Ever since the Obama administration released its budget proposal for the 2015 fiscal year, it has been dissected from numerous perspectives. While some sectors of the economy, such as health care information technology, are expected to see increased discretionary spending, the defense budget and military families might be hit particularly hard by cuts.

Only weeks removed from the repeal of cuts to cost of living adjustments to benefits for veterans, military benefits would stomach a significant loss somewhere upwards of $5,000 annually, an advocate group estimated, according to The Washington Times. Amidst other widespread cuts to military spending, some critics are wary that such deep financial drawbacks to the all-volunteer force could have dire consequences in the future.

Estimating impact
President Obama unveiled his budget proposal for the 2015 fiscal year on Mar. 4, and even before it was reviewed, various organizations were wary that their discretionary spending would take a significant hit. According to the Military Officers Association of America, as reported by The Washington Times, no group will take on such a financial and personal burden as much as the military community.

The MOAA calculated that the average Army sergeant's veterans benefits will be reduced by as much as $5,000 annually under the new budget. The Washington Post also explained that base commissaries will no longer receive the large subsidies they normally require to run without the need for profits. Active-duty servicemembers would also see a 5 percent increase in the cost of military housing, and pay increases would be limited to 1 percent annual raises.

"When you combine all these different issues, you have quite a bit of a financial impact," retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, head of government relations at the MOAA, told The Washington Post. 

While Hayden's comments were diplomatic, other retirees the paper reached out to were markedly less so.

"It is a slap in the face to every soldier that has served or will serve," retired Army Maj. Karel Butler told The Washington Post. "The stress that your family goes through, that your body goes through in a 20-year career, it is tremendous. And for them to even consider reducing those benefits is a slap in the face."

Complicating factors
In a blog post on, the Obama administration claimed that the new budget would ensure that military families would see sustained funding for education, childcare and other forms of support. About $2.4 billion would be allocated to medical efforts supporting wounded servicemembers, with $747 million specifically marked for research and care for Traumatic Brain Injury issues.

These effort may not be enough to persuade the military community to support the new budget, however. By cutting benefits for veterans, some believe that it may actually hurt the Armed Forces' ability to recruit new members in the future.

"Any young person would look at [veterans benefits] and say, 'I would want to join,'" Kinyell Haymore, a 10-year Navy veteran told The Washington Times. "So now, if you take that away from them, you might not get the quotas that you want."

Recruitment and swelling troop numbers may not be the goal of Hagel and other military officials at all. The National Journal reported that the Pentagon has repeatedly requested permission from Congress to close a number of bases across the country. Congress, however, has denied those requests.

The Base Realignment and Closure process governs any and all efforts to reduce the military's footprint in the U.S., but in Europe – where the Pentagon can operate with its bases freely – the infrastructure of the military has already been reduced by 30 percent since 2000.