A recent article in Stars and Stripes has a lot of people talking, and talking about a subject a subject sure to result in raised voices and anger in almost every conversation – the sustainability of military retirement benefits.
Namely, as described by the 25 member Defense Business Board, that military retirement benefits are too expensive and the system needs to be changed. Several possibilities were put forth, including raising length of time in service before retirement benefits kick in and lowering benefit amount. And the reasons behind what the Defense Business Board recommended were undeniable: the United States budget needs to find cuts somewhere.
Now, I'm not privy to all the internal conversations. I don't know the members of the Defense Business Board personally, we don't do lunch. I've only met the Secretary of Defense once, and I didn't really meet him then, I just got my picture taken with him (his hair is much better than mine). I doubt he'd take my calls, if you know what I mean, because in the grand scheme of things and as awesome as my kids tell me I am, the Secretary of Defense has far more important things to do. I can't cast aspersions on anyone's motivations or background, and I realize the difficult position the budget has put people into.
But I'd appreciate a bit of a reality check here.
Oh, sure, I can hear some people saying, "No, YOU need the reality check. It is what it is, costs need to be cut."
And you know what? I agree. I do. Where I disagree is at the point where the cuts start to come out of the retirement of service-members who have not only endured years of separations from their families, but are leaving at what is deemed the "young age" of 38 years old with disabilities that normally don't show up until 25 years later in civilians.
Reality Check 1:
Humping around 100 pounds of gear in an inhospitable environment rife with pollution doesn't maximize a person's health potential. Being exposed to the chemicals in jet fuel doesn't exactly lessen a person's chances at contracting cancer. That's the most abbreviated list of issues possible, and it doesn't even get into the damage done by lack of sleep and stress situations – situations that are absolutely unavoidable in today's military. I wonder how many civilians understand the difficulty in getting your recommended eight hours with mortars and other explosions going off?
I'm going to go ahead and throw down that a military member retiring at the calender age of 38 is probably going to show up as quite a bit older "in dog years", if you get what I mean. I truly don't think that it's too much to ask for those set up to review the military retirement system to take that into account. And quite heavily, too.
As a family member, I know the stress of sending my husband off to war multiple times in increments of months that exceed the average length of pregnancy hasn't been kind. I'm 36 years old right now, and without the help of Lady Clairol, I'd look like Robert Massi. I keep on top of it, and you'll never hear me mention it again, but it's the truth.
The stress wears you down. It does things to your body – ulcers, IBS, panic attacks; all these things are real physical medical issues that result from exposure to the prolonged stress of living the military lifestyle – and that's just on the dependent side.
That doesn't even get into the physical scars that military service-members carry out in the open. How do you tell someone with the scars left behind by shrapnel in multiple deployments that they haven't given enough to warrant a retirement after 20 years?
Reality Check 2:
Another suggestion put forth by the Defense Business Board is requiring service members to stay in longer than the now-required 20 to qualify for retirement – I think a quote I read in comments elsewhere stated it best, "Nothing like trying to charge up a hill with a squad of fifty year olds." General Petreaus's amazing physique aside, it's generally not a good plan.
Even if tweaks and twitches were thrown around to change up the current promotion system (which makes staying thirty years an impossibility for the vast majority of service-members), the question then becomes whether those changes would truly be able to accomplish what they set out to do. Or would a slower promotion rate merely add even more politics into a promotion system where lives depend on the best and brightest going forward.
I'm not the biggest fan of the promotion system in place today. Ask me sometime in person – you'll get an earful. And truly? My husband is in the Reserves – any change in military retirement is probably not going to affect us all that much. I realize that I sound worked up over this. The simple reason for that is because I am.
There is a lot of advocacy going on right now for military family benefits. There is a call for more childcare benefits, there is a call for help with spouse job placement. The MyCAA fiasco, and the attempt to fix it. The thing is, all those new items will not be worth much if the government and the American people decide that there isn't all that much difference between someone who spends 20 years in the military and all that entails, and someone who spends 20 years doing IT for the FBI headquarters without recognition that the shelf life of those people performing these jobs is vastly different.
I'm not denigrating civilian jobs in the least. When it all comes down to it I myself am a civilian. The FBI headquarters needs that IT person, or the FBI will not be able to do its own job.
But.
But I do not think that there is an equivalence than can be made monetarily between the two positions. And perhaps this is the sticking point. The Defense Business Board, according to its charter:
… shall provide the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary
of Defense independent advice and recommendations on effective
strategies for the implementation of best business practices on matters
of interest to the Department of Defense.The
Board shall provide the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary
of Defense independent advice and recommendations on effective
strategies for the implementation of best business practices on matters
of interest to the Department of Defense.
The emphasis there is mine, and I think it's important. The Defense Business Board is advising the DoD on business practices. And while there are many aspects of defense that enter the business realm (someone has to produce weapons, someone has to produce planes, and there needs to be a purchasing system in place for such things), for the government, war cannot be conducted in the manner of business as usual. Because it is not, it never has been, and if it ever becomes such we are in big trouble.
