That, My Friends, Will Be The New Mantra - Guaranteed

Whoever "they" are going to be broad-brushed as, they're "one of us". Just as the deliberately middle class white skinned "Christian" massacred so many innocents in Oslo, whatever transpires next will likely be pinned on, involve or implicate someone representing middle class America, the protest and alternative community, or the internet "threat".

Freedom doesn't seem to go well with Orwellian authoritarianism, does it.

And why all this? Because the citizens of the United States are the real enemy and we must be controlled. Period. It'll happen sooner or later if all goes according to their plan.

The Empowering Epilogue

But sharing information and truth and love DOES make a difference, even one hungry soul at a time. Don't let all this big brother idiocy get you down, but do be aware of what they're up to.

And please, make an effort to connect with and talk to others. You'll be surprised and encouraged how many have caught on and are trapped in their personal predicament and will welcome a kindred spirit into their lives.

Stay vigilant. Keep communicating.

Two Terror Suspects May Be U.S. Citizens

The Associated Press
September 10, 2011

Al-Qaida may have sent American terrorists or men carrying U.S. travel documents to launch an attack on Washington or New York to coincide with memorials marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11, government officials say.

One U.S. official says al-Qaida dispatched three men, at least two of whom could be U.S. citizens, to detonate a car bomb in one of the cities. Should that mission prove impossible, the attackers have been told to simply cause as much destruction as they can.

Word that al-Qaida had ordered the mission reached U.S. officials midweek. A CIA informant who has proved reliable in the past approached intelligence officials overseas to say that the men had been ordered by newly minted al-Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahri to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Sunday by doing harm on U.S. soil.

The tipster says the would-be attackers are of Arab descent and may speak Arabic as well as English. Counterterrorism officials were looking for certain names associated with the threat, but it was unclear whether the names were real or fake.

Counterterrorism officials have been working around the clock to determine whether the threat is accurate, but so far, have been unable to corroborate it, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.

In the meantime, extra security was put in place to protect the people in the two cities that took the brunt of the jetliner attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a decade ago. It was the worst terror assault in the nation's history, and al-Qaida has long dreamed of striking again to mark the anniversary. But it could be weeks before the intelligence community can say whether this particular threat is real.

Undaunted by talk of a new terror threat, New Yorkers and Washingtonians wove among police armed with assault rifles and waited with varying degrees of patience at security checkpoints Friday.

Security worker Eric Martinez wore a pin depicting the twin towers on his lapel as he headed to work in lower Manhattan where he also worked 10 years ago when the towers came down.

"If you're going to be afraid, you're just going to stay home," he said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, too, made a point of taking the subway to City Hall.

Briefed on the threat Friday morning, President Barack Obama instructed his security team to take "all necessary precautions," the White House said. Obama still planned to travel to New York on Sunday to mark the 10th anniversary with stops that day at the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa.

Washington commuters were well aware of the terror talk.

Cheryl Francis, of Chantilly, Va., said she travels over the Roosevelt bridge into Washington every day and doesn't plan to change her habits. Francis, who was in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, said a decade later the country is more aware and alert.

"It's almost like sleeping with one eye open," she said, but she added that people need to continue living their lives.

The intelligence community regularly receives tips and information of this nature. But the timing of this particular threat had officials especially concerned, because it was the first "active plot" that came to light as the country marked the significant anniversary, a moment that was also significant to al-Qaida, according to information gleaned in May from Osama bin Laden's compound.

The U.S. government has long known that terrorists see the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and other uniquely American dates as opportunities to strike. Officials have also been concerned that some may see this anniversary as an opportunity to avenge bin Laden's death.

Britain, meanwhile, warned its citizens who are traveling to the U.S. that there was a potential for new terror attacks that could include "places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers."

Acutely aware of these factors, law enforcement around the country had already increased security measures at airports, nuclear plants, train stations and more in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The latest threat, potentially targeting New York or Washington, prompted an even greater security surge in those cities. U.S. embassies and consulates abroad had also boosted their vigilance in preparation for the anniversary.

At Penn Station in New York, transit authority police carried assault rifles and wore helmets and bullet proof vests as they watched crowds of commuters. Police searched passengers' bags as they entered the subway, and National Guard troops in camouflage fatigues moved among riders, eyeing packages.

In Washington, Police Chief Cathy Lanier warned that unattended cars parked in suspicious locations or near critical buildings and structures would be towed.

Speaking in New York, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there was "a specific, credible but unconfirmed report that al-Qaida, again, is seeking to harm Americans and in particular, to target New York and Washington."

NY, DC Police on Alert Following 9/11 Threat

KABC-TV Los Angeles, CA
September 9, 2011

Police in New York and Washington, D.C., are on alert following word of a credible terror threat meant to coincide with the Sept. 11 anniversary.

It's another ominous sounding threat, but one many on the East Coast have gotten used to in the decade since the attacks.

Officials describe the latest threat as credible but unconfirmed.

The information comes from a source in Pakistan indicating al Qaeda's new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wants to strike the U.S. around the anniversary of Sept. 11. The information indicates that three suspects flew from Pakistan to the U.S. in August, and one of them could be a U.S. citizen.

Officials told ABC News the plot involved three individuals, including at least one American citizen who arrived in the U.S. by plane in August. Their apparent targets were the same two cities attacked 10 years ago.

"The new leader, Zawahiri, has said he wants an attack around now to avenge bin Laden and to prove that al Qaeda central, the one in Pakistan and Afghanistan, is still alive," said Richard Clark, ABC security expert.

Officials said the plot could involve a car or truck bomb similar to the failed attack on Times Square last year. Police are now giving vehicles even more attention, and security has been heightened in and around both cities.

Still, local leaders don't want citizens to live in fear.

"I just think that if I take the subway, it sort of puts it in perspective that there's always a threat, but there's not any reason why we should hunker down," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

So far, Los Angeles has not been mentioned in the intelligence gathered, but the city has been the target of past attacks. Authorities are reminding citizens to stay alert.

"If you see something, as a member of the public, that doesn't make sense to you, particularly on this anniversary of the most terrific attack to occur on American soil, say something," said LAPD Chief Charlie Beck.

There are indications the attack could be aimed at bridges and tunnels. Police in New York and the Washington D.C. area warned residents that cars left unattended near sensitive targets will be towed.

Booga Booga: Fear Ramped Up With Yet Another 9/11 Anniversary Terror Warning

Infowars.com
September 9, 2011

The Department of Homeland Security has issued yet another terror warning today, ordering security to be stepped up owing to a “credible and specific” intelligence report that al Qaeda is planning to blow up bridges or tunnels in New York on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The terror warning is just the latest in a series of advisories from Big Sis and the White House, all of which have been lacking in detail and described as “unconfirmed”.

Sky News reports that the latest warning comes from “a reliable source”, but remains “uncorroborated” because it has not been backed up by any other intelligence.

“There is specific, credible but unconfirmed threat information,” said Janice Fedarcyk, the assistant director in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) New York division.

Details are sketchy, however, with the only specifics linking the threat to Pakistan and to a car or truck bomb.

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered police to ramp up security at subways, with more random bag inspections, and to deploy radiation monitoring equipment.

The warning comes just days after a previous DHS advisory that al qaeda followers may attack the US with small aircraft on the anniversary of 9/11.

Again, the warning contained no specific information, but was aimed at airports, ordering heightened surveillance.

Another general warning was issued last week by the State Department.

The department said it had not identified any “specific threats” about possible attacks but that al Qaeda and its affiliates had “demonstrated the intent and capability to carry out attacks” against the U.S. and U.S. interests.

Establishment figurehead such as US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta have been out in force, hyping the possibility of another 9/11.

The numerous warnings have come along with a slew of reports from the government expressing fears that homegrown terrorists are growing in number inside the US and that the internet is radicalizing a new wave of jihadis. Again, specific details are lacking.

In addition, television networks have begun broadcasting an onslaught of 9/11 tenth anniversary specials as the establishment desperately tries to reinforce the myth that terrorists pose any more threat to Americans than intestinal illnesses or allergic reactions to peanuts.

As the major networks saturate our screens with documentary after documentary about how ‘the world changed on 9/11′, it’s important to point out that the only genuine change has been the growth of a gigantic and oppressive Homeland Security surveillance state that feeds on fear and ignorance of the facts.

We have previously documented how such terror alerts have been routinely hyped purely for political purposes.

Never forget that the media and the government have been totally discredited over and over again by their complicity in issuing phony terror alerts designed to manipulate elections and frighten the public into slavish acquiescence.

Just as former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge admitted that DHS would issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections in a bid to influence the outcome during the Bush era, the Obama administration is mimicking the same tactic.

Ridge said he “was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.”

Fast forward seven years and you find exactly the same tactics being employed.

Warnings in October last year of a supposed al-Qaeda attack on targets in Europe were exaggerated by the Obama administration for political purposes, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials told the London Guardian.

No terror event occurred.

“It was nothing specific, nothing very new,” said Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask after the official warning. “We agree that there is no indication of concrete targets, concrete dates and concrete terror groups,” added German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere.

British intelligence officials admitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a significant terror plot was imminent, describing the suggestions as “irritating”.

The furor surrounding the non-existant terror plot generated headlines such as“Britain gripped by Al Qaeda terror plot fear” with graphics depicting possible targets and warnings that “a Mumbai-type plot would ‘outmatch’ the police and turn London into a war zone” with people being brutally “murdered one by one” – all based on nothing but media hype:

Earlier this year, when the freedom stripping PATRIOT ACT was up for renewal, DHS head Janet Napolitano officially notified a congressional panel that the US was facing the greatest possibility of a major terror attack since 9/11.

Big Sis noted that there was “an increased emphasis on recruiting Americans and Westerners to carry out small scale attacks.”

Three of the PATRIOT Act’s most draconian provisions were duly extended for a further year by House Republicans.

Every other “terror plot” since 9/11 that has materialized into anything beyond a vague and non specific warning has been exposed as either artificially engineered or seized upon and used by the federal government, with the enthusiastic support of the corporate media, to provide justification for more funding, more power, and more authority to continue the “war on terror” and a gross clampdown on freedom.

Just a brief reprisal of such instances gives a telling insight.

On January 27, 2010, the Detroit News reported how the State Department refused to revoke Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s visa despite the fact that he was on a terror watch list and allowed him to board the plane, allegedly in order to avoid tipping off a wider investigation.

