was true of the REDUX system, and we know how that turned out. Grandfathering the current force only lets
retirement-cutting leaders evade responsibility for their ill-advised actions — by deferring the inevitable retention disaster for a decade and dumping it on their successors. Military retirement critics have claimed for decades this unique plan is unaffordable and unsustainable. Almost 35 years ago, the 1978 report of the
President’s Commission on Military Compensa- tion included this extract from the minority re- port of commissioner Lt. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr., USAF-Ret.: “Unfortunately, the commission has embraced the myth that retirement costs will soon rise so high — from $10 billion this year to $30 billion in the year 2000 — as to become an unacceptable and unfair burden on the American taxpayer. “Such assertions fail to point out that by using the same assumptions, today’s average family income of $10,000 will be $36,000 in the year 2000. The average cost of a home will be $171,000; a compact automobile will cost $17,000; and the overall U.S. budget will have increased from $500 billion to some amount in the trillions.” Such numbers seem quaint today, but they
make two telling points. First, long-term projections that appear dire
today often prove far less so as years pass. Second, after budget-driven retirement cuts in 1986 underminded retention, Congress deemed restoring the current system more affordable than continued retention and readiness shortfalls. DBB leaders acknowledged they didn’t con- sider the potential retention effects of their plan. During 2012 testimony before Congress, de- fense witnesses acknowledged the DBB proposal would hurt retention — and went a step further. Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, principal deputy under-
secretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness, testified the current military retirement system is “neither unaffordable, nor spiraling out of con- trol,” noting retirement costs as a percentage of pay have remained reasonably constant.
Keeping faith with the all- volunteer force The past decade of war has proved no federal obligation is more important than protecting national security.
And the most important element of national security is sustainment of a dedicated, top- quality career military force. That reality is underscored by consistent surveys showing our armed forces are America’s most-respected public institution. The unprecedented demands and sacrifices only further highlight how radically different military service conditions are from civilian work life. Budget critics persist in asserting military pay, retirement, and health care benefits are
What About the Draft?
Some urge returning to the draft to cut personnel costs. But that has zero support in Congress. And a draft only compels initial service, not career service. The latter choice always has been a voluntary one. History shows retention drops when career incentives get whacked.
unsustainable and should be slashed to more closely resemble civilian benefit packages. But decades of such dire predictions proved
consistently wrong. On the contrary, these cru- cial career incentives have sustained a strong national defense through more severe and protracted wartime conditions than even the strongest proponents of the all-volunteer force thought it could survive. In fact, the only times the survival of the
all-volunteer force has been jeopardized in the past were when budget concerns imposed significant cutbacks in the military compensa- tion package. Congress’ consistent corrective actions in those cases recognized the cost of sustaining the current military career incentive package is far more acceptable and affordable than the alternative. America will remain the world’s greatest
superpower only as long as it continues to ful- fill its reciprocal obligation to the only weapon system that has never let our country down — our extraordinarily dedicated, top-quality all- volunteer career force. And you can take that to the bank.
MO
Col. Phil Odom, USAF-Ret.; Capt. Kathy Beasley, USN-Ret.; and Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret., also contributed to this article.
NOVEMBER 2012 MILITARY OFFICER 59
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