Last week the New York Times called the nation’s military-retirement program “another big social-welfare system.” This is a grossly unjust portrayal of what military retirement represents. It is not a government giveaway. Rather, it is part of a contract America makes with every service member when he or she enlists: If you give this nation 20 years of service, you will be able to retire at half pay at the end of that period.
Advertisement
As America’s two wars wind down and our national debt explodes, it may become necessary to take another look and make some adjustments to this contract. In fact, there are groups, such as the Defense Business Board, already making recommendations that are worthy of serious examination. However, anyone desiring to change the military’s retirement system must begin with the underlying understanding that it is not “social welfare.” Those receiving military retirement have earned it through sacrifices not demanded of any other government or private-sector employee. To see what I mean, it may be instructive to follow the path of a typical enlisted soldier who retired last year after 20 years of service.
Many of you are aware of the ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” Any young man who enlisted as an infantry soldier in 1990 and retired in 2010 could be forgiven for believing that these words were aimed directly at him. Fresh out of boot camp, our typical infantry soldier was sent to the 24th Infantry Division, and was soon on his way to the Middle East as part of the force sent to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Living under the most primitive conditions for months, our young private spends most of his time training. What free time he has is for writing home, repeatedly telling his folks to ignore the numerous predictions that at least 10,000 Americans will die if fighting erupts. Later, while lying under the stars and trying to ward off the desert chill, he wonders if he will be one of the 10,000, for he really has no reason to doubt the predictions. Finally, the assault begins, and our young private finds himself in one of the spearhead formations living through the fear and thrill of shredding several of Saddam’s much-vaunted Republican Guard divisions.
At the end of his first hitch, he reenlists and is promoted to sergeant, and is sent to Germany to join the 1st Armored Division. Our infantryman knows he is going to have to work and train hard. But, as the Cold War is over, he is also expecting a bit of downtime and a chance to see some of Europe. What he did not expect was to be ordered into the Balkans.
In late December 1995, the 1st Armored is sent to Bosnia to bring the long-running Yugoslavian violence to an end. For the troops to get to their destination, a pontoon bridge had to be thrown across the Sava River, which was experiencing its worst flooding in 70 years. Weather conditions were terrible all through the days of the bridge’s construction, and no better when the 1st Armored Division began its crossing. As our young sergeant led his armored vehicles across the makeshift bridge, a journalist asked a bystander, “What does this mean to you?” The reply: “It means peace. It is as simple as that.”
The fact is that we cannot afford to retire people at age 38. Pay them well while they work and offer a 401k. But don't promise the moon because you need warm bodies. If there are no takers it is because the pay is to low. The easy way out was to promise that future generations will pay them half there wages for 30 to 40 years. Only government makes deals like that. Its easy to be generous with the future's money. Only, now, we don't have it.
It isn't the moon. It is half of basic pay averaged for three years. Base pay is already about half of what you earn while active. Most military compensation comes in the form of tax-exempt food money, housing money, and other circumstantial pay amounts. Half of half, after twenty years, for the smal percentage of total force that stays that long, and lives long enough afterward to collect a significant amount isn't much at all.
That is not to mention how difficult it is, not just through physical attrition, but through the attrition of competition for any individual to reach that point. Military retirement is not a significant expense compared to "entitlements" by any measure. It's just the easiest target for a lazy, ungrateful congress.
Well, we could make the civilian federal workforce be subject to job transfers every 1-4 years that requires them to pack 3/4 of their belongings in a truck and move cross country or across the world (you only have to pack 3/4 of what you own because you're giving 1/4 of it to Goodwill so you don't go over your weight allowance).
Then we could task the civilian workforce with passing a physical readiness test (including a height weight measurement) twice a year. Fail more than twice and you're fired.
How about we limit the number of outstanding fitness evaluations that are possible in any workgroup, so that employees are competing with each other. Then make them go up for promotion boards (fail twice and you're fired) and selection boards (don't pass the selection process and you're sidelined for promotion and/or jobs with more responsibility).
Or alternately, we could put them all in a room once a year to take a test on their specialty. Take their scores, put them in order and decide who gets promoted (though in some specialties, the available promotions might be in single digits service wide).
But yeah, other than all that, and excluding combat and/or deployments; it's just like being a federal civilian. By the way, are federal civilian retirements also being reworked? Oh yeah, I forgot that they also have unions.
Civilian employees getting fired, now that would be a sight to see. On the other side of the wall military members are routinely let go for any number of petty infractions, and sometimes just to save money, money congress can then allocate to....
Although Mr Lacey very accurately portrays the life those of us that retired recently from the military have had over the last 20, he didn't mention the physical, and sometimes mental, damage these years caused. I consider myself lucky to retire with back problems, that cause daily pain, and hearing loss. These are daily reminders of what I gave up to support my country. There are many that paid a much higher physical price in the form of amputations, traumatic brain injuries, other physical disabilities, not to mention PTSD. To say that "we cannot afford to retire people at age 38", completely misses the point that military life is a physically demanding life. Most veterans suffer both physically and mentally from 20 years of exposure to combat and poor living conditions when deployed. Half pay at retirement is the least we can do for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who have unselfishly threw themselves into the breech for 20 years to protect our way of life.