After weeks of stonewalling, authorities quietly reversed the official story behind the aborted attack and acknowledged that an accomplice was involved, despite weeks of denial and derision of eyewitness Kurt Haskell’s description of a sharp-dressed man who helped Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab board Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

Detroit lawyer Kurt Haskell maintained from the beginning that he saw a well-dressed Indian man aid the accused bomber to board the plane despite the fact that he had no passport and was on a terror watch list.

“While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time,’” reported the Michigan Live news website.

FBI agents interviewed Haskell and he told them about the sharp-dressed man but officials refused to admit that a wider conspiracy was at hand, stoically maintaining the official story that Abdulmutallab had acted alone. Authorities claimed that videotapes did not show a second man accompanying Abdulmutallab and yet they refused to release any footage of the alleged bomber.

There seems little doubt that Abdulmutallab had at least one accomplice if not more. Authorities have remained silent on other eyewitness reports which described a man intently filming the alleged terrorist throughout the whole flight, a connection that strongly suggests the attempted bomber was involved in some kind of drill and that his strings were being pulled by people in more senior positions.

The Delta 253 incident was just one of the dozens of terror busts and stings since 9/11 to have been orchestrated by handlers aiding the accused terrorists at every turn. We have never come across a major case where the terrorists involved in a plot were not being prodded by the FBI and federal informants, or where clear prior knowledge and forewarning was not evident.

Take the case of Fort Hood shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who repeatedly communicated with alleged Al-Qaeda leaders for nearly a year before his rampage. The FBI knew Hasan was sending emails to terrorists, but they did nothing, allowed him to remain on a U.S. Army base, and even invited him to participate in Homeland Security exercises.

Hasan, “Sent 10 to 20 e-mails to several terror-related Islamic figures, including Anwar Aulaqi, a radical imam from Virginia who has been openly propagandizing for al Qaeda in Yemen and who had ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers,” reported the New York Post.

As Webster Tarpley reported, Aulaqi is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”

Tarpley points to Aulaqi’s role in the Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey, terror plots, which were both contrived by the feds, as proof of Aulaqi’s usefulness to the authorities in radicalizing terrorist patsies.

Lawyers in a case relating to the much vaunted 2007 terror plot to attack Fort Dix and kill “as many soldiers as possible” concluded that FBI informants were the key figures behind the operation and that the accused, six foreign-born Muslims, were merely bungling patsies.

Similarly, the “Toronto” terrorists turned out to be “a bunch of incompetent guys who were primarily misled by a delusional megalomaniac”. The explosive fertilizer material the terrorist cell apparently planned to use was in fact purchased by an informant working for the RCMP who had radicalized the group.

Hasan’s direct relationship with FBI operative and ace patsy-minder Aulaqi provides strong evidence that the Fort Hood shooter was being watched very carefully long before he went on his tragic rampage.

Hundreds of terror suspects (read: patsies and mental deficients) have been convicted in civilian federal courts, including convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid who attended the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Finsbury imam at the time was Abu Hamza al-Masri who began working with British Security Services in 1997. A large number of the supposed terrorists convicted in American courts were entrapped by the FBI in classic COINTELPRO fashion and did not have links to the CIA-created al-Qaeda. The entrapped were often fuzzy on al-Qaeda or what it represents.

In the media-lauded Miami terror case in 2007, the supposed ringleader Narseal “Prince Marina” Batiste “had heard of Al-Qaeda, but wasn’t sure what it stood for. The FBI instigators made Batiste swear loyalty to al-Qaida; then had him call on his local buddies to form an ‘Islamic army’ in Miami. None had military training. Some could barely read. But Batiste assured the group in the midst of its collective marijuana buzz of greatness ahead,”wrote Saul Landau.

These were the men who comedian John Stewart referred to as “seven dipshits in a warehouse” after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had ludicrously told the press that the group of semi-retarded gang-bangers had planned to “wage a ground war against America”.

One of the more recent examples was the case of the so-called Muslim terrorists busted in New York, who supposedly wanted to blow up synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military airplanes flying out of the New York Air National Guard base. The men were provided with fake explosives and inactive missiles by an FBI informant, reported the Christian Science Monitor. Two of the ringleaders of the “deadly” plot which was endlessly hyped by the media turned out to be semi-retarded potheads, exactly as we had predicted would be the case due to the innumerable past cases with the exact same modus operandi.

The federal authorities seem none too concerned about stopping any real terrorists and are instead obsessed with manufacturing patsies, bankrolling, radicalizing and prodding rag-tag groups to attempt attacks so that the massive slush fund that is the “war on terror” can be prolonged, while the corporate media relishes each opportunity to politicize such events to demonize peaceful resistance to big government as “violent extremism”.

With this insidious partnership now colluding to produce a constant supply of Abdul Mutallabs on an almost monthly basis, we can expect to see many more domestic terror alerts and “attacks”, be they genuine, provocateured, or outright staged, and with each one the calls to crush free speech and censor the right to express dissent on the Internet will build to a crescendo, with little or no investigation on behalf of the mainstream media as to how such attacks came about in the first place, and who was really behind them.

These and countless other over hyped and completely manufactured threats have led directly to programs such as the “See Something, Say Something” campaign – a literal citizen spy operation overseen by the DHS, that is creating more paranoia and hysteria, if anything serving to make any real terror threat more likely to go undiscovered.

The endless terror alerts, whether real or phony, are now being issued via the mainstream media and beamed directly to mobile phones and home computers over social networking sites, and even via Emergency Alert broadcasts.

In addition to the invasion of traditional and new social media, The Federal Communications Commission announced recently that it has approved a presidential alert system.

Commissioners voted in February to require television and radio stations, cable systems and satellite TV providers to participate in a test that would have them receive and transmit a live code that includes an alert message issued by the president. No date has been set for the test, according to the Washington Post, which described it as being like something out of Orwell’s1984.

Soon enough the creepy and invasive broadcasts that are already being played on giant telescreens in Walmarts across the nation may be playing in your front room.

The DHS is slowly creeping into the lives of every American to the point where it can no longer be sidestepped. Fattened federal agencies are using the over hyped threat of terrorism as an excuse to normalize the notion that the people are servants of the government, rather than the government acting as servant to the people.

The September 11 anniversary provides a unique opportunity for the establishment to reanimate their flagging war on terror with a new round of fear-mongering propaganda. The event will allow them to exploit decade old footage of the attacks in order to insist that there remains a threat large enough to require Gestapo goons at airports, a high-tech surveillance grid, and the point by point dismantlement of the Bill of Rights.

U.S. Ups Security in NYC and D.C. in Face of ‘Credible’ 9/11 Threat (Video)

CarbonatedTV.com
September 9, 2011

The U.S. has beefed up security in NYC and Washington D.C. in response to a ‘credible’ but not ‘corroborated’ 9/11 threat that officials believe is planned Sunday on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and Washington. In the video below, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg addresses the public about the threat, the strengthened security and what residents should do in the face of the threat.

"The best thing that we can do to fight terror is to refuse to be intimidated by it," NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg says in the video from Thursday night, promising to take the subway to and from work Friday. He says that while officials have received "credible" information that an attack may be planned for September 11 2011, this Sunday, that citizens of New York cannot live in fear. "For 10 years we have not allowed terrorists to intimidate us. We have lived our lives without fear, and we will continue to do so."

Intelligence officials say the potential September 11 threat is centered around three individuals with al Qaeda ties, whom they learned about through tips, intercepted conversations and intel found in Osama bin Laden’s former compound in Pakistan. They believe one of the individuals is a U.S. citizen, but have not confirmed whether or not any of the individuals are within U.S. borders.

U.S. officials believe the operatives came out of the tribal Pakistan-Afghanistan border region and that they are part of al Qaeda "central," but that there is also a possibility that Pakistan-based groups like LET or TTP are involved.

While there has been concern over the introduction of a radioactive isotope, or "dirty bomb," officials say they believe the direct threat is a vehicle laden with explosives, but add that "the intelligence picture is not completely formed," according to a senior official.

The heightened security was visible in NYC and Washington Friday, in the form of several police checkpoints following reports of the potential vehicle-borne strike. This is causing a number of traffic delays throughout NYC, with especially troublesome traffic near the George Washington Bridge, which links New Jersey with New York City, as well as the Queens Midtown Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel and the Verrazano Bridge, which links Staten Island and Brooklyn.

The NYPD is also sweeping garages for explosives, using digital license plate readers to check for stolen vehicles. More on the effect this has to NYC, in particular, and more information about the 9/11 threat itself, can be seen in the video below.

June 25, 2011

The Real U.S. National Security Budget is $1.2 Trillion and the Real Price of U.S. Wars is $4.4 Trillion



How Much Do the Feds Really Spend on Militarism?

Southern National Network
March 2, 2011

Christopher Hellman tries to nail down the exact mammoth amount of the Feds’ military spending for the American Conservative Magazine [see the following article].

Southerners, as a traditional people, have a martial spirit and have historically been supportive of the military. But we must remember that the Federal military is not our military. We make up a disproportionate percentage of its ranks, but it does the bidding of the corrupt politicians in Washington, DC who never have the best interests of the Southern people in mind.

The US military doesn’t serve Southerners (the Feds’ Militia Act of 1903 took over the State militias – the last vestiges of a free and truly defensive Southern military), it serves the government which conquered Southerners in the 1860s and continues to exploit them.

Today, the Feds are requiring gay sensitivity training for everyone in their military. They are attempting to police and militarily occupy almost the entire planet while they ignore the massive migration from Latin America across the Mexican-US border that is replacing the historic populations of the United States in many areas.

And while the supposedly more conservative of the two parties that run the US Empire attempts to convince everyone that they are interested in cutting the size of the Federal Government, almost no one in DC is interested in cutting back on US military spending – which equals the military spending of all other governments on planet earth combined.

So just how much do the Feds spend to support their many hundreds of foreign military bases, their multiple foreign wars, pay-offs to the Military-Industrial Complex corporations, etc.?

$1.2 Trillion: The Real U.S. National Security Budget No One Wants You to Know About

By Christopher Hellman, Tomdispatch.com
March 3, 2011

What if you went to a restaurant and found it rather pricey? Still, you ordered your meal and, when done, picked up the check only to discover that it was almost twice the menu price.

Welcome to the world of the real U.S. national security budget. Normally, in media accounts, you hear about the Pentagon budget and the war-fighting supplementary funds passed by Congress for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That already gets you into a startling price range — close to $700 billion for 2012 — but that’s barely more than half of it.

If Americans were ever presented with the real bill for the total U.S. national security budget, it would actually add up to more than $1.2 trillion a year.

Take that in for a moment. It’s true; you won’t find that figure in your daily newspaper or on your nightly newscast, but it’s no misprint. It may even be an underestimate. In any case, it’s the real thing when it comes to your tax dollars.