There is no mandated work-day in war. There is no contract negotiation for service-members. You can not turn down a move or an assignment because you happen to like what you are doing and where you are doing it. There is no union, there is no negotiation, and a part of the military contract is the knowledge that doing your job may mean giving up your life.
And none of that fits in with with "business practices".
I do hope that the DoD and those charged with oversight of military budget affairs take that fact into account along with the Defense Business Board's recommendations.
About airforcewife
Comments
You're absolutely right of course. Well said…I would have more to say, but I'm a bit angry at the moment. Learning to bite my tongue.
Very well said airforcewife. It's really sad that military member's futures and those of their families can just be tossed around as a "budget cut."
Here's my little rant to add. My husband has had multiple job offers from other large companies that offer very good money. If he is not going to get what he deserves, why shouldn't he just take those jobs??? Just my thought. Thanks for the article!!!
Great post… as an Army family that is on the brink of retirement, this sends chills down my spine. Have they any idea what this would do to military families?
It is already so hard to translate military experience into real-world jobs, having a strong (and deserved) retirement to help offset any career/salary differences goes a long way in helping these families stay afloat. And Elisha is right, if the DoD isn't going to support them for all they have done, why not go to the private sector early?
Very disappointing and I hope they are able to get creative and find better ways to cut budgets. Because this isn't it.
From the article:
"The current system "encourages our military to leave at 20 years when they are most productive and experienced, and then pays them and their families and their survivors for another 40 years," committee chairman Arnold Punaro told board members at their quarterly meeting late last month."
I would presume that knowing you can retire in 20 is an effective recruiting tool and something many people consider before enlisting or being commissioned.
I totally agree with Andi. If my husband didn't think he was halfway through with his service, he might make different choices. I think if they changed the retirement now, he'd leave because he's not particularly happy doing what he's doing these days, but he toughs it out because he knows there's a prize waiting for him in 10 years.
Oh dear. I have been stewing about this all morning. I have nothing nice to say.
Besides me being upset, for obvious reasons, if he had to do it again, he would have done one enlistment probably and gotten the heck out and gone into the private sector. I could have maintained a better career, he would have more income potential…..I can't keep going or I will write a book.
Uh… yeah. Wow. Hubby retires in about 7 more years, so this is a really uncomfortable topic for us. Trying to keep a lid on my anger, but seriously… one of the reasons my husband has stayed in so long is because of the retirement benefits. We're not sure what job prospects we have "after the Army", so we really need the retirement benefit boost. And retirees get little enough as it is. 50 percent of base pay (no more BAS/BAH, etc.) plus you pay for TriCare.
If the government would like to cut spending, there are some very obvious things they could cut without touching military retirement. Such as: government healthcare (they can't even manage Medicare without getting ripped off to the tune of billions a year in fraudulent claims), Planned Parenthood (they operate on a surplus, they don't need government money and many of their activities are questionable anyway), all pork barrel projects, foreign donations (yes, it's good to help others, but you can't give what you haven't got – you have to give out of your EXCESS, not go into debt to give)… and so on.
If the government does go ahead and cut military retirement benefits, not only will they have a LOT of VERY angry veterans and servicemembers, they will probably not have as many people who want to enlist to begin with, and in addition to that, I think the majority of people in this country support the military and the whole idea of ripping off vets is not a popular one even with civilians.
"… and then pays them and their families and their survivors for another 40 years,"
I could see a need to make some changes – if that statement were true.
When my father passed away, his AF retirement stopped immediately. In fact, because he lacked the foresight to die any day of the month AFTER the 14th, THEY TOOK MONEY BACK.
And, I have yet to see one thin dime from his retirement — as a surviving family member.
At least, I think I've *survived*…although that would certainly explain a lot lately — especially the increase in heat.
