INFO SHEET #33 FROM WESUPPORTTHEVETS
 July 5,2005

RETIRED PAY IS UNDER ATTACK BY CHU AND RUMSFELD--SERIOUS -READ THIS IN DETAIL!!!!

 

As if to believe that the tittering of DOD UnderSecretary for Personnel & Readiness, The Honorable David S.C.Chu's past reflections concerning the so-called "underfunded operational readiness funding" has disappeared, I'd strongly suggest reading the below story, published on the web unceremoniously on our nation's most important day - it's remembrance of independence and of those who sacrificed themselves in its' defense.

If there was ever an issue that warranted bags of every color; letters, faxes or whatever communications you feel comforted with, now is the time to speak out.  [Reference to "bags" pertains to the "brown bag" initiative of over 65 military retirees seeking a redress to the US Government Broken Promises associated with military health care.]  See http://mrgrg-ms.org/swindle00.html

Most military retirees reading this email are comforted with the security of their financial income - including a military retirement earned by years of family separations, 80-100 hour work weeks, sweat, tears, injury and in many cases, tragedy.  But what of our families, our friends, our colleagues and future Americans who plan to serve our great nation. What will they have to look forward to?

After reading the article below, ask yourself why this story is so far under the radar that at the first public meeting of this DOD initiated Military "Compensation Commission" last month here in Northern Virginia, only six "visitors" attended; five government employees (three of whom were DOD), and one reporter from the Army Times?

What about it Army Times?  Where's the story?

Now......for those of you who typically want to know about "the rest of the story," ask yourself this (among other things):  

Doesn't it seem strange that we, the military grassroots and more importantly, the families of Americans considering to join the armed forces, don't read this news in the U.S. media.....don't see it on the network news or even on cable news?  

This is a rhetorical question because it's understood by the military grassroots that many in the media don't understand what is happening in front of their faces.  Unless fed the marketing pitches by DOD, many reporters couldn't find an open door in a lighted room! [ Sorry - no insult intended to those who really do "investigative reporting."]  So here is a real clue to something important!

How many Veteran Service Organizations reported on this Commission and its' intentions - ever?  Where are the big fish empowered to represent us and future "warriors," before Congress and DOD?  Too many are fearful of spoiling their access and "friendships," thus, such a story is avoided unless considered a political necessity to deal with and up to now, it isn't a necessity.  Except for the National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS), which first reported on this process 18 months ago as it was quietly developing, ("thanks" to former NAUS Executive Director, Major General Murray and USN Capt-ret. Marshall Hanson), why are the other Veteran Service Organizations avoiding what is happening in broad daylight.

For those of you who believe you see black helicopters circling your homes, be prepared.  This story carries potential greater implications than most of us can realize at this point in time.  This truly is a silent effort to break many more promises than what we've come to know.  

And to anyone who thinks that service men and women ought to be paid just like their civilian counterparts, I don't think so.  If there was equity in the work then the services would be overflowing with applicants, however, the numbers today make it clear that this isn't so, thus, military compensation should not be equal to our civilian counterparts.

I plan on writing more on this subject.  

If you want to know more about this Commission, visit http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/dacmc.html

Have a great, military day!


Ed Lawton
USAF-ret.
American Military Retirees Association
National Capitol Representative



 
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=&article=28965&archive=true
Monday, July 4, 2005   

 
 
Military Update: Panel has Designs on Retirement pay

By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, June 16, 2005
 

The Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation has adopted an “action plan” to study private-sector-like changes to military pay and retirement, the kind that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has endorsed for several years.

The committee adopted an agenda that calls for studying over the next few months:

    a new military retirement system that would vest members in benefits earlier than the current 20-year retired pay system, but also with reduced annuities for future servicemembers if they retire before age 60;

    combining that reduced “defined benefit” plan with a 401(k)-type contributory plan, similar to the military’s tax-deferred Thrift Savings Plan but with some government matching of servicemember contributions;

    streamlining the military’s arsenal of 67 special and incentive pays by eliminating those seen as ineffective, and increasing the use of whatever “targeted” pays would remain;

    overhauling compensation for Reserve and National Guard forces to “recognize their full integration” into U.S. operational forces, as evidenced by their expanded role in Iraq and Afghanistan; and

    slowing growth in military healthcare costs by raising Tricare enrollment fees and co-payments, and making Tricare a “second payer” plan for retirees under 65 who have employer-provided health insurance.
[ In other words, charging for TRICARE Standard! ]

Studying these issues will help the committee recommend a “strategic architecture” for future changes to military compensation, said retired Adm. Donald L. Pilling, committee chairman. Draft recommendations are due to David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, in September.

Pilling, a former vice chief of naval operations, said whatever the panel recommends will be “fair” to the current force. The goal is not to curb compensation, he added, but to design tools to better manage the force. In an interview after the hearing, Pilling said, “I don’t think any of the things we will recommend are going to affect the current force to any significant degree. Maybe [Tricare] co-pays or something like that; nothing big.” The panel should not be perceived, he said, as “scheming to take money out of their pockets, because we’re not.”

Committee members were surprisingly frank, however, in criticizing the current compensation system as outdated, inefficient and weighted too heavily toward “deferred compensation” such as retirement and retiree health care. Rumsfeld and Chu, who shaped the panel, have struck similar themes in testimony before Congress and other venues. Panel member Frederic W. Cook, chairman of a consulting firm on executive compensation, noted that the idea of someone retiring at age 38 with full benefits doesn’t exist in the private sector. Also unique to the government are “pensions indexed to cost of living.”

Private-sector retirees, he said, get a “flat pension” when they retire, “and then periodically the company can take a voluntary, pro-active action and do a catch-up to inflation.” In that way companies “get credit” for helping retirees. With annual indexing, he said, retirees come to view adjustments as “a right, an entitlement” and take them for granted.

“I’m not saying that’s how we ought to proceed,” Cook said. “But I wanted to point out the differences.”
Cook, a former Marine officer, also touted the private sector practice of delaying a “full” annuity until age 60 and giving a “haircut” to anyone who elects to retire earlier.

He joined with John P. White, a former deputy defense secretary, in criticizing as inflexible the current retirement plan which provides no benefits short of 20 years of service. Only 15 percent of enlisted members and 50 percent of officers serve long enough to qualify.

The current system “works very well as long as there is no change to the force structure,” Pilling said. But to help force management, “we may want to vest earlier instead of cliff vesting” at 20, Pilling said. The committee will look at more flexible plans that give force managers the ability, for example, to trim personnel from over-populated specialties without worrying that those separated won’t get any retirement benefits.

One service pay official even suggested, Pilling said, that the services “hold an auction” when they need to trim force structure, inviting careerists to propose compensation packages that would tempt them to leave early.
“That’s really free market,” Pilling said. “I don’t think we’re going to come out with anything like that. But [it shows] there are people thinking about how you could have [new] tools to shape the force.”

The most complex issue the committee will face, Pilling said, will be proposing compensation for “a fully-integrated operational reserve,” which for many members is far different than the reserve system they joined.

Other pay committee members are: economist Martin Anderson with the Hoover Institution; retired Gen. Lester Lyles, former Air Force vice chief of staff; Walter Y. Oi, an economist who worked on the Gates Commission which proposed the all-volunteer force, and Joseph E. Jannotta, a former carrier pilot and founder of a career consulting firm.

Congress would have to approve any changes the committee or the Defense Department recommends for them to take effect.
 

 

 

Back to wesupportthevets