The simplest way to grasp just how Americans could pay such a staggering amount annually for “security” is to go through what we know about the U.S. national security budget, step by step, and add it all up.

So, here we go. Buckle your seat belt: it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Fortunately for us, on February 14th the Obama administration officially released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request. Of course, it hasn’t been passed by Congress — even the 2011 budget hasn’t made it through that august body yet — but at least we have the most recent figures available for our calculations.

For 2012, the White House has requested $558 billion for the Pentagon’s annual “base” budget, plus an additional $118 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At $676 billion, that’s already nothing to sneeze at, but it’s just the barest of beginnings when it comes to what American taxpayers will actually spend on national security. Think of it as the gigantic tip of a humongous iceberg.

To get closer to a real figure, it’s necessary to start peeking at other parts of the federal budget where so many other pots of security spending are squirreled away.

Missing from the Pentagon’s budget request, for example, is an additional $19.3 billion for nuclear-weapons-related activities like making sure our current stockpile of warheads will work as expected and cleaning up the waste created by seven decades of developing and producing them. That money, however, officially falls in the province of the Department of Energy. And then, don’t forget an additional $7.8 billion that the Pentagon lumps into a “miscellaneous” category — a kind of department of chump change — that is included in neither its base budget nor those war-fighting funds.

So, even though we’re barely started, we’ve already hit a total official FY 2012 Pentagon budget request of:

$703.1 billion dollars.

Not usually included in national security spending are hundreds of billions of dollars that American taxpayers are asked to spend to pay for past wars, and to support our current and future national security strategy.

For starters, that $117.8 billion war-funding request for the Department of Defense doesn’t include certain actual “war-related fighting” costs. Take, for instance, the counterterrorism activities of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

For the first time, just as with the Pentagon budget, the FY 2012 request divides what’s called “International Affairs” in two: that is, into an annual “base” budget as well as funding for “Overseas Contingency Operations” related to Iraq and Afghanistan. (In the Bush years, these used to be called the Global War on Terror.) The State Department’s contribution? $8.7 billion. That brings the grand but very partial total so far to:

$711.8 billion.

The White House has also requested $71.6 billion for a post-2001 category called “homeland security” — of which $18.1 billion is funded through the Department of Defense. The remaining $53.5 billion goes through various other federal accounts, including the Department of Homeland Security ($37 billion), the Department of Health and Human Services ($4.6 billion), and the Department of Justice ($4.6 billion).

All of it is, however, national security funding which brings our total to:

$765.3 billion.

The U.S. intelligence budget was technically classified prior to 2007, although at roughly $40 billion annually, it was considered one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington. Since then, as a result of recommendations by the 9/11 Commission, Congress has required that the government reveal the total amount spent on intelligence work related to the National Intelligence Program (NIP).

This work done by federal agencies like the CIA and the National Security Agency consists of keeping an eye on and trying to understand what other nations are doing and thinking, as well as a broad range of “covert operations” such as those being conducted in Pakistan. In this area, we won’t have figures until FY 2012 ends. The latest NIP funding figure we do have is $53.1 billion for FY 2010. There’s little question that the FY 2012 figure will be higher, but let’s be safe and stick with what we know. (Keep in mind that the government spends plenty more on “intelligence.”

Additional funds for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), however, are already included in the Pentagon’s 2012 base budget and war-fighting supplemental, though we don’t know what they are. The FY 2010 funding for MIP, again the latest figure available, was $27 billion.) In any case, add that $53.1 billion and we’re at:

$818.4 billion.

Veterans programs are an important part of the national security budget with the projected funding figure for 2012 being $129.3 billion. Of this, $59 billion is for veterans’ hospital and medical care, $70.3 billion for disability pensions and education programs. This category of national security funding has been growing rapidly in recent years because of the soaring medical-care needs of veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 total funding for health-care services for veterans will have risen another 45%-75%. In the meantime, for 2012 we’ve reached:

$947.7 billion.

If you include the part of the foreign affairs budget not directly related to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other counterterrorism operations, you have an additional $18 billion in direct security spending. Of this, $6.6 billion is for military aid to foreign countries, while almost $2 billion goes for “international peacekeeping” operations. A further $709 million has been designated for countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorism, and clearing landmines planted in regional conflicts around the globe. This leaves us at:

$965.7 billion.

As with all federal retirees, U.S. military retirees and former civilian Department of Defense employees receive pension benefits from the government. The 2012 figure is $48.5 billion for military personnel, $20 billion for those civilian employees, which means we’ve now hit:

$1,034.2 billion. (Yes, that’s $1.03 trillion!)

When the federal government lacks sufficient funds to pay all of its obligations, it borrows. Each year, it must pay the interest on this debt which, for FY 2012, is projected at $474.1 billion. The National Priorities Project calculates that 39% of that, or $185 billion, comes from borrowing related to past Pentagon spending.

Add it all together and the grand total for the known national security budget of the United States is:

$1,219.2 billion. (That’s more than $1.2 trillion.)

A country with a gross domestic product of $1.2 trillion would have the 15th largest economy in the world, ranking between Canada and Indonesia, and ahead of Australia, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Saudi Arabia. Still, don’t for a second think that $1.2 trillion is the actual grand total for what the U.S. government spends on national security.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once famously spoke of the world’s “known unknowns.” Explaining the phrase this way:

“That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know.”
It’s a concept that couldn’t apply better to the budget he once oversaw.

When it comes to U.S. national security spending, there are some relevant numbers we know are out there, even if we simply can’t calculate them.

To take one example, how much of NASA’s proposed $18.7 billion budget falls under national security spending? We know that the agency works closely with the Pentagon. NASA satellite launches often occur from the Air Force’s facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The Air Force has its own satellite launch capability, but how much of that comes as a result of NASA technology and support? In dollars terms, we just don’t know.

Other “known unknowns” would include portions of the State Department budget. One assumes that at least some of its diplomatic initiatives promote our security interests. Similarly, we have no figure for the pensions of non-Pentagon federal retirees who worked on security issues for the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, or the Departments of Justice and Treasury. Nor do we have figures for the interest on moneys borrowed to fund veterans’ benefits, among other national security-related matters.

The bill for such known unknowns could easily run into the tens of billions of dollars annually, putting the full national security budget over the $1.3 trillion mark or even higher.

There’s a simple principle here. American taxpayers should know just what they are paying for. In a restaurant, a customer would be outraged to receive a check almost twice as high as the menu promised. We have no idea whether the same would be true in the world of national security spending, because Americans are never told what national security actually means at the cash register.

Price of U.S. Wars: $4.4 Trillion?

Politico
June 29, 2011

The final bill for U.S. military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan could be as much as $4.4 trillion, according to a comprehensive report Tuesday.

In the 10 years since American troops were sent into Afghanistan, the federal government has already spent $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion, say the authors of the study by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies.

The report calculates not only direct spending on the conflicts but also the long-term costs of caring for wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012-20.

At a minimum, according to the authors of the study, the final cost for these military engagements will be $3.7 trillion. But the report also points out that their estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments and other costs that cannot yet be quantified. Indeed, the report criticized the U.S. Congress and the Pentagon for poor accounting.

Although the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been made public, the report notes, it is not yet clear how many soldiers return to the United States with injuries and illnesses. New disability claims are submitted on an ongoing basis, and many injuries among U.S. contractors have not been reported publicly, further complicating calculations of the costs of war.

Even as President Barack Obama recently announced plans for a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the report asserts that conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will continue through the decade, adding to financial and human cost.

The report puts the number of civilian deaths to date at approximately 137,000, and the total number of deaths attributable to military conflict in these countries, in uniform or out of uniform, to around 225,000. The study also suggests that the number of war refugees and displaced persons now total about 7.8 million.

“Costs of War,” as the study was titled, was a joint project that involved the work of over twenty academics, including economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts and a physician.

How Much Will Our Wars Cost? Report Says $4 Trillion

By Liz Goodwin, The Lookout
June 29, 2011

A new report out of Brown University estimates that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--together with the counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan--will, all told, cost $4 trillion and leave 225,000 dead, both civilians and soldiers.

The group of economists, anthropologists, lawyers, humanitarian personnel, and political scientists involved in the project estimated that the cost of caring for the veterans injured in the wars will reach $1 trillion in 30 or 40 years. In estimating the $4 trillion total, they did not take into account the $5.3 billion in reconstruction spending the government has promised Afghanistan, state and local contributions to veteran care, interest payments on war debt, or the costs of Medicare for veterans when they reach 65.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, has assessed the federal price tag for the wars at $1.8 trillion through 2021. The report says that is a gross underestimate, predicting that the government has already paid $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

More than 6,000 U.S. troops and 2,300 contractors have died since the wars began after Sept. 11. A staggering 550,000 disability claims have been filed with the VA as of 2010. Meanwhile, 137,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq have died in the conflict. (Injuries among U.S. contractors have also not yet been made public, further complicating the calculations of cost.) Nearly 8 million people have been displaced. Check out Reuters' factbox breaking down the costs and casualties here.

Perhaps the most sobering conclusion of the researchers is that it's unclear whether the human and economic costs are worth it. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are now dead, the Taliban is marginalized, and the dangerous terrorist network al-Qaeda has been all but destroyed. But Iraq and Afghanistan are far from being stable democracies.

Meanwhile, the half a percentage point a year in GDP growth the war has fueled has been offset by the enormous increase in the national deficit, the report says.

"We decided we needed to do this kind of rigorous assessment of what it cost to make those choices to go to war," study co-director Catherine Lutz told Reuters. "Politicians, we assumed, were not going to do that kind of assessment."

The researchers recommend that the U.S. government be more transparent in disclosing the costs of its wars to taxpayers, by including the costs of future health care for veterans, the cost of paying interest on debt taken out to fund the wars, and estimating how much state and local governments take on in war costs. You can see their recommendations here.

Congress Approves Largest Military Budget Since World War II, Amounting to 19 Percent of All Federal Spending; Military Spending Has Increased 100 Percent Since 1998

With 2.25 million full-time civilian and military personnel, excluding part-time National Guard and Reserve members, the Defense Department is the U.S.’s largest employer, outstripping Walmart with 1.4 million employees and the U.S Post Office with 599,000.

