The local daily published my following op-ed piece about overhauling the generous military retirement system. Needless to say, the subject is controversial, so it wasn't a surprise that most military (officer) retirees rejected my vision--according to a survey conducted by one especially offended retiree (an Air Force colonel). Nevertheless, this subject is timely, considering continued pressures on diminishing resources, so I believe it deserves wide review, which might stimulate constructive debate. I'd be especially interested in hearing reactions from non-military readers. You may use the "comment" link below:
If you thought Social Security reform was the politician’s untouchable “third rail,” just try touching the invisible, fatal “high voltage live wire”--the military retirement system.
In his capacity as the Pentagon’s undersecretary for personnel and readiness, David Chu was interviewed in January by the Wall Street Journal. Chu described the impending hard choice confronting our leaders of allocating money between “guns” (weapons systems and their operators) and “butter” (retiree pay and medical benefits). He noted that the increasing benefits being won and awarded to military retirees and their families are “detract[ing] from the nation’s ability to defend itself.”
The response from the military lobbyists was bloody and swift. Chu was publicly demonized by top retired brass as, among other unflattering epithets, a “traitor.” They called for his immediate resignation. This wasn’t a mere skirmish—this was battlefield “shock and awe.” Not much has been heard from Chu since.
At the risk of alienating virtually every retiree and veteran about to retire, it’s my contention that sooner or later Congress will be forced to make those hard choices. Although this letter cannot adequately describe the details of my vision, I believe the concept should be aired and debated.
I’d begin by overhauling the present retirement system that rewards every eligible veteran (with only 20 years active service) with 50% of active duty pay at the highest rank held upon retirement (and increased by annual COLAs for life). Instead, I’d create a system that would award points on a scale crafted by priorities. The highest number of points would go to those possessing a war-fighting occupational specialty. The scale would award additional “points” for every battle campaign in which the veteran served as an actual combat “warrior” (fewer points would go to in-theater rear support personnel). This scale would award bonus points for each year of voluntary service beyond 20 years.
I would award the fewest points solely by virtue of the serviceman’s rank at retirement. In Particular, it makes absolutely no sense to reward a field-grade or general-officer rank a lifetime retirement at the present 50% formula. These high-ranking individuals enjoyed the rewards of their achievement in terms of pay, privilege, and responsibility when they were on active duty. The largest and most deserving class of retirees are those enlisted men and women who served in combat specialties and in combat zones.
The most important component of my overhaul would be a special life-time retirement plan for the wounded and maimed in combat zones--no matter how many years they served. It is a shame on our system that these warriors are too easily neglected and forgotten once the clash of swords has quieted.
The least rewarded would be reserve component members who accumulated “retirement credits”without ever serving a stint of active duty in a war-zone. However, my system would generously reward these reservist-warriors for every time they were ripped away from their jobs and families to serve in war.
The three important outcomes of my plan: 1) To induce individuals to acquire combat-related skills, i.e., the creation of a true “warrior class.” 2) To induce longer periods of active service or, put differently, to weed out those who enter service with a retirement mindset. 3) To reallocate diminishing resources to critical operational readiness.
No one will deny that these hard decisions are on the horizon. Following the most recent and extensive Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, the military itself should initiate such reforms before congressional “amateurs” eventually mandate them--a trend that is already underway in less noticeable bits and pieces.
Our senior military cadres, active duty and retired, seem disinclined to provide such leadership. Unfortunately, they’ve become just as brainwashed as the most entrenched welfare recipient from whom Congress finds it nearly impossible to wean. That's because they’ve come to see their tax-paid benefits as their “right.” The ugly hypocrisy is that military retirees also have come to believe that their generous benefits, derived from an archaic, one-dimensional system we can no longer afford, are of a “higher order” than the publicly subsidized claims of, let’s say, an unemployed or injured construction worker.
The powerful military lobbies that silenced David Chu underscored this mentality when they roundly condemned an honest public servant, himself a veteran, who is trying to prevent the sacking of the quarterback on his own 5-yard line. It is disturbing to witness just how deeply entrenched the welfare state mentality has become among what some (including Colonel David Hackworth,RIP,the Army's youngest and most decorated soldier)call a “perfumed and pampered class.”
Signed: "Grant"-- himself an officer retiree (USAF)
No comments:
Post a Comment