DoD officials urge caution concerning benefits boosts

[1CAV]

DoD officials urge caution concerning benefits boosts
Pentagon critical of more perks for reservists, retirees

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer

Senior Pentagon officials are making a concerted effort to dampen bipartisan fervor for improving military pay and benefits, especially for reservists and retirees.

“We discourage the expansion of entitlements and the creation of new ones,” said David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, in March 2 testimony before a Senate subcommittee.

The burden of paying for congressional mandates such as Tricare coverage for older retirees and concurrent receipt of disability and retired pay is huge, he said.

“We want to focus attention on those still on active duty, not those who are finished with active duty,” Chu said.

“We need flexible compensation and benefits authority” that can focus benefits on troops deployed to war zones and their families — and can be terminated when no longer needed, he said.

Steve Strobridge of The Military Officers Association of America, one of many military and veterans’ groups pushing Congress to improve benefits, was critical of Chu’s views.

“We are fed up with defense and budget leaders whining about the cost of doing the right thing,” Strobridge said. “It seems like they don’t see retirees as anything other than a line on the debit sheet. The Department of Defense has been more than willing to extract ever-increasing sacrifices from military people for decades. Now, they want to act like they don’t have an obligation to treat them fairly in retirement.”

Strobridge was equally upset with the Pentagon’s opposition to improving reserve benefits. “Reservists are getting all of the penalties for being on active duty and none of the rewards,” he said.

As the fight goes on, the Senate has approved one benefit expansion, passing legislation March 4 that, if enacted into law, would order the Pentagon to at least partly repay combat troops for out-of-pocket airfare costs connected to rest-and-recreation trips home before Dec. 19.

The bill, which passed by voice vote with no debate, would retroactively provide travel reimbursement to some of the earliest participants in the rest-and-recreation leave program of the U.S. Central Command.

About 30,000 troops who traveled from Sept. 25 to Dec. 18 would be affected.

Chu isn’t the only Defense Department official delivering a message of restraint on benefits.

Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, testifying March 1 before the Senate Appropriations Committee, was particularly critical of efforts by lawmakers to provide military health-care coverage to drilling reservists, something supporters have said is a matter of fairness.

Reservists should have full access to the same benefits as active-duty people — when they are mobilized, Zakheim said. But providing reservists who are not mobilized the same benefits as full-time members is unfair to those on active duty, he said.

Marine Lt. Gen. James Cartwright, director for force structure, resources and assessment on the Joint Staff, who appeared with Zakheim, said doing too much for reservists ends up discouraging people from being on active duty.

That message does not appear to be getting across to some lawmakers. For example:

• Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the armed services personnel subcommittee chairman who heard Chu talk about the Pentagon’s wish to block new benefits, announced March 4 that he is sponsoring a bill to lower the age at which reservists can start drawing retired pay, another idea opposed by the Pentagon.

• Sens. Zell Miller, D-Ga., and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, are backing a bill that would increase GI Bill education benefits for reservists and give reservists who spend at least two cumulative years on active service in any five-year span the same education benefits as active-duty members receive.

• In the House, Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, respectively, are looking to eliminate the current cut in military survivor benefits at age 62, a move that would cost $900 million in the first year.

• Eighteen House Democrats are backing a bill that would provide an automatic $1,000 pay increase to service members deployed more than 180 days.

The chief sponsor of the bill, HR 3862, is Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va.

His proposal is far more generous that the deployment pay plan launched by the Bush administration, which has agreed to pay an extra $1,000 a month to service members deployed for more than a year in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Chu said all these ideas would eat up funds without necessarily helping military readiness.

For example, lowering the age at which reservists can received retired pay from 60 to 55 would cost $6.6 billion in retired pay and $4 billion in health care over 10 years, he said.

[Woodmonkey]

Ya, ya, let's urge caution for benes for the military and mandate coverage for welfare and disability for drug addicts! :icon_frow

Originally Posted by 1CAV

Senior Pentagon officials are making a concerted effort to dampen bipartisan fervor for improving military pay and benefits, especially for reservists and retirees.

When you see how the reservists lives are being disrupted (yes, I know they volunteered), they should have improved pay and benes.

As for the retirees, are they saying that they squeezed the last drop out of them so just throw them away now? They don't count anymore?

Geez, this is the second topic that's getting under my skin here. We owe all military, active, reservist, NG, retired so let's quit trying to save money at their expense. How about urging caution with drug addicts instead? I hear they are also putting the obese on disability too.

The burden of paying for congressional mandates such as Tricare coverage for older retirees and concurrent receipt of disability and retired pay is huge, he said.