"We must learn the lessons of history. The Roman Republic was the longest-standing republic in the history of mankind. The Roman Empire lasted over a thousand years. There were many people that said Rome was too big to fail. I am sure that most of the citizens of the Roman Empire felt that way. The simple facts of the matter are that Rome fell for at least four reasons, and please listen carefully: a decline in moral values and political civility at home; an overconfident and overextended military; fiscal irresponsibility by the central government; and an inability to control one’s borders. Does that sound familiar? It’s time to wake up, study history, learn from it, and take steps to make sure that we are the first republic to stand the test of time." - David Walker, Former Comptroller General of the Government Accounting Office, Transforming Government to Meet the Demands of the 21st Century, August 7, 2007

Blacklisted News
December 25, 2010

On December 22nd, both houses of the U.S. Congress unanimously passed a bill authorizing $725 billion for next year’s Defense Department budget.

The bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, was approved by all 100 senators as required and by a voice vote in the House.

The House had approved the bill, now sent to President Barack Obama to sign into law, five days earlier in a 341-48 roll call, but needed to vote on it again after the Senate altered it in the interim.

The proposed figure for the Pentagon’s 2011 war chest includes, in addition to the base budget, $158.7 billion for what are now euphemistically referred to as overseas contingency operations: The military occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

The $725 billion figure, although $17 billion more than the White House had requested, is not the final word on the subject, however, as supplements could be demanded as early as the beginning of next year, especially in regard to the Afghan war that will then be in its eleventh calendar year.

Even as it currently is, the amount is the highest in constant dollars (pegged at any given year’s dollar and adjusted for inflation) since 1945, the final year of the Second World War. With recent U.S. census figures at 308 million, next year the Pentagon will spend $2,354 for every citizen of the country at the $725 billion price tag alone.

Last year’s Pentagon budget, by way of comparison, was $680 billion, a base budget of $533.8 billion and the remainder for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In July of this year Congress approved the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act which contained an additional $37 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Next year’s defense authorization of $725 billion compares to, according to the Center for Defense Information, a Pentagon budget of $444.6 billion in 1946; $460.4 billion in 1968, the highest yearly amount during the Vietnam War; and $443.4 billion in 1988, the highest during the eight years of the Ronald Reagan administration’s massive military buildup. (Numbers in 2004 constant dollars.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates American military spending for 2009 to have accounted for 43 percent of the world total. Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, earlier this year estimated the 2010 U.S. defense budget to constitute 47 percent of total worldwide military expenditures and to amount to 19 percent of all American federal spending.

In addition, Pentagon spending has increased by 100 percent since 1998 and “the Obama budget plans to spend more on the Pentagon over eight years than any administration has since World War II.”

With 2.25 million full-time civilian and military personnel, excluding part-time National Guard and Reserve members, the Defense Department is the U.S.’s largest employer, outstripping Walmart with 1.4 million employees and the U.S Post Office with 599,000.

“Add in what Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and the Energy departments spend on defense and total US military spending will reach $861 billion in fiscal 2011, exceeding that of all other nations combined,” according to Todd Harrison, senior fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
In April Robert Higgs of The Independent Institute advocated that the budgets – in part or in whole – of the departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Energy, State and Treasury and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) should be calculated in the real military budget, which would in 2009 would have increased it to $901.5 billion.
“Adding [the] interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.”

Taxpayers on the Hook for Retiree Costs for Not Just Federal Employees But Also Federal Contractors

As with all federal retirees, U.S. military retirees and former civilian Department of Defense employees receive pension benefits from the government. The 2012 figure is $48.5 billion for military personnel, $20 billion for those civilian employees. We have no figure for the pensions of non-Pentagon federal retirees who worked on security issues for the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, or the Departments of Justice and Treasury [The Real U.S. National Security Budget is $1.2 Trillion, Tomdispatch.com, March 3, 2011].

It is one thing for the taxpaying citizens of the United States to know that federal employees are being provided for (including matching deposits into all versions of the Civil Service Retirement), but now the General Accounting Office (GAO) has come out with a new report showing that taxpayers are providing retirement benefits, including pensions and health care, for independent/freelance (private) contractors not on the federal payroll. Taxpayers also cover these retiree costs for contractors' spouses, too. And, in some cases, if contractors want to retire early (at age 50), just like regular federal workers, many can then get taxpayer-funded coverage. A statistic from this GAO Report is as follows: "For the Department of Energy alone, overall this coverage cost taxpayers $6.8 billion over the last 10 years." Note that this situation is ongoing for years.

If private citizens cannot collect Social Security benefits until age 62, and if the maximum Social Security benefit is $21,636 per individual, then why are federal employees allowed to retire at age 50 and why aren't their pensions capped at $21,636 per individual. Many federal retirees have annual pensions of $40,000 or more.

Your Tax Receipt for the Management of Federal Employees and Retirees

Management of federal employees and buildings (1.4%) $47,980,000,000
Federal retirement and disability benefits (3.2%) $110,061,000,000
Federal employees and retirees health benefits (0.2%) $7,140,000,000
General Services Administration (0.0%) $861,000,000
Office of Personnel Management administration (0.0%) $253,000,000
Merit Systems Protection Board (0.0%) $38,000,000
Legal services for government employees and applicants (0.0%) $18,000,000
Office of Government Ethics (0.0%) $13,000,000
Administrative support for federal agencies (0.0%) $1,000,000
Government reports and information distribution (0.0%) -$7,000,000
Federal employee flexible spending account reserve fund (0.0%) -$15,000,000
Federal employee life insurance benefit (0.0%) -$1,455,000,000
Federal payment for employer share of Medicare taxes (-0.1%) -$4,042,000,000
Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (-0.2%) -$7,780,000,000
Fed payment for employer share of Social Security taxes (-0.4%) -$14,936,000,000
Fed payment for employer share of retirement & disability (-1.2%) -$42,170,000,000

Taxpayers on the Hook for Retiree Costs for Federal Contractors

Of course it comes out of our pockets... We not only are on the hook for the juicy unionized public servants' retirement payouts, but also for retirements of labor union third-party federal contractors...

FOXBusiness
June 10, 2011

A surprising new government report shows that taxpayers have been footing the bill for retiree benefits not just for federal workers, but for independent freelance contractors who do work for the government as well. And no one is watching the store to see if your tax dollars are being wasted.

Taxpayers for years have been covering private contractors' retiree costs for things like pensions and health care, even though these workers are not on the federal payroll.

Taxpayers also cover these retiree costs for contractors' spouses, too, and in some cases if contractors want to retire early (at age 50), just like regular federal workers, many can then get taxpayer-funded coverage, says an official at the Government Accountability office.

For the Department of Energy alone, overall this coverage cost taxpayers $6.8 billion over the last 10 years, according to the new GAO report recently sent to Congress. Nine out of ten dollars spent on the DOE's annual budget goes towards contracts, including contractor retiree benefits.

The problem is, the GAO tells FOX Business it only knows about this problem at the DOE -- no one in government knows, or is tracking with regular, transparent reports to Congress, the tax money going out the door for these costs at other agencies, like the Pentagon, Homeland Security, the National Institutes of Health, or NASA.

The lion's share of the DOE’s workforce is private contractors, most of whom work in the nuclear energy sector. DOE has the largest private contractor workforce in the federal government.
“We can't speak for other contractors, but what we found at DOE is that these numbers were not transparent to Congress and recommended they be more transparent,” the GAO tells FOX Business.
Also, no one in government is tracking whether taxpayers are double-covering retiree costs for workers employed at big companies that already cover them, like Boeing (BA: 73.85, -0.79, -1.06%) or Lockheed Martin (LMT: 79.63, -0.01, -0.01%). Moreover, the GAO says in a new report the DOE has to set aside "significantly" more funds for these costs "since the economic downturn."

The GAO adds that the DOE has "limited influence" over reining in contractor retiree benefit costs.
"By contract, DOE must reimburse these costs," the GAO says.
The DOE reimburses the companies directly.

The GAO reports that the DOE says it is facing budget strains due to covering these costs.
"DOE will likely continue to face significant challenges managing the costs of those benefits and mitigating their impact on funding available for the department's mission activities," its report said.
Most of DOE’s budget for contract work is to hire freelance companies that do things like cleanup work at nuclear sites, or do outsourcing work running the business operations of our nation’s laboratories.

DOE bears the responsibility, according to its contracts, for reimbursing contractors for retiree benefits for an estimated 200,000 people, including 100,000 current and former contractor employees, and 100,000 beneficiaries of those employees, such as spouses.

Taxpayer costs for federal contractors’ retiree benefits at the DOE has been volatile. They ranged from as little as $43 million in 2001 to as high as three quarters of a billion dollars in 2009, the GAO says. In fiscal 2008 to 2009, such costs more than doubled, the GAO adds, because of a drop in the interest rate used to calculate contractors’ pension plan liabilities, and because the pension assets plunged in value as the overall market dropped due to the financial crisis.

As is the case across the board, volatile investment returns can drastically impact pension contributions for government contractors, and in turn taxpayer costs to cover them.
"As a result, DOE ultimately bears the investment risk incurred by the contractor sponsoring the plan," the GAO said in its report.
At the same time, federal refunds for contractors’ health care benefits grew by 10%, to $389 million. But all the DOE can do in the face of such funding problems, the GAO says, is to urge contractors to make appropriate investment choices that reduce volatility. It has no power to restructure these plans, the GAO says, as its role is limited to oversight, even though it could do so at the contract stage. The DOE also does not give guidance on how to pick the right coverage nor does it tell contractors how they should allocate plan assets, says the GAO.

The DOE is moving to advocate to contractors that they use 401(k) plans, instead of traditional pension plans that guarantee retirees get set payments each month.

The GAO also reported back in 2008 that the DOE has taken steps to tackle the cost of these benefits that contractors offer to new workers. But the GAO says those moves "were not expected to substantially affect the department's contractor pension and other post-retirement benefit costs for the next 20 to 30 years," since current employees would still earn benefits on their existing plans.

Each contractor negotiates its own pension benefits separately, so reimbursements vary widely among the 50 pension plans the DOE covers. The GAO said a dozen of the contractor pension plans make up 86% of the DOE's total contractor pension liabilities, with the three largest plans accounting for more than a third of all of the DOE's pension liabilities.

March 27, 2011

Another Year With No Social Security Increase Yet Another Year of DOD Increases and Military Bonuses for the Perpetual Global War on Terror

Medicare Rise Could Mean No Social Security COLA

The Associated Press
March 27, 2011

Millions of retired and disabled people in the United States had better brace for another year with no increase in Social Security payments.

The government is projecting a slight cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits next year, the first increase since 2009. But for most beneficiaries, rising Medicare premiums threaten to wipe out any increase in payments, leaving them without a raise for a third straight year.

About 45 million people — one in seven in the country — receive both Medicare and Social Security. By law, beneficiaries have their Medicare Part B premiums, which cover doctor visits, deducted from their Social Security payments each month.