The fact is this - military retirement is not the same as a government pension for a government worker here in the States. The entire article went on to explain how and why a military pension is different yet you seemed to have missed the point. A military man earns his pension as he gives up his life in ways that other government workers do not. His family suffers, his life is in danger, he is held to a different law than other citizens. The regular government worker shouldn't get the pensions they do while the military should probably get more of one.
Most people do not have a problem with military retirement for those in the positions that expose them to fighting or other dangerous conditions but someone someone retiring with the same benefits after spending the bulk of his 20 years pushing papers around the pentagon is another story.
Military members do not spend 20 years pushing papers. For the Navy, they are either on sea or shore duty, alternating every couple years. My husband has spent countless hours, days and months on an aircraft carrier, flying into harm's way, day and night. He was in Bahrain standing watch when 9/11 hit and planned the invasion of Afghanistan, working literally nonstop. He has taught young pilots how to take off and land on a carrier. He has taught strategic planning to our NATO allies. He spent 13 months in Iraq and is now, again, on a carrier in the Persian Gulf, gone for 7 months. Tell me, when has he had time to push papers? He chose this career, given his all, and plans to retire next year. BTW - half salary is not "half salary". It is half of base pay, which amounts to peanuts.
Obviously your husband did not push papers his entire career, but that does not mean no one did. My active-duty sister, for example. She's sat behind a desk in an air-conditioned office for nearly twenty years. She has never missed a child's birthday, an anniversary, or been in harm's way in any fashion. She has not relocated in twelve years. She does not deserve the same benefits that someone who sacrificed his/her time with family and/or physical safety does. The benefit that she and other members of the military professional class provide to the nation does not merit the cost necessary to train and retain them.
What the New York Times is trying to do is create an equivalence between the welfare queen getting her monthly check for having babies and the soldier who literally goes through the most gruelling of conditions to earn his retirement. It is utterly shameful that the new tactic that many on the Left and libertarians are trying to engage in, namely, that spending on military is somehow social welfare. If they don't like the arrangement they are welcome to run on a platform to amend the Constitution to privatize the military. I suspect many will not follow them down that road.
To be completely fair - I don't think the left has a place in this conversation. The issue of "entitlements" is a Tea Party one - and should be attributed to such, for good or evil.
And the more they go after the military, the higher my disdain for them goes up.
I do find the envy for Doctors and Nurses unattractive - because lets face it, whether they are in the military or not - they do well. And they should. We should not be minimizing their effort, experience, and education.
The military earns their retirement. Period. Maybe if those who think that the military is a slush fund would step up themselves and serve -- or send their children to serve - their ungrateful attitudes would change when they see the sacrifices that are made for the rest of the country by these brave young men and women.
Here are the ages eligible for sign-up. It may not be too late for some:
Active duty Army - 42
Army Reserves - 42
Army Natinal Guard - 42
Active duty Air Force - 27
Air Force Reserve - 34
Air National guard - 34
Active duty Navy - 34
Navy Reserves - 39
Active duty Marines - 28
Marine Corps Reserves - 29
Active duty Coast Guard - 27
Coast Guard Reserves - 27
If anyone thinks that the military is some kind of horse trough - ride right up and drink.
I have little patience for people who sit in their little kitchens and complain. If it weren't for the military--they would not have the lives they enjoy. Military soldiers are dying for these ingrates and I will be honest; this makes me more than a little angry.
The key concept to their retirement is the 'they earned it'. They exposed themselved to death, dismemberment and isolation from their families to protect us. That is really all you need to know. They deserve their retirement and benefits and those should be left intact.
It you want to reform the federal retirement and benefit systems then do so with the civilian and congressional workforce. That is where the excessive and unsustainable systems exist.
We enjoy our liberties and sleep secure at night because of those who stand guard over us. I don't think this standard applies to the civilian workforce or Congress.
You have captured perfectly the sacrifice of our military. I retired from the Marine Corps after 24 years in the infantry and tours to Grenada, Beruit, Liberia, Haiti, Afghanistan and Iraq. This does not include deployments during "peacetime" that lasted at least 6 months and depending on what was going on in the world, usually longer. It is amazing to me and a little bit sad that our countries leadership, while professing admiration and respect for our military, have no problem with reneging on their promises to those of us who served whenever there is a financial crisis. The latest military retirement plans that I have read about are going to have consequences to our national security as our best and brightest are going to turn elsewhere rather than serve for a fickle government who will throw them under the bus rather than meet their moral obligations. I know that historically our military is forced to draw down as conflicts end. What must not happen is our leadership failing to keep faith with those whose volunteered, served and fought when the going was tough. Those who have not served or sacrificed seem to have an easy time deciding what is "good" for me and my fellow veterans and also for deciding what I "deserve" for my service. Like you said, I am not asking for a handout, I earned my retirement, every penny of it. Any proposal to alter our military retirement system had better be carefully thought out and had better take the long term health of the military into account. Cutting the benefits of our veterans as a knee jerk reaction to solving this crisis is a recipe for disaster.
