A new report from an independent think tank suggests that drastic cuts are needed in personnel benefits in order to pay for weapons modernization.
Some recommendations from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments might be welcomed by service members and their families, such as a proposal to cut the cost of permanent change-of-station moves by extending tour lengths by 50 percent.
But other recommendations strike at the heart of the military pay and benefits system. The report by Todd Harrison says the promise of retired pay after 20 years is an example of the generous benefits that led to financial problems in the auto industry, requiring a government bailout.
“Few employers today offer pensions and health care benefits for retirees, must less a package that becomes effective after only 20 years of service,” Harrison wrote. “Even GM’s much-derided labor contracts did not provide benefits this rich.”
Harrison said big reductions in benefits, such as requiring more service to earn retired pay and charging more for health benefits, are “politically difficult” but that modest changes, if begun soon, could help control costs.
The report by Todd Harrison says the promise of retired pay after 20 years is an example of the generous benefits that led to financial problems in the auto industry, requiring a government bailout.
Few Employers require that types of RISK and activities that military service require. Few Employers have jobs that stress the body to such an extent that many people are no longer physically able to do the work after 20 years. A LOT of retirement plans allow people to be vested after a lot less that 20, even if they do need to wait until they are in their 60's to collect. I don't see this person say the military should pay at a prorated rate everyone that served at least 10 years but wait until they are 62 to pay.
At the least, changing the military retirement system to require more than 20 years of service should be a consideration.
Not all military occupational specialties have the physical demands and risks which necessitate retiring at an early age. Yes, personally I experienced physically demanding and possibly dangerous jobs, both in the Army and in the Air Force.
However, those were balanced in later years with a few positions which were almost civilian-like, with nothing more dangerous than the drive to and from work and fairly frequent TDY involving lots of time as a passenger on military and civilian aircraft.
Don't get me wrong; taking an early retirement from the military at a very young age (joined underage at 15 1/2, left active duty after 22 years), was a great move! I've been drawing military retirement pay and benefits for 33 years as of December! Not bad!
Granted, at the 20-year point, I could not have gone back to the more demanding specialties such as combat control, but remaining in the military for another five to ten years was an option and certainly would not have been a hardship. Some of my contemporaries continued on for a full 30 and one went on to make 07.
Many of the members of military.com served their entire careers in physically demanding and high risk specialties. They should have been allowed to retire at 20 years and those military specialties should continue to be flagged as "early retirement" specialties. However, many of the other military specialties (perhaps most) should be considered for longer service retirement requirements.
Well, I guess that could solve a lot of problems. Lowering personnel costs through fewer benefits and a longer service requirement will most likely negatively impact recruiting and retention thereby shrinking the size and strength of the military.
A smaller, less dominant force will be incapable of projecting military power across the globe against aggression and the threat of terrorism that is most often aimed at us.
If a smaller, less capable, force won't be so busy engaging our enemies and supporting our allies which means the expense of national security can be reduced to pay for social entitlements, then, hey, that's a great idea!
Instead of taking a dime from dedicated soldiers, cut back on the complete give gifts to illegal aliens. Say no to welfare, Sect 8 housing, food stamps, meal vouchers, free medical, and education.
My grandparents immigrated here to work and make this a better neighborhood to live in. They learned the language and never expected a free ride from the government.
How about cutting the pay of all our elected officials in DC; and they're retirement benefits to help raise the funds to pay for much needed weapons and equipment.
How much is spent on Humanitarian Aid by our military. The money spent by our government on this aspect should be transferred from Hillary's budget to the DOD. As noted earlier, go ahead, but you better turn the Selective Service up to full steam ahead. Given that the trend is to add females to our recruiting efforts, our pool is twice as large as in the past.
Originally posted by jackhunter1: At the least, changing the military retirement system to require more than 20 years of service should be a consideration.
Not all military occupational specialties have the physical demands and risks which necessitate retiring at an early age. Yes, personally I experienced physically demanding and possibly dangerous jobs, both in the Army and in the Air Force.
However, those were balanced in later years with a few positions which were almost civilian-like, with nothing more dangerous than the drive to and from work and fairly frequent TDY involving lots of time as a passenger on military and civilian aircraft.
Don't get me wrong; taking an early retirement from the military at a very young age (joined underage at 15 1/2, left active duty after 22 years), was a great move! I've been drawing military retirement pay and benefits for 33 years as of December! Not bad!
Granted, at the 20-year point, I could not have gone back to the more demanding specialties such as combat control, but remaining in the military for another five to ten years was an option and certainly would not have been a hardship. Some of my contemporaries continued on for a full 30 and one went on to make 07.
Many of the members of military.com served their entire careers in physically demanding and high risk specialties. They should have been allowed to retire at 20 years and those military specialties should continue to be flagged as "early retirement" specialties. However, many of the other military specialties (perhaps most) should be considered for longer service retirement requirements.
Jack
Jack, when I retired in 1977, an life insurance agent had statistics that reflected military retirees only lived an average of about 20 years after retirement. You and I have been lucky so far. Why should our lifestyles creating this longevity be a factor in the current members retirement pay. We signed a contract and were promised benefits upon retirement. If something like this happens, there needs to be clear definition to the new recruits and mid-term active military of what is coming so that they can make informed decisions.
Originally posted by 12470056: Well, I guess that could solve a lot of problems. Lowering personnel costs through fewer benefits and a longer service requirement will most likely negatively impact recruiting and retention thereby shrinking the size and strength of the military.
A smaller, less dominant force will be incapable of projecting military power across the globe against aggression and the threat of terrorism that is most often aimed at us.
If a smaller, less capable, force won't be so busy engaging our enemies and supporting our allies which means the expense of national security can be reduced to pay for social entitlements, then, hey, that's a great idea!
The Nixon admin pulled a lot of crap to REDUCE personal cost after the "official" end of the War in Vietnam. The Military lost a LOT of good people, especially those that had real experience rather than just the "proper" classes and assignments, because of the cost "savings" BOTH parties pushed. IMO it took the military at over a decade to recover.
They tried that already with the REDUX 40% retirement at 20 years that went into effect in 86. That was mostly repealed in 1999 and the 50% retirement was restored, or take the option of taking a $30,000 payment at 15 years with the 40%.
After 10 years the incentive to stay to 20 is the retirement, take that away or make it longer and retention among the mid level NCOs and officers will go down. The Army already has a shortage of majors and lieutenant colonels now, since the attrition rate among mid level captains is higher than it was in peacetime. It would be even worse with a more TIS required to retire.
if congress wants to save money by cutting retirement benefits i suggest they start with their own cushy benefits. what a bunch of hypocritical a-holes...it never fails...when the libs get control the first thing they want to do is cut the military in some way...
How much you want to bet some of these Un-named Corporations want the retirement funds to go to their next Goldplated F-97 Mach X stealth trainer that can Hover and supercruise.
"The World's Finest" 