0>;~}
Andi & Sarah, Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Military transition to civilian life at 20 years is not guaranteed. My husband made 20 years this month. There are realities that are prohibitive of retiring right now. Namely, a family that is reliant on his paycheck and the medical benefits that Tricare provides, to start with. In addition, my husband is not ready for that difficult transition to the civilian world. In addition, do not think that just because there is not a stop-loss right now, that it won’t happen at a time when other service members are expecting to get out or retire. IN ADDITION, many of you do not know that if a service member retires, he/she can be called back at any time in the future. I know this, as I am a retired soldier as well as an Army wife. I just can’t get my head around the fact that some of you are, making assumptions long before you actually have any life experience relevant to the situation. The service member who is actually able to retire at 20, and successfully begins their life anew, is fortunate, but still challenged to translate their military experience into civilian terms, and then to market him or herself successfully. Add to that mix any number of the disabilities that service member s are taking with them as extra life baggage when they leave the military, and good luck proving to a civilian employer that you’re actually employable. If, in fact, the service member is employable. Did you know that:
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) states “Two-thirds served our country for at least three years, and one-third were stationed in a war zone.” I interpret this as ONLY three years. Let’s not even think about what more than three years does to a service member, especially with today’s OPTEMPO. Yep. Three years and you too can suffer the rest of your life from deployment injuries, both tangible and less tangible. http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
I also can’t fathom the fact that politicians think it’s perfectly acceptable to expect service members to jeopardize their lives so THEY, the politicians, can sleep at night, and then leave service members stranded as a thank you in return. You’re right, Airforcewife, there is NO COMPARISON between an IT guy who works cozily for a corporation and the lives of service members and their families. My husband has been deployed 4 times and been to Korea, and is preparing for another deployment, all since 2001! Add to that the fact that just because they’re not deployed, that does not mean they are at home! And I cannot even BEGIN to describe what we’re dealing with now-PTSD AND TBI, both which have effects that last well into years beyond, and which THE FAMILY gets to somehow learn how to contend with. With what I have to contend with for the next 20-40 years as his wife, thanks to the Army, I TOO deserve the relief of knowing that, even though we’ve got our work cut out for ourselves, personally and our marriage in years to come, dealing with PTSD AND TBI, at least my husband will have his retirement benefits, giving us one less thing to worry about.
Service members don’t leave their families and go to Iraq because they’re expecting gifts and such. My husband, a combat engineer, so loves his job, that he would do it even if the world didn’t give military discounts and even if old ladies didn’t stop him in the supermarket to thank him for his service. And he does it despite the long and sporadic absences from his family. We’ve been in this house since February 2008, but DH has yet to unpack and “nest.” He doesn’t complain. And neither do we. I love living with a man who not only ADORES his job, but finds purpose and is good at it.
But today’s OPTEMPO screams louder than ever on behalf of service members who deserve their retirement. And, as the article states, “…only 20 percent stay long enough to earn a retirement.” What many fail to realize is that we Americans pay presidents for the rest of their lives:
“The retirement benefits received by former Presidents include a pension, Secret Service protection, and reimbursements for staff, travel, mail, and office expenses. The Presidential pension is not a fixed amount, rather it matches the current salary of Cabinet members (or Executive Level I personnel), which is $191,300/year as of March, 2008 (but see “Salary Info” section above for advice on how to track increases in this figure).”
http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/pensionFARQ.html
Philpott quotes in this week’s article:
“But rapid expansion of military entitlements has become part of “the nation’s mandatory spending problems, “the task force found. Among “significant unsustainable trends” that the task force listed is paying military retirees and their families “for 60 years after they have served only 20.”"
So, this thought leads to the erroneous conclusion that even though a service member has risked his or her life, and possibly has disabilities that not only affect him/herself, but also the family and every other area of his/her life, he or she is not entitled to 60 years of pension, since he or she only jeopardized , and endured 20 physical years of service. How do you measure the quality of life that his or her service has so drastically affected? Never mind that some veterans are so disabled by their duty experiences that some of them physically cannot work. We will just throw them to the curb and let them try to survive off of the already limited and overburdened VA system and social security benefits. My husband, and our family, thanks to PTSD AND TBI, will contend with his disabilities, when he retires, FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. How do you put a price tag not only on my husband’s and our family’s quality of life, which the military is responsible for, since the military service causes inflictions and injuries that a service member takes with him/her and endures (and that his/her family also endures) for the rest of his/her life? All this, and the Army’s response is to prescribe more pills, keep deploying them when they’re not recovered, and then take away the one thing that compensates for all the crap: retirement and health benefits.
I cannot believe that it has come to this. Politicians, who do not truly care or take the time to know what military families truly need, want to focus on legislation that allows me, as a spouse, to take leave when my husband is about to deploy, like they think this is actually what I need. And even my own congressman could care less. Yet, politicians, who, to quote Hollywood, “rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom service members provide,” want to take away the one benefit that career service members and their families truly need in the years to come after that military service has done its damage and taken its toll. Perhaps they should put on a uniform and pick up a rifle and participate in today’s OPTEMPO. Fight waste, fraud and abuse. Don’t harm the very people you rely on.
I strongly believe that NO ONE in a Gov't possision should get paid more then the President let's cut their benifits
I do appreciate what you had to say here, I am irritated myself about the possibility of retirement benefints being changed like they have been discussed. Something else that seems to escape the folks who are talking about changing benefits is that anyone who does serve beyond 20 years and gets out say at 47 like I will, has been counting on using their benefits. I kept my end of the bargain, and expect reciprocation.
If they tell us tomorrow that we have to wait till we are 59 1/2 to collect on something we have been promised, they are in my opinion in breach of contract, I will think hard about submitting my retirement application. I have to get approval, instead of just retire. I do fear this will cause a huge exit of a lot of folks who are retirement eligible, leaving the forces to deal with a lot of inexperience. I have proudly served for 24 years, went where I was told and have always known that part of my contract included I might end up giving my life as part of the deal. Shameful that this is even being discussed. I am sure there are lots of other ways we could cut the budget.