This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
But defense leaders continue to resist repeat-


ed study recommendations to consolidate bud- get and delivery responsibilities under a unified medical command. Instead, they’ve been imple- menting only relatively cosmetic changes. So how credible are DoD claims that benefi- ciaries must be penalized financially for “de- fense-eating” health care costs? Not very, when:  defense leaders refuse to meet their own obligations for efficient oversight;  the Pentagon TRICARE budget has been underspent by almost $3 billion over the past two years; and  those same defense leaders now admit costs


are “growing at historically low rates” (quite a euphemism for a 2.7-percent decline among the population targeted for big fee hikes).


“Military retirement is unfair and unaffordable.” Whenever military budgets get tight, budge- teers, analysts, and chartered task forces also propose military retirement cutbacks. Past defense leaders resisted such efforts as being detrimental to retention and readiness. In contrast, Gates and Panetta have voiced support for significant retirement changes. Gates criticized the 20-year retirement


system as “unfair” to those who leave service before that point, noting vest- ing options provided to civilian workers. He directed the DBB to identify alternative options. In his final appearance before the Senate, Gates endorsed an early vesting program, noting, “70 to 80 percent of the force does not stay until retirement but leaves with nothing.” But there is no support for spending more money on mili- tary retirement during budget- cutting times. So vesting options proposed to


would vest after three to 10 years of service. The QRMC would delay retired pay eligibility until age 57-60, whereas the DBB plan would eliminate traditional retired pay. One DBB op- tion would grandfather retired pay creditable from existing service but convert currently serving members to the new system for any subsequent service. There are good reasons only 17 percent are willing to endure those arduous demands and sacrifices for more than 20 years. The vast majority of Americans are unwilling to accept those conditions for even one tour of duty. The DBB and QRMC proposals ignore the


hard lessons of previous experiences with retirement cuts. Budget pressures prompted Congress in 1986 to pass changes reducing the 20-year retired pay value 25 percent for post-1986 entrants. Then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger adamantly opposed the so-called “REDUX” change, warning Congress it inevitably would undermine retention and readiness. That pre- diction proved true a decade later, and Con- gress repealed REDUX in 1999. Stunningly, the cuts proposed by both the DBB and the QRMC are vastly more severe than the retention-killing REDUX cuts. MOAA asserts the powerful pull of the


world’s greatest superpower only as long as it continues to fulfill its reciprocal obligation to ... the all- volunteer


America will remain the


career force.


date — including those of the DBB and the DoD- sponsored 11th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) — would fund that new benefit by imposing dramatic benefit cuts for the 17 percent who complete decades in uniform. Both plans would convert the current pro- gram to a civilianized 401(k)-style system that


58 MILITARY OFFICER NOVEMBER 2012


20-year retirement system is the main reason retention hasn’t imploded over the past 10-plus years of unprece- dented wartime strains on troops and families. If one tried to build a plan to


slash career retention, it’s hard to conceive a better way than the DBB or QRMC proposals. A 10-year soldier facing a fourth or fifth combat deploy- ment would have to choose between (a) taking the vested military retirement and leaving to pursue a civilian career or (b) having to serve decades longer (if


up-or-out limits are waived) before being eli- gible for military retired pay at age 57-60. It’s not difficult to predict the retention outcome of such a scenario. Advocates for these initiatives sugarcoat them


by saying they wouldn’t affect anyone now serv- ing but would apply only to new entrants. That


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  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108