“We want to focus attention on those still on active duty, not those who are finished with active duty,” Chu said.

Sure it costs, but it is a debt for service rendered. This disregard for military isn't anything new.

“We need flexible compensation and benefits authority” that can focus benefits on troops deployed to war zones and their families — and can be terminated when no longer needed, he said.

I can understand the flexibility being needed so there aren't set limits when soldiers are being extended. However, the "terminated" part -- who's going to decide that and what is the criteria? What about the war zone -- how about making it a conflict zone where soldiers are putting their lives on the line!

“We are fed up with defense and budget leaders whining about the cost of doing the right thing,” Strobridge said. “It seems like they don’t see retirees as anything other than a line on the debit sheet. The Department of Defense has been more than willing to extract ever-increasing sacrifices from military people for decades. Now, they want to act like they don’t have an obligation to treat them fairly in retirement.”

I'm tired of it too. They squeeze out the last drop of blood and think they owe nothing in return.

As the fight goes on, the Senate has approved one benefit expansion, passing legislation March 4 that, if enacted into law, would order the Pentagon to at least partly repay combat troops for out-of-pocket airfare costs connected to rest-and-recreation trips home before Dec. 19.

This should have been paid for by the military from the get-go.

Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, testifying March 1 before the Senate Appropriations Committee, was particularly critical of efforts by lawmakers to provide military health-care coverage to drilling reservists, something supporters have said is a matter of fairness.

Reservists should have full access to the same benefits as active-duty people — when they are mobilized, Zakheim said. But providing reservists who are not mobilized the same benefits as full-time members is unfair to those on active duty, he said.

It is a matter of fairness. I agree with making a distinction.

• Sens. Zell Miller, D-Ga., and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, are backing a bill that would increase GI Bill education benefits for reservists and give reservists who spend at least two cumulative years on active service in any five-year span the same education benefits as active-duty members receive.

Two years of disrupted lives serving this country. I'm sure their careers and chances for advancement have been compromised along the way. They might just need retraining.

Chu said all these ideas would eat up funds without necessarily helping military readiness.

More money should be allocated then.

For example, lowering the age at which reservists can received retired pay from 60 to 55 would cost $6.6 billion in retired pay and $4 billion in health care over 10 years, he said.

They may have a point here.

[cb88]

Let me preface this with, I totally agree that we do NOT pay our troops (AD or Reserve/Guard) nor do we pay our Vets enough (in benefits or pay) or our Retired (in benefits or pay).

HOWEVER, I will caution with this....military pay is a matter of public record. Those that sign up know up front what they will make.

Again, I agree it needs to be increased, I'm just saying it is not something that is "hidden" or non-disclosed.

Pay & Benefits are fully disclosed here:

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/

[1CAV]

Originally Posted by cb88

Let me preface this with, I totally agree that we do NOT pay our troops (AD or Reserve/Guard) nor do we pay our Vets enough (in benefits or pay) or our Retired (in benefits or pay).

HOWEVER, I will caution with this....military pay is a matter of public record. Those that sign up know up front what they will make.

Again, I agree it needs to be increased, I'm just saying it is not something that is "hidden" or non-disclosed.

Pay & Benefits are fully disclosed here:

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/

I read your what you prefaced your post with...But beyond that...Are you trying to make a point???

Are you saying when you sign the dotted line you should expect to get screwed?

[JohnRN]

Originally Posted by 1CAV

I know that attitude all too well...

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by 1CAV

Are you saying when you sign the dotted line you should expect to get screwed?

That happens too often.

My (now ex) husband used to laugh about the politicians promises to the Air Force. He said the pols would say "nothings too good for the boys in blue" and they (the boys in blue) would mentally answer "and nothings what we're going to get." That was back in the 60's and not much has changed since.

It's an old saying and I'm sure there are similiar ones for the other services.

[cb88]

Originally Posted by 1CAV

I read your what you prefaced your post with...But beyond that...Are you trying to make a point???

Are you saying when you sign the dotted line you should expect to get screwed?

No, Cav, that's not what I'm saying. I think that the military (vets and retirees included) are underpaid. BUT, if anyone goes into it expecting it to make them rich, they are dellusional. It about amounts to a teacher complaining that they are underpaid. Or, really, anyone for that matter. EVERYONE knows when they start a job what the pay is, what the possibility for promotion/pay increases are, benefits, etc.

Do I think pay scales for things like police, teachers and military are right? No. I don't. But I also realize that MOST people don't go into it to get rich.

It's about like someone jumping off a bridge into a river and then complaining they got wet.