When Medicare premiums rise more than Social Security payments, millions of people living on fixed incomes don't get raises. On the other hand, most don't get pay cuts, either, because a hold-harmless provision prevents higher Part B premiums from reducing Social Security payments for most people.

David Certner of AARP estimates that as many as three-fourths of beneficiaries will have their entire Social Security increase swallowed by rising Medicare premiums next year.

It's a tough development for retirees who lost much of their savings when the stock market collapsed, who lost value in their homes when the housing market crashed and who can't find work because the job market is weak or they are in poor health.
"You just don't have the words to say how much this impacts a person," said Joyce Trebilcock, a retired legal secretary from Belle, Mo., a small town about 100 miles west of St. Louis.

Like most U.S. retirees, Trebilcock, 65, said Social Security is her primary source of income. She said a back injury about 15 years ago left her unable to work, so she applied for disability benefits. Now, she lives on a $1,262 Social Security payment each month, with more than $500 going to pay the mortgage.

"I've cut back on about everything I can, and I take the rest out of my savings," Trebilcock said. "Thank God I've got that. That's going to run out before long, at the rate I'm going. ... I have no idea what I'm going to do then."

Medicare premiums are absorbing a growing share of Social Security benefits, leaving retired and disabled people with less money for other expenses, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

Social Security recipients spend, on average, 9 percent of their benefits on Medicare Part B premiums, plus 3 percent on premiums for the Medicare prescription drug program. By the time someone retires in 2078, he or she will spend nearly one-third of their benefits on premiums for both Medicare programs, the report said. Also, when premiums for the prescription drug program increase, as they do almost every year, they can result in a pay cut for Social Security recipients.

"We could very well be entering a period where we're all stuck with flat benefits because of the growth in health care costs," said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst at The Senior Citizens League.

By law, Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are determined each year by a government measure of inflation. When consumer prices go up, payments go up. When consumer prices fall, payments stay flat until prices rebound.

There had been a COLA every year from 1975 through 2009, when a spike in energy prices resulted in a 5.8 percent increase, the largest in 27 years. Since then, the recession has depressed consumer prices, resulting in no COLA in 2010 or 2011.

Older people might feel they are falling behind because they haven't had a raise since 2009, but many are benefiting, said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Consumer prices dropped, but Social Security benefits didn't drop, Biggs said [Editor's Note: The Consumer Price Index does not include food and energy prices]. At the same time, health care costs went up, but Part B premiums stayed the same for most beneficiaries.

"They are better off because of that," Biggs said. "Somebody else is paying for a greater share of their health care. This will get me hate mail, obviously. But it is what it is."

Next year, the trustees who oversee the Social Security project a 1.2 percent COLA. President Barack Obama, in his spending proposal for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, projects a COLA of 0.9 percent. The average monthly payment is $1,077, so either way, the typical increase is projected to be between $10 and $13.

The current spike in energy prices could boost next year's COLA, if it lasts through September, when the increase for 2012 will be calculated. The COLA will be announced in mid-October.

Medicare Part B premiums must be set each year to cover 25 percent of program costs. By law, they have been frozen at 2009 levels for about 75 percent of beneficiaries because there has been no increase in Social Security. That means the entire premium hike has been borne by the remaining 25 percent, which includes new enrollees, high-income families and low-income beneficiaries who have their premiums paid by Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor.

The 2009 premium levels, which are still paid by about three-fourths of beneficiaries, are $96.40 a month. Most of those who enrolled in the program in 2010 pay $110.50 a month and most of those who enrolled in 2011 pay $115.40.

The Medicare trustees project a Part B premium of $113.80 a month for next year. Obama's budget projects a monthly premium of $108.20, said Donald McLeod, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. McLeod cautioned that the projections could change significantly by September, when 2012 premiums are calculated.

Under either projection, a small share of beneficiaries would get lower premiums. The vast majority would get higher premiums that could swallow their Social Security COLA.

"That little raise helps us," said Estelle Jones, 66, of St. Paul, Minn. "Food, heating bills, water bill, all that stuff has gone up. ... All my medicines are very expensive, and every month I have to figure out how I am going to pay for them."


Republicans Target Retirement Benefits (Social Security and Medicare)

The Associated Press
March 25, 2011

If there's any place where tea partiers in Congress might hesitate to call for cuts in Social Security and Medicare to shrink the federal debt, Florida's retirement havens should top the list.

Even here, however, Republican lawmakers are racing toward a spending showdown with Democrats exhibiting little nervousness about deep cuts, including those that eventually would hit benefit programs long left alone by politicians.

In fact, many GOP freshmen seem bolder than ever. It's Democrats, especially in the Senate, who are trying to figure out how to handle the popular but costly retirement programs. Congress, meanwhile, is rapidly nearing critical decisions on the budget and the nation's debt ceiling.

In southeast Florida last week, first-term GOP Rep. Allen West, a tea party favorite, called for changes that some might consider radical: abolish the Internal Revenue Service and federal income tax; retain tax cuts for billionaires so they won't shut down their charities; stop extending unemployment benefits that "reward bad behavior" by discouraging people from seeking new jobs.

As for entitlements, West told a friendly town hall gathering in Coral Springs, if Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "are left on autopilot, if we don't institute some type of reform, they'll subsume our entire GDP" by 2040 or 2050. GDP, or gross domestic product, measures the value of all goods and services produced in the by $514 billion over the past two years.Sources of Federal Revenue

Social Security, the largest federal program, mainly benefits retirees. Medicare provides health coverage for older people. Medicaid helps those with low incomes. Combined, the three consume about 40 percent of the budget. Their costs are growing rapidly. Social Security and Medicare benefits now exceed the payroll taxes that fund them.

Editor's Note:

Social Security is not an entitlement program. Social Security and Medicare are directly funded by "Payroll Taxes" (FICA); 80% of federal revenue comes from taxing wages (individual income tax and payroll taxes).

Social Security has accumulated a massive surplus—$2.5 trillion. This vast wealth was collected over many years from workers under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) to pay in advance for baby boom retirements. The money will cover all benefits until the 2040s—unless Congress double-crosses workers by changing the rules (which they did in 2011 by reducing workers' contributions to Social Security by 2%).

This nest egg does not belong to the government; it belongs to the people who paid for it. FICA is not a tax but involuntary savings.

Over the past quarter century, the U.S. government has stolen $2 trillion in Social Security and Medicare revenues to finance wars and pork-barrel projects.

West, who's likely to draw serious Democratic opposition next year, showed scant interest in edging toward the center on anything. He didn't take issue with the man who said congressional Democrats "have joined with the radical Islamists," or with the woman who said President Barack Obama "certainly doesn't support Israel."

In Greenville, S.C., a different Republican freshman with tea party ties, Rep. Trey Gowdy, also suggested during last week's congressional break a paring back of social programs.

According to a Greenville News account posted on his website, Gowdy "described a recent school classroom where most children indicated they think it's the government's job to provide health care, Social Security and education.

'We've got to do something about the sense of entitlement,' Gowdy said."

Gowdy's office later said he thinks Social Security "is a key aspect of a broad effort to fundamentally reform our entitlement system, but any solution must honor our commitment to current retirees."

Indeed, West and many other Republicans say current and soon-to-be retirees should see no benefit cuts. Their calls for changing Medicare and Social Security often lack specifics, and it's unclear whether the divided Congress will tackle the programs' long-term problems or postpone action, as has happened many times before on Capitol Hill.

West's desire to slash spending seems to stop at his district's doorstep. The Coral Springs audience cheered loudly when he said he helped secure a $21 million grant for a new runway at the nearby Fort Lauderdale airport.

"Grant money is not pork," West said. He issued a press release saying the runway project "will generate at least 11,000 jobs" by 2014 and cost $791 million.

While West spoke in Coral Springs, several dozen Republicans had wine and hors d'oeuvres in Palm Beach as they awaited a speech by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. There was ample sympathy in the room for raising the eligibility age for Social Security benefits.

Obama's debt commission recommended gradually increasing the full retirement age, from 67 to 69, over the next 65 years.

"No one is going to be hurt by it," said Steve Stevens, 80, a retired real estate developer. If people, rich or poor, count on Social Security to fund their retirement, he said, "it's very poor planning."

Cynthia Steele, 51, said anyone making more than $100,000 a year should not receive Social Security benefits, even if it affected her and her friends.

In Washington, Democrats are conflicted. Thirty-two Senate Democrats joined 32 Republicans in urging Obama to negotiate a broad-based spending plan that includes changes to Social Security and Medicare.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he opposes cuts in Social Security benefits.

The centrist Democratic group Third Way says the public is ready to embrace gradual changes to entitlement programs and that Republicans are winning the issue so far.

"We don't believe Republicans 'going too far' will be their Waterloo," the group said in a memo. "The party seen as most serious on the issue will win the day."

If Republicans and Democrats cannot agree soon on spending plans for this year and next, the government could face its first partial shutdown since 1996 [Editor's Note: This is a empty threat]. That prospect worries leaders of both parties, and they are watching to see if last week's recess hardened of softened lawmakers' positions.

West suggested there is room for compromise, but not much.

"I'm not for shutting down the government," he told the Coral Springs crowd. But he said Obama must lead the budget negotiations, or else.

If there is a shutdown, West said, "it's going to be because the president is not engaged."

Social Security Could Be Next to Need a Bailout

By Allan Sloan, Washington Post
February 2, 2010

Don’t look now. But even as the bank bailout is winding down, another huge bailout is starting, this time for the Social Security system.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.

Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation’s biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing — in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself [I did a year ago], as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.

The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).

This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Why disregard the interest? Because as people like me have said repeatedly over the years, the interest, which consists of Treasury IOUs that the Social Security trust fund gets on its holdings of government securities, doesn’t provide Social Security with any cash that it can use to pay its bills. The interest is merely an accounting entry with no economic significance.

Social Security hasn’t been cash-negative since the early 1980s, when it came so close to running out of money that it was making plans to stop sending out benefit checks. That led to the famous Greenspan Commission report, which recommended trimming benefits and raising taxes, which Congress did. Those actions produced hefty cash surpluses, which until this year have helped finance the rest of the government.

But even then, it was clear the surpluses would be temporary. Now, years earlier than projected, Social Security is adding to the government’s borrowing needs, even though the program still shows a surplus on paper.

If you go to the aforementioned pages in the CBO update and consult the tables on them, you see that the budget office projects smaller cash deficits (about $19 billion annually) for fiscal 2011 and 2012. Then the program approaches break-even for a while before the deficits resume.

