washingtonscene
effects of previous efforts to impose retire- ment cutbacks. When Congress reduced 20-year retirement benefits in 1986 for future entrants, he noted then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger warned legislators it inevitably would undermine military readiness. That prediction proved accurate, and Congress had to repeal the cut in 1999. “In contrast to Secretary Weinberger’s
“It’s an odd concept of fairness ... that would dramatically cut com- pensation for those who serve and sacrifice longest to pay more to those who leave early.”
warnings,” Strobridge said, “[the two most recent defense secretaries] have repeated- ly expressed support for significant retire- ment cutbacks for future entrants, without a word about long-term retention risks. In our view, that’s an abdication of their responsibility to protect future, as well as current, readiness.” Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.) asked whether the military should adopt a vest- ing system “out of fairness” for the 83 percent of troops who leave service before the 20-year point because that’s becoming standard practice in the private sector. Strobridge replied that all of the vesting options so far would fund that expensive benefit by imposing dramatic cuts on re- tirement benefits for the 17 percent who do serve 20 to 30 years or more. He said there are good reasons only 17 percent are willing to endure military service condi- tions for 20-plus years. “It’s an odd concept of fairness, and a
perverse retention incentive, that would dramatically cut compensation for those who serve and sacrifice longest to pay more to those who leave early,” Strobridge said. He also noted the government already
extracted considerable retirement savings by capping military pay raises below pri- vate-sector pay growth almost every year through the 1980s and ’90s. As a result, hundreds of thousands who retired under those depressed tables have had to forfeit thousands of dollars a year in retired pay for the rest of their lives.
34 MILITARY OFFICER JANUARY 2012 Defense Bill I
Update Amendments offer gains and losses.
n November 2011, the Senate Armed Services Committee updated its version of the FY 2012 Defense Authorization
Bill (S. 1867) to trim an additional $21 bil- lion from Pentagon programs to comply with spending levels included in the FY 2012 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2219) and the budget cuts enacted into law in August 2011. Compared to the previously adopted de- fense bill (S. 1253), S. 1867 cut $42.6 million in unobligated personnel account balances and another $58 million by changing hos- tile-fire pay eligibility to a daily calculation. The committee also cut $330 million
from military health care based on histori- cal under-execution rates and cut $120 million from the $190 million the admin- istration requested to fund the Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA), which fund spouses’ education and credentialing needs to help offset ef- fects of military moves on their careers. When MOAA asked why MyCAA fund-
ing was cut, we were advised Pentagon leaders only expect to need $70 million as a result of DoD’s decision to limit eligibility to spouses of the most junior officers and enlisted personnel. This startling news means the budget
would have allowed DoD to expand the program to include more career spouses, as MOAA has been urging. It’s extremely dis- appointing Pentagon leaders would decline to spend available money to assist spouses of career servicemembers who are most dis- advantaged by the mobile military lifestyle. Almost immediately after being passed by the Armed Services Committee, the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92