In a previous article reflecting on plans, suggestions, rumors and just plain nutty ideas for cutting the defense budget, I pointed to the complexities, murkiness, inter-relationships and inter-dependencies of and among the various so-called defense budgets and cautioned:
Whether we are talking about the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program or about our entire national security “program,” our “cutters” must know precisely what to cut, where to cut, how much to cut and the implications, ramifications, consequences and ripple effects of such cuts.
Interestingly, most of the readers’ comments that followed focused on the military retirement system; some comments so “adamant”—to put it mildly—that they had to be moderated.
I agree that the rising costs of the military retirement system need to be mitigated, but not by reneging on present and past promises to our fighting men and women, nor by comparing the 24/7 commitment, dedication and the oftentimes accompanying sacrifices of our military to “working nine to five.”
I know I did not convince some of our readers on what I consider to be the almost sacred commitment we have to those who fight and oftentimes die for us—clichéd as it may sound.
I probably could have made a better argument if I had read a couple of recent pieces.
First, a piece by Andrew J. Bacevich, critical of a recent Defense Business Board (DBB) study that concludes that military benefits are “’more generous and expensive’ than those available in the private sector, and have therefore become ‘unaffordable’ and ‘unfair.’”
Bacevich explains that the DBB (motto: “Business Excellence in Defense of the Nation”) is a panel of corporate types who advise the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, and which “has trained its sights on a problem that urgently needs fixing: the military retirement system.”
The DBB’s plan, according to Bacevich, would basically have the Pentagon discard the concept of a lifelong retirement pension and institute in its place a tax-sheltered savings account to accompany service members into the post-military workplace.
Such a plan would reduce the $50 billion that the Pentagon presently contributes annually to the military retirement system. Bacevich points out that this annual amount is the same amount that the Pentagon presently spends in only five months waging war in Afghanistan.
Sounds reasonable enough …
Bacevich points to the following “advantages” of the DBB plan:
First and foremost, “Less money added to retirement accounts would mean more money for the stuff that matters: wars and weapons.”
Also,
… a portable 401(k)-type system can make it easier for the Pentagon to simply hand people their walking papers …Baldly asserting that today “military skills are transferable to the private sector,” the DBB takes it for granted that former service members will have little trouble finding jobs, ignoring the fact that the unemployment rate for veterans is significantly higher than the national average.
By focusing on economy and flexibility, its proposed overhaul would commodify military service. The effect would be to transform profession into trade, reducing long-serving officers and noncommissioned officers to the status of employees, valued as long as they are needed, expendable when they are not, forgotten the day they leave — just like the workers at any GM plant or your local Safeway.
Bacevich points out that “Conspicuously absent from the analysis is this phrase: ‘military profession.’ Long since diluted elsewhere in American society, the concept of professionalism remains alive and well in the ranks of the armed forces, where an ethos of service and a commitment to a code of personal conduct have survived.”
And he adds that “with only 0.5 percent of Americans bearing the brunt of the nation’s seemingly interminable wars — and with the rest of us largely insulated from wars’ effects — politicians in Washington have had a free hand in deciding when and where that force will fight.”
Now, that same Washington is under pressure to trim the costs of maintaining that force. Basevich concludes: “Rather than reforming — which really means gutting — the retirement system for the men and women who devote their lives to defending their country, we need to reform — which really means rethinking — the all-volunteer force and what we expect it to do.”
A letter to the editor commenting on Bacevich’s article says it better than I ever could:
The article was very thoughtful, and outlined Bacevich’s reasoning for “rethinking” the Defense Business Board’s recommendations to “renegotiate” the “unaffordable and unfair” benefit package for military retirees. Good article, but it didn’t go far enough.
In the corporate world, must an employee sign a contract for a specified length of service? Can an employee resign if he finds the work, or location, not to his liking? Can an employee decline an assignment if it means possible physical danger or death? Are corporate employees subject to sudden moves to any of the “company’s” locations without said employee’s agreement? Are they subject to 24-hour-a-day response to the “company” and its requirements?
These are just a sampling of what divides the corporate world from the military. There are many good ideas for reducing our growing national debt; this just isn’t one of them.
Ward Boyce
Col., U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Austin
CODA: It so happens that all three authors mentioned above are retired military. None of us will be affected by any changes to the military retirement system. However, I do not believe that any of us want to see those who follow in our footsteps, as we say in the military, “shafted”
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.