Social Security currently provides more than half the income for a majority of retirees. Given the declines in stock prices and home values that have whacked millions of people, the program seems likely to become more important in the future as a source of retirement income, rather than less important.

It would have been a lot simpler to fix the system years ago, when we could have used Social Security’s cash surpluses to buy non-Treasury securities, such as such as government-backed mortgage bonds or high-grade corporates that would have helped cover future cash shortfalls. Now it’s too late.

Even though an economic recovery might produce some small, fleeting cash surpluses, Social Security’s days of being flush are over.

To be sure — three of the most dangerous words in journalism — the current Social Security cash deficits aren’t all that big, given that Social Security is a $700 billion program this year, and that the government expects to borrow about $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2010 to cover its other obligations, about the same as it borrowed in fiscal 2009.

But this year’s Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future. Now it’s a problem for the present.

False Alarm: Why Social Security Isn't Going Broke

By Dr. Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch
April 8, 2008

Reports that the Social Security system will soon run out of money have been greatly exaggerated.

As sure as day follows night, the annual report from the board of trustees of the OASDI fund (Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance otherwise known as Social Security) has brought forth alarms that the fund will run out of money in the not-too-distant future.

Although flush with cash now and over at least the next 10 years, the Social Security system is expected to gradually begin paying out more in benefits than it takes in from payroll taxes with the result that by 2041 its assets, in the words of the trustees, will be exhausted.

For those who look at only the summary page, this conclusion is nothing new. Indeed, the trustees have come to the same conclusion every year -- the only exception being the year the fund is expected to run dry.

In 2000, the system's actuaries thought the assets of this fund would be exhausted by 2032. Two years later it was 2037. Now the projected exhaustion date is 2041. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which makes these projections as well, recently thought the system will remain solvent until at least 2052.

Me, I don't make these projections personally, but I would like to point out that this year, as has been the case every year in the past, the actuaries have made and released not one but three projections. They call them low cost, intermediate and high cost.

The projection that has provoked these alarms is the intermediate projection. This reflects the trustees' consensus views regarding such inputs as economic growth, productivity, inflation, earnings, employment and interest rates.

Judging by past history, assumptions underlying the intermediate projection are very conservative -- especially when it comes to economic growth. And as you might imagine, the speed at which the economy grows has a lot to do with the other variables -- including the interest the fund earns from investing its surplus in Treasuries.

The intermediate projection assumes that the economy will grow by an annual rate of 2.3% per year between now and 2085. This may be higher than the 1.9% per year that was projected as recently as three years ago, but it is still well below the 3.4% that the economy grew on average between 1960 and 2005.

The actuaries' own low cost projection assumes an average annual growth rate of 2.9% between now and 2085. This is higher than the 2.3% pace embodied in the intermediate projection, but it is still well below the 3.4% average of the past.

Guess what? Under the actuaries' low cost projection, the Social Security system never runs out of money!

That said, you might ask the question why this more realistic projection has escaped politicians from both major parties. I don't know why, but I can only theorize that it's because they haven't taken the time to read the entire report, which is available on the system's website. Here's the link.

If you go beyond the highlights section to the projections section, you will see exactly what I mean.

In other words -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

DOD 2011 Budget Increases $18 Billion for a Total of $708 Billion

DOD Press Release
February 1, 2010

President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $708 billion for fiscal 2011. The budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD) includes $549 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $159 billion to support overseas contingency operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“The fiscal 2011 budget request builds on the reforms begun in last year's defense budget,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “These substantial changes to allocate defense dollars more wisely and reform the department’s processes were broadened and deepened by the analysis and conclusions contained in the Quadrennial Defense Review.”
The fiscal 2011 base budget request represents an increase of $18 billion over the $531 billion enacted for fiscal 2010. This is an increase of 3.4 percent, or 1.8 percent real growth after adjusting for inflation. The DoD needs modest real growth to maintain, train, and equip the forces that sustain our wartime efforts.

The fiscal 2011 OCO request will provide additional resources needed to sustain U.S. forces in Operation Enduring Freedom – in Afghanistan and elsewhere – and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Included are funds for pay and benefits, logistics and other support, force protection, continuing efforts to counteract improvised explosive devices, as well as funding to fully support the buildup in Afghanistan and to carry out a responsible drawdown in Iraq.
“The choices made and priorities set in these budget requests and strategic defense reviews reflect America's commitment to succeed in the wars we are in while making the investments necessary to prepare for threats on or beyond the horizon,” said Gates.
Also accompanying the 2011 budget proposal is a fiscal 2010 supplemental request of $33 billion to support the added costs of the President's new strategy in Afghanistan and strengthen U.S. force levels with approximately 30,000 additional troops.
“To make sure we have the resources needed to support our troops deploying to the Afghanistan theater, I will be asking the Congress to enact the supplemental by spring 2010,” said Gates.
Key highlights of the proposed DoD budget are outlined in the attached summary and charts. For more information and to view the entire fiscal 2011 budget proposal, please visit http://www.budget.mil and download the "FY 2011 Budget Request Overview Book."
The 2010 QDR and BMDR are available online at www.defense.gov/DefenseReviews.
Transcripts from applicable budget and strategic defense review briefings can also be viewed at www.defense.gov/transcripts.

U.S. Military Receive 1.4% Pay Raise for 2011

Between 2001 and 2009, per capita spending on three major components (basic pay and allowances for housing and subsistence) of cash compensation for active military personnel rose by 37 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Navy CyberSpace
January 10, 2011

Rumors are abound concerning a military pay stoppage if the government shuts down -- it didn't happen in 1995, and it will not happen in 2011 as the military is considered an essential service.

On January 7, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) that provides a 1.4% increase for military pay, effective January 1, 2011. The raise should be noticed in January's first pay check.

On November 10, 2010, President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the national debt recommended, amount other things, a freeze of non-combat military pay and bonuses for three years at 2011 levels - the raise amount for 2011 has yet to be determined, but a number of congressmen have gone on record to say that the budget deficit will not be fixed on the backs of our service members when there are so many other places to cut. We'll see.

On February 1, 2010, President Obama, in his defense budget proposal for 2011, recommends an increase of 1.4% for military base pay. The percentage of presidential pay raise proposals in recent years has utilized the Employment Cost Index (ECI) published by the Department of Labor, and this year was no different. Congress has supported and passed a half percent increase to each president's proposal, every year since 1999, to help close the gap with the private sector. Both the Obama Administration and the Pentagon are at odds with the additional half percent increase, citing the gap in military pay has been closed, and further increases to personnel costs will greatly reduce the military's effectiveness over time.

Military pay and allowances in the United States are distributed on the 1st and 15th day of the month. If the 1st or 15th fall on a weekend or national holiday payment will be made the working day prior. The pay scales below are proposals for active and reserve components of the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard and National Guard, and are monthly amounts rounded to the nearest US dollar.

2011 Enlisted Pay Chart - 2011 Officer Pay Chart
2011 Enlisted Reserve/Guard Drill Pay Chart
2011 Officer Reserve/Guard Military Drill Pay Chart

2011 Basic Enlisted Military Pay Chart
Pay Grade Years of Service
Less than 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
E-9




E-8




E-7 2638 2879 2989 3135 3249
E-6 2281 2510 2621 2728 2840
E-5 2091 2230 2338 2448 2620
E-4 1915 2014 2123 2231 2326
E-3 1730 1839 1950 1950 1950
E-2 1645 1645 1645 1645 1645
E-1 1467 1467 1467 1467 1467
E-1 with less than 4 months of service 1357





Pay Grade Years of Service
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
E-9
4635 4740 4872 5029
E-8 3794 3962 4066 4191 4325
E-7 3444 3554 3751 3914 4025
E-6 3094 3193 3382 3441 3484
E-5 2800 2947 2965 2965 2965
E-4 2326 2326 2326 2326 2326
E-3 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950
E-2 1645 1645 1645 1645 1645
E-1 1467 1467 1467 1467 1467
Pay Grade Years of Service
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
E-9 5185 5436 5649 5874 6215
E-8 4568 4692 4902 5018 5305
E-7 4143 4189 4343 4426 4740
E-6 3533 3533 3533 3533 3533
E-5 2965 2965 2965 2965 2965
E-4 2326 2326 2326 2326 2326
E-3 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950
E-2 1645 1645 1645 1645 1645
E-1 1467 1467 1467 1467 1467
Enlisted Over 30 Years of Service
Pay Grade Years of Service
Over 30 Over 34 Over 38 Over 40
E-9 6526 6853 7196 Make room
E-8 5411 5411 5411 Retire!!

Notes: For the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the AF, Sergeant Major of the Army or Marine Corps or Senior Enlisted Advisor of the JCS, basic pay is $7,490.

The US military has various pays which are not included these pay tables. They include, but not limited to, Submarine Duty Pay, Hazardous Duty, Imminent Danger Pay (Combat Pay), Sea Pay, aircrew-flight pay, Special Duty Pay (SDAP). You must be assigned in an available billet in the required field/location to draw additional pay status. The US military also has various allowances such as Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), Cost of living Allowance (COLA) and Clothing Allowance just to name a few.

