ShareThis Page

Reservists a bargain

| Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, 8:58 p.m.

Last month, the Reserve Forces Policy Board issued a report to the secretary of Defense on the cost of military personnel. It's the first official report from a Defense entity that makes it clear that the cost of a National Guard/Reserve member is much less than that of an active-component member.

The report shows that in fiscal year 2013, the annual cost to the federal government for a reserve-component member is $123,351, while the cost of an active-component member is $384,622.

I highlight this because as part of the president's 2013 Defense budget, the Air Force proposes to reduce the size and capability of its most efficient and cost-effective forces — the reserve component. More specifically, it plans to close the Air Force Reserve's 911th Airlift Wing based in Pittsburgh this year.

Gov. Corbett and I support a 2013 budget that honors national security yet promotes fiscal responsibility. But based on the Defense Department's own report, it would make the most sense to take a small cut in the active component in order to maintain or expand Defense capabilities by shifting forces to the reserve component. It's a 3-to-1 cost savings that the Air Force must seriously consider.

Maj. Gen. Wesley

E. Craig

Fort Indiantown Gap

The writer is the adjutant general of the Pennsylvania National Guard.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.