*My sister, who as an active-duty Army pay specialist, has spent the last nineteen years behind a desk, with the occasional short TDY trip to train other pay specialists how to sit behind their desks. For the very hazardous work of managing spreadsheets, she has been paid fairly, received free medical care for her entire family, received groceries at cost from the commissary to feed her five children, received a housing allowance that paid her mortgage, received steeply subsidized day care at the base facility for the aforementioned five children, and had her degree and continuing education paid for by the Army. After she retires she will continue to receive commissary benefits and medical care for herself and her dependents.
*My friend the Navy radiologist, who had her entire education paid for by the Navy, receives the usual slate of benefits (housing, medical care, cheap day care) as well as periodic just-for-medical-staff bonuses as well as hazard pay for working around radiation. She uses the knowledge and experience paid for by the Navy to moonlight at local hospitals for extra cash. After twenty years, she will be able to retire to a lucrative civilian career while still drawing a half-pay pension and free medical care. To my knowledge she has never deployed.
*My acquaintances, married Navy doctors, who between the two of them received over $5000 a month in housing allowance over and above their salaries (this was several years ago; it's probably more now). The wife has never deployed because she has managed to be pregnant or newly delivered for most of the term of service she owes to the Navy; not sure about the husband.
*My other friend, a Navy nurse, who describes watching movies during his entire shift for weeks at a time because they literally had no patients to take care of. (Trying to imagine a civilian hospital paying ten nurses to sit on their duffs watching Will Farrell movies.) He went back to school on the military's dime for a master's in nursing. He did deploy to Afghanistan, so at least they got some use out of that investment.
*A relative who spent twenty years as a Navy logistics officer--one ten-month deployment--then retired a with half of an O5's pay, and promptly got hired at a local high school as the ROTC facilitator, being paid at his old O5 rate PLUS his retirement. Of course he retains his free medical care for life for himself, his wife, and their minor children.
I'd like someone to explain to me:
1. why the professional class in the military is practically swimming in bennies and essentially gets rich through their "service to our country" while the grunt class such as you describe in your piece takes all the flak (literally) and barely scrapes by; and
2. how on earth this system of benefits is sustainable in any way.
Those individuals served for 20 years, and in the case of many, earned significantly less than their civilian counterparts. It's the endless wars that are not sustainable, sweetheart, not retirement bennies for those who served, even the POGs.
You haven't addressed how good benefits automatically equates to social welfare, likely because it doesn't.
Defense is one of the few things our gov't should spend money on. And yet you seem really, really hung up on giving free healthcare to people who don't have Chesty Puller's service record.
Are your anecdotes true? Possibly. There have certainly been plenty of people I've encountered in the military who could have been pulling more weight.
But the vast majority of folks are meeting demands that are incredibly high, even if they never deploy to a combat zone.
For example, a six month Navy shipboard deployment sounds pretty doable. Just grit your teeth and get it done. But let's not forget the fact that underway, two 4-6 hour watch periods are typical - in addition to the normal workday. In other words, you come off of your 4 hour watch and still have maintenance to do, paperwork to complete, charts to correct, etc. Often a full workday's worth of work on top of the 8-12 hours of watchstanding.
But that's not all. That six month deployment was preceeded by a full workup cycle. A maintenance availability where ship's company completes detailed maintenance because the availability budget didn't cover a shipyard doing it. Then inspections that require weeks of simulations and drills. Then underway practice and more inspections. Then practicing with the battlegroup. It is not uncommon to spend 6 months of the year before a deployment underway getting ready for the deployment. A few weeks or a month at a time in an unpredictable way that can be even harder on families than the "real" deployment.
But don't worry. When you get shore duty, you'll have some cushy desk job right? I'm still wondering where all of these are. The guys I know might not be in harms way at their desk, but they are pulling 12-16 hour days where their civilian counterparts are out the door at the 8 hour mark.
I find it hard to attach the word "bennies" to the life I've lived as both an officer and a military spouse. Of course there are less demanding jobs. But the stories in your post do not represent the majority experience, even of those not in combat. Retirement pay is a small start in paying for a lot of unpaid overtime.
I think you need to re-examine your presumptions and your definition of rich. Is it sustainable? Well, it may not be. But think carefully about what you're doing when you retool that system. It's easy to break trust. Not so easy to build it again. Changes in the retirement system need to reflect the fact that career decisions were made at the 10 and 15 year point based on the current system. People chose to forego a lot of opportunities in education and civilian professional time. Spouses lost opportunities to advance in their careers because of frequent moves. The decision to stay in has a huge opportunity cost.
If you treat military members as if they are no better than an IRS or DHS or DOE employee, don't be shocked if that is the level of performance and self sacrifice you get.
I get it. Military life is [often] hard. You folks deserve our appreciation. We as a nation will get what we pay for, &c. I understand. I want military members to be taken care of, to a reasonable extent, by a grateful nation.
Those emotional arguments aside, my question, which no one taking issue with my comment has addressed, is whether the enormous costs of educational, medical, housing and retirement benefits that the professional class in the military enjoys is worth whatever they bring to the table, particularly when we consider that the enlisted class in the military suffers far more, proportionally, for a fraction of the compensation.