2011 Basic Officer Military Pay Chart
Pay Grade Years of Service
Under 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
O-10
See Note 1





O-9




O-8 9531 9843 10050 10108 10366
O-7 7919 8287 8457 8592 8838
O-6 5870 6448 6872 6872 6898
O-5 4893 5512 5893 5966 6204
O-4 4222 4887 5213 5286 5588
O-3 3712 4208 4542 4952 5189
O-2 3207 3653 4207 4349 4438
O-1 2783 2898 3503 3503 3503
Commissioned Officer With Over 4 Years of Active Service as an Enlisted Member or Warrant Officer
See Note 2 Under 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
O-3E


4951 5189
O-2E


4349 4438
O-1E


3501 3740
Warrant Officers

Under 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
W-5




W-4 3836 4125 4245 4361 4562
W-3 3502 3648 3799 3847 4005
W-2 3081 3257 3411 3522 3619
W-1 2719 2943 3093 3189 3445
Pay Grade Years of Service
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
O-10
See Note 1





O-9




O-8 10798 10898 11308 11426 11779
O-7 9079 9360 9639 9919 10798
O-6 7193 7233 7233 7643 8370
O-5 6346 6659 6889 7185 7639
O-4 5913 6316 6632 6850 6976
O-3 5449 5617 5895 6038 6038
O-2 4438 4438 4438 4438 4438
O-1 3503 3503 3503 3503 3503
Commissioned Officer With Over 4 Years of Active Service as an Enlisted Member or Warrant Officer
See Note 2 Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
O-3E 5449 5618 5895 6128 6263
O-2E 4580 4819 5003 5140 5140
O-1E 3878 4020 4159 4349 4349
Warrant Officers

Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
W-5 -- -- -- -- --
W-4 4761 4961 5264 5530 5782
W-3 4313 4635 4786 4961 5142
W-2 4059 4214 4366 4552 4698
W-1 3746 3881 4070 4257 4403
Pay Grade Years of Service
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
O-10
See Note 1

15401 15476 15797 16358
O-9
13470 13664 13944 14433
O-8 12291 12762 13078 13078 13078
O-7 11541 11541 11541 11541 11599
O-6 8797 9223 9466 9711 10188
O-5 7856 8070 8313 8313 8313
O-4 7049 7049 7049 7049 7049
O-3 6039 6039 6039 6039 6039
O-2 4438 4438 4438 4438 4438
O-1 3503 3503 3503 3503 3503
Commissioned Officer With Over 4 Years of Active Service as an Enlisted Member or Warrant Officer
See Note 2 Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
O-3E 6445 6445 6445 6445 6445
O-2E 5140 5140 5140 5140 5140
O-1E 4349 4349 4349 4349 4349
Warrant Officers

Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
W-5 -- 6821 7167 7424 7710
W-4 5988 6189 6486 6728 7006
W-3 5466 5684 5816 5956 6145
W-2 4830 4988 5091 5174 5174
W-1 4538 4701 4701 4701 4701
Commissioned Officers Over 30 Years of Service
Pay Grade Years of Service
Over 30 Over 34 Over 38 Over 40
O-10 17176 18035 18936 Time for
O-9 15155 15913 16709 Retirement!
O-8 13405 13739 13739 Retire!!
O-7 11832 11832 11832 Retire!!
O-6 10391 10391 10391 Retire!!
Warrant Officers Over 30 Years of Service
Pay Grade Years of Service
Over 30 Over 34 Over 38 Over 40
W-5 8095 8501 8926 Make room
W-4 7145 7145 7145 you're old!!

NOTE 1. Basic pay for an O-7 to O-10 is limited by Level II of the Executive Schedule. Basic pay for O-6 and below is limited by Level V of the Executive Schedule.

NOTE 2. Applicable to O-1 to O-3 with at least 4 years & 1 day of active duty or more than 1460 points as a warrant and/or enlisted member. See DoDFMR for more detailed explanation on who is eligible for this special basic pay rate.

Military Pay and Benefits Are at All-time Highs

Even in times of military budget cuts and economic downturn, the military continues to offer a variety of military bonuses, including cash signing bonuses of $15,000, reenlistment bonuses of $15,000, special services bonuses up to $40,000, and education incentives up to $73,000. The Army offers more enlistment incentives than any other branch of the US military services; the bonus or bonus combination cannot exceed $40,000 per active duty service member. In addition to free medical care at military facilities, clothing allowances, discounted groceries at military commissaries, and discounts at other military exchanges, uniformed service members are provided a 'basic allowance for housing (BAH)' based on geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. The intent of BAH is to provide uniformed service members 'accurate and equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets, and is payable when government quarters are not provided.' According to the DoD, BAH rates now make it possible for service members to have zero out-of-pocket expense -- for service members living in civilian rented housing.

Comments from Michael J. Smith, M.P.A., GovExec.com
September 23, 2010

The US taxpayer in today's national economy is being positioned to fund the surmised 'housing' costs of two married active duty personnel stationed in San Diego functioning in CLERICAL support roles of some sort. And yes, there are legions of CLERICAL support Navy staff of all ranks currently stationed in San Diego.

This couple, these THIRTY-SOMETHING volunteers, EACH WITH NO MORE THAN A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA, have been in the Navy for 16 years. Each has risen to the ENLISTED rating/rank of E-7. Each are provided with a generous base annual BASE salary of circa $48,000. But they are also currently handed, each of them, even for the very same household in which they both reside, a tax-free monthly 'housing' (and I'll call it for levity a US taxpayer 'hosing') allowance of precisely $4,107. According to current military policy, one volunteer gets $2,208 (BAH with the dependent rate), and the other gets handed $1,899 without the dependent rate.

Think about that fact for a moment. THIS COUPLE gets handed greater than $4,100 PER MONTH (OR $49,200 PER YEAR) TAX FREE FOR SO-CALLED "HOUSING," WHICH IS ABOVE AND BEYOND THEIR COMBINED NEAR $100,000 BASE SALARY.

Several points:

First: Why should the US taxpayer pay these volunteers ANYTHING for surmised 'housing' when they are already being given $100,000 each year in salary alone?

Second: Why shouldn't these volunteers use at least some of their combined $100,000 salary to pay for their own housing just like the rest of the American population?

Third: Why should the US taxpayer pay BOTH of these volunteers a tax free monthly surmised 'housing' allowance when they both live in the same residence?

If the GOP is sincere about cutting fed expenditures, which is is NOT, they ought to consider the following:

Fact 1: The majority of DOD expenditures are for pay and benefits for active duty members.

Fact 2: Military pay and benefits are at all-time highs. O-5/ O-6 compensation, when greater than 20 years, commonly reaches $175,000 per year, $40,000 and more of which is in fully tax free 'housing.'

Fact 3: All members of the military are volunteers.

Fact 4: Most members enlist to serve and serve in non-combatant fields and specialties.

Fact 5: Only a small percentage of active duty volunteers (when viewed DOD-wide) served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and an even smaller percentage of those that did serve overseas never set a foot outside of the wire in either geographic location.

Fact 6: The VAST majority of active duty members are stationed stateside or on safe overseas bases.

Fact 7: According to recently published peer-reviewed studies, military direct compensation (salary and 'housing' allowances, amongst others) is now HIGHER than their demographic counterparts in the private sector. Note: This has NEVER EVER occurred in the Nation's history. NEVER!

Fact 8: The monthly tax free 'housing' allowances are excessively high. Many reach upwards of $3,000 - $4,000 per month.

Fact 9: No receipts are required to prove that these funds are even used on 'housing.' And as a result, many members pocket huge windfalls each and every month.

Fact 10: Other than the PHS and NOAA (both of which are miniscule in comparision to DOD, and both of which are full of MDs, PHDs, and public health scientists, there is no other public sector organization on the planet that hands its de facto employees between $3,000 - $4,000 (and above) tax free for so-called 'housing' above and beyond their salaries.

Fact 11: The majority of the American public, millions of who are struggling to even locate employment, are FULLY UNAWARE of these 'housing/hosing' windfalls.

You want something to cut, GOP, cut here!

Navy Bonus and Incentives Overview

Military.com

The Navy offers many incentives for joining; these include several types of cash signing bonuses, education bonuses, and additional incentives. If you qualify for more than one bonus the Navy may combine them to pay a combined bonus, which is not to exceed $30,000, except in the case of Nuclear and SEAL enlistment programs which are capped at $40,000.

Many cash enlistment incentives may also be combined with either the Navy’s Student Loan Repayment Program or the Navy College Fund, but not both.

How the Navy Pays Bonuses

If you enlist for cash bonuses the Navy will normally pay the entire bonus amount (lump sum), when you arrive at your first permanent duty station, after you have successfully completed your training. In some cases the Navy may pay the bonuses incrementally as you reach certain career milestones or following special training.

Navy Cash Bonuses

The Navy’s cash bonuses include bonuses for joining the Navy SEALS, choosing a high demand job specialty - called a Navy Rating, for selecting a specific date to begin basic training - called shipping dates, for having a college education, signing up for “Delayed Entry,” and more.

The following is a quick summary of the current Navy Cash Bonus:
  • Enlisted Source Rate (Specialty) Bonuses (ESRBP)– Up to $15,000
  • Enlistment Bonus Source Rate with Navy College Fund (EBSR-NCF)– up to 8,000 plus up to $72,900 for the Navy College Fund.
  • Extended Enlistment BonusUp to $5,000
  • College Education Bonus up to $8,000
  • National Call to Service Bonus – Combined incentives equal to more than $23,000.
  • Navy SEAL or Special Warfare Bonuses – Up to $40,000
  • Extended Delayed Entry Program – $500
  • High ASVAB score - $100 for Each Month on DEP

Army National Guard Bonus and Incentive Overview

Military.com

The National Guard offers many incentives for joining; these include several types of cash signing bonuses and education incentives. If you qualify for more than one bonus the National Guard may combine them to pay a combined bonus, which is not to exceed $20,000.

How the Army National Guard Pays Bonuses

Depending on the type of bonus, the Army National Guard Enlistment bonuses are paid either in one lump sum upon successful completion of initial entry training or in a 50/50 payment plan. Under the 50/50 plan National Guardsmen are paid 50 percent at the completion of Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT)and the remaining 50 percent paid in at the end of three years service.

Army National Guard Cash Bonuses

The bonuses include cash for choosing a high demand military occupational specialty (MOS), for selecting a specific date to begin basic training, for being willing to leave for boot camp within 45 days (Quick Ship), for advanced civilian skills, and more.

The following is a quick summary of the current Army National Guard Cash Bonus:
  • National Guard Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonusesup to $20,000
  • Non-Prior Service Quick Ship or Off-Peak Bonus - $5,000 (each)
  • Prior Service Affiliation Bonus – up to $20,000
  • Civilian Acquired Skills Program (CASP) Bonus – $10,000

A $15,000 Bonus for Selected Marines

MilitaryHub
October 5, 2010

Even in times of military budget cuts and economic downturn, the military continues to offer a variety of military bonuses.

Military bonuses are not about throwing money recklessly at troops; bonuses are deployed in order to help allocate the military budget in a clear, deliberate way and thus build the most complete and powerful U.S. military force possible.

For 2010, the Marine Force Reserve offered $15,000 in re-enlistment and affiliation bonuses for Marines in selected fields, with the goal of building and retaining a diverse selection of Marines and creating the most effective force.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR MARINE BONUSES?

The $15,000 Marine Force Reserve re-enlistment bonus eligibility includes active-duty or Individual Ready Reserve corporals (IRR), sergeants, and staff sergeants in over 125 Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), including Marines in infantry, communications and artillery spots.

Enlisted active-duty and IRR Marines entering the SMCR, who retrain for a new MOS, are not eligible for the $15,000 bonus.

The $15,000 Marine Force Reserve bonus, directed to the first 300 Marines to sign up and re-enlist before September 30, 2010, also required Marines to sign a three-year contract with the Selected Marine Corps Reserve.

HOW MILITARY BONUSES SHAPE THE MILITARY FORCE

After years of manpower shortages due to high operation demands in Iraq and Afghanistan, by 2010 the Reserve finally came back to a higher manpower number of 39,600. New bonuses intended to fill essential gaps in Marine units including intelligence, logistics, explosive ordnance disposal, aircraft maintenance, and public affairs.

More Army Incentives, Bonuses and Rewards

Military Hub
February 26, 2010

Today’s Army offers more enlistment incentives than any other branch of the US military services. Of course, joining any branch of the military comes with the special benefits and rewards of military life including today’s most complete GI Bill for educational support, and access to financial programs like VA Home Loans that can help you realize homeownership faster. But in particular, Army special enlistment incentives seem to be expanding further and faster all the time.

Each Army active duty incentive is individual and has limits on combinations with other offers, but in general, a military bonus or bonus combination cannot exceed $40,000. Army enlistment cash bonuses at or above $10,000 are paid in full upon successful completion of basic training. The rest of the eligible army bonus is paid in annual portions of $10,000 until the entire bonus amount is received in full.

There is a wide variety of active duty incentives, enlistment bonuses and benefits available; consider them all when you’re considering joining today’s Army...

Related Articles:

Military Pay Chart : 2011

ENLISTED PAY SCALE (Basic Pay Rates: Jan. 1, 2011)
Pay Grades E-6, E-7, E-8, and E-9

OFFICER PAY SCALE (Basic Pay Rates: Jan. 1, 2011)
O-1 to O-5 | O-6 to O-10 | W-1 to W-5 | E-1 to E-5 | E-6 to E-9
Active Duty Pay

2011 Basic Allowance for Housing Rates

Military.com

The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is based on geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. The intent of BAH is to provide uniformed servicemembers accurate and equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets, and is payable when government quarters are not provided.

Each year the BAH tables are released between December 15 and January 1.

2011 BAH Update:

The overall average military Basic Allowance for Housing rates across the country has dropped for the first time since 1998, the year BAQ was replaced by BAH. The 0.6 percent drop reflects a decrease in the average rental costs across the over 400 designated military housing areas.

Fortunately about 400,000 active duty service members will see their BAH protected from a rate drop Jan. 1; thanks to “individual rate protection,” which was adopted by Congress nine years ago.

View the 2011 BAH Rate tables:
2011 BAH With Dependents (pdf)
2011 BAH Without Dependents (pdf)

Non-Locality (Reserve Component/Transient and Differential BAH Rates)

Search for your 2011 BAH rate by zip code

You can also view the 2009 and 2010 BAH rate tables:

2010 BAH With Dependents (pdf)
2010 BAH Without Dependents (pdf)
2009 BAH With Dependents (pdf)
2009 BAH Without Dependents (pdf)


According to the DoD, BAH rates now make it possible for servicemembers to have zero out-of-pocket expense -- for servicemembers living in civilian rented housing. Since 2008 the BAH rates are directly related to the cost increases of the local rental housing markets.

With Unemployment So High and the Job Market So Bad, the U.S. Taxpayers Don't Need to Pay Sign-up or Reenlistment Bonuses

U.S. Soldiers are re-enlisting because of the poor economy, yet the military is paying up to $15,000 in re-enlistment bonuses. Is the U.S. government buying their 'loyalty' so that they will unlawfully detain and fire upon U.S. citizens when commanded to do so?

The Associated Press
December 2, 2008

Sgt. Ryan Nyhus spent 14 months patrolling the deadly streets of Baghdad, where five members of his platoon were shot and one died. As bad as that was, he would rather go back there than take his chances in this brutal job market. Nyhus re-enlisted last Wednesday, and in so doing joined the growing ranks of those choosing to stay in the U.S. military because of the bleak economy.
"In the Army, you're always guaranteed a steady paycheck and a job," said the 21-year-old Nyhus. "Deploying's something that's going to happen. That's a fact of life in the Army — a fact of life in the infantry."
In 2008, as the stock market cratered and the housing market collapsed, more young members of the Army, Air Force and Navy decided to re-up. While several factors might explain the rise in re-enlistments, including a decline in violence in Iraq, Pentagon officials acknowledge that bad news for the economy is usually good news for the military.

In fact, the Pentagon just completed its strongest recruiting year in four years.
"We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society," said David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. "What difficult economic times give us, I think, is an opening to make our case to people who we might not otherwise have."
The retention rate of early-career soldiers in the Army has risen steadily over the past four years and now stands 20 percentage points higher than it was in fiscal 2004. As for the Navy and the Air Force, early- and mid-career sailors and airmen re-enlisted at a higher rate in October than during the same period in 2007. The Marine Corps was not immediately able to provide comparative figures on re-enlistments...

Roughly 208,000 men and women left the military in 2007. Some were rank-and-file warriors, while others worked in specialized fields such as satellite communications or computer networking. Only about 30 percent of enlisted soldiers hold a bachelor's degree.

The job market is still fairly good for veterans with technical skills, especially those coveted by defense contractors, said Carl Savino, a retired Army major who runs a company outside Washington that offers employment services to new veterans. Sgt. Michael Rodriguez, 29, of San Antonio, decided to get out after he landed a job with a defense contractor working on communications systems. "I feel pretty secure with them," said Rodriguez, who will leave the military soon. But even defense-contractor jobs could dry up as the economic crisis deepens, Savino said.
"Jobs are getting harder to come by for veterans," Savino said. "The farther they deviate from the defense contractors, who are still in reasonably strong shape, the more challenging it is."

Frequently Asked Questions about U.S. Army Recruiting

U.S. Army

What is the current recruiting mission?

Active Army Mission -- 64,000*
Army Reserve Mission -- 19,320**

*Active Army reduced from 67,000 in January **Army Reserve mission includes 320 OCS

The fiscal year runs October through September.

What are your year-to-date mission accomplishments?

Monthly recruiting data for all the services is released by the Department of Defense on or about the 10th of each month. Look for it on the DoD News Release page.

An accession is an individual who has enlisted and shipped to initial entry training.

What are your previous year accession missions and accomplishments?

Fiscal Year 2010

Active Army: USAREC accessed 74,577 Soldiers against a mission of 74,500, or 100.1 percent mission accomplishment.

Army Reserve: We accessed 17,046 against a mission of 17,000, equaling 100.3 percent of mission.

How did your previous Fiscal Year accession missions and accomplishments compare to past years?

Year

Active Army


Army Reserve

Mission

Accessions


Mission

Accessions

1998

72,550

71,749


40,600

37,050

1999

74,500

68,210


45,584

35,035

2000

80,000

80,113


41,961

42,086

2001

75,800

75,855


34,910

35,523

2002

79,500

79,585


28,825

31,319

2003

73,800

74,132


26,400

27,365

2004

77,000

77,587


21,200

21,095

2005

80,000

73,255


22,175

19,400

2006

80,000

80,617


25,500

25,378

2007

80,000

80,410


26,500

27,055

2008

80,000

80,517


26,500

26,945

2009
65,000
70,045

22,500
23,684
2010
74,500
74,577

17,000
17,046

For additional details, visit www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/goals.htm.


Recruiting environment

Has the economic downturn affected recruiting?

While competitive forces remain difficult, the impact of a recession, growing unemployment, and improving attitudes towards military service present a favorable recruiting environment. Attitudes toward overseas contingency operations have improved. Propensity to enlist has increased nationally. Unemployment for Sept 09 was 9.8% - highest rate since 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 7.6 million to 15.1 million, and the unemployment rate doubled in September 2009 to 9.8 percent. [as of oct. 30, 2009]

Interesting Recruiting Facts for the U.S. Military

By Rod Powers, About.com
July 7, 2008

Did you know? On average, it costs the Air Force approximately $7,900 to send a person through the enlistment process (computed from the time the applicant first walks into a recruiting office, until the day they ship out to basic training). The next closest service is the Marines, who spend a little more than $13,000 per recruit, followed by the Navy at approximately $14,500 per recruit. The Army, meanwhile, is triple the Air Force at $26,000. For every Air Force recruiter on the streets, there are about nine Army, five Navy and three Marine Corps recruiters.

According to a recent Department of Defense market survey, about 73 percent of American youth (18 to 25) are not qualified to join the military. Weight, medical or conduct reasons disqualify more than half of them.

Total Military Recruits: Army, Navy, Air Force (Most Recent) by State

The U.S. military consists of five branches. They are the Army (1 million soldiers), Navy (460,000 sailors), Air Force (400,000 personnel), Marines (198,000 marines), and Coast Guard (40,000 active duty). As of 2008, the U.S. military consisted of about 3 million people. About half of them are reserve personnel. - eHow

StateMaster.com

VIEW DATA:
Totals

Per capita




Bar Graph

Pie Chart

Map

Correlations

Showing latest available data.
Rank States Amount
# 1 Texas: 15,594
# 2 Florida: 9,581
# 3 New York: 7,523
# 4 Pennsylvania: 5,756
# 5 Illinois: 5,738
# 6 Georgia: 5,197
# 7 Virginia: 4,957
# 8 Washington: 3,942
# 9 Missouri: 3,523
# 10 Indiana: 3,393
# 11 Arizona: 3,367
# 12 Alabama: 3,172
# 13 Louisiana: 3,013
# 14 Maryland: 2,924
# 15 Tennessee: 2,896
# 16 Colorado: 2,767
# 17 New Jersey: 2,749
# 18 Oklahoma: 2,639
# 19 Wisconsin: 2,594
# 20 Kentucky: 2,109
# 21 Minnesota: 2,008
# 22 Oregon: 1,962
# 23 Massachusetts: 1,957
# 24 Kansas: 1,823
# 25 California: 1,648
# 26 Arkansas: 1,586
# 27 Iowa: 1,541
# 28 Nevada: 1,126
# 29 Nebraska: 1,123
# 30 New Mexico: 1,094
# 31 West Virginia: 1,021
# 32 Connecticut: 1,019
# 33 Hawaii: 920
# 34 Idaho: 846
# 35 Montana: 798
# 36 Maine: 792
# 37 New Hampshire: 635
# 38 Ohio: 586
# 39 North Carolina: 494
# 40 South Dakota: 437
# 41 Michigan: 436
# 42 Alaska: 406
# 43 Delaware: 354
# 44 North Dakota: 322
# 45 Rhode Island: 312
# 46 Wyoming: 307
# 47 South Carolina: 287
# 48 Guam: 245
# 49 Vermont: 225
# 50 District of Columbia: 189
# 51 Mississippi: 161
# 52 Puerto Rico: 139
# 53 Utah: 113
# 54 US Virgin Islands: 63
# 55 American Samoa: 40

Total: 120,449

Weighted average: 2,190.0


See America's Perpetual, Multi-generational Global War on Terror

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page