thedrifter
02-01-08, 05:18 AM
Commission pushes for revamp of military pensions
WASHINGTON
A commission urged Congress on Thursday to overhaul military pay and benefits, suggesting that most retiring troops sacrifice part of their pensions unless they agree to wait until age 60 to begin collecting their monthly retirement checks.
In a wide-ranging report, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve also urged the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security to put new emphasis on the military’s role in responding to domestic terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
The United States “does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available” to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, the report asserted. It called the deficiency “an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk.”
The report said that repeated use of Guard and reserve forces, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, have left many reserve units near the breaking point.
“There is no reasonable alternative” to continued reliance on the reserves, it added, but that force must be more integrated into the active military to reduce the strain on both.
The commission’s proposal on military retirement would alter one of the military’s signature benefit programs. It drew immediate criticism from a prominent retiree group, the Military Officers Association of America.
“I don’t see that going through,” said Steve Strobridge, the group’s director of government relations.
Generations of troops have been entitled to begin drawing retirement pay after 20 years of active service, regardless of their age. The benefit has permitted hundreds of thousands of former soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to embark on second careers while in their 40s and 50s, using their military pensions to supplement their civilian salaries.
But the commission, which was dominated by former service members, said the system works against reservists and National Guard members, whose eligibility is computed differently. Reservists and Guard members cannot collect pension checks until they turn 60, and three-fourths of them do not serve long enough to qualify for any retirement benefit, the panel noted.
Even among active-duty troops, only 47 percent of officers and 15 percent of enlistees reach the 20-year mark.
The commission urged that retirement benefits be provided to those who leave the military after as few as 10 years, active or reserve, and that the active force and reserve operate under the same set of rules for eligibility.
The proposal would allow those with 10 years of service to begin drawing pension checks at age 62; those with 20 years, at age 60; and those with 30 years, at age 57. Retirees could make earlier withdrawals but would pay a penalty for the privilege.
The panel also pushed for periodic bonuses to those who make a career of the military. Members tempted to retire after 10 years, for example, might be offered bonuses to induce them to remain in uniform for an additional period. The bonuses could be varied depending on the members’ job assignments, giving the military an additional tool to hold experienced troops with needed skills.
The report did not put a price tag on the commission’s retirement recommendations, which were a relatively small part of the commission’s work. And while Strobridge expressed reservations about those proposals, he said the Military Officers Association of America was pleased by much of the rest of the report.
The commission urged a variety of changes in the military’s system of health benefits. Among those were a proposal that reservists be allowed to enroll in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, the health insurance program for federal civilian workers.
Patricia Lewis, a commission member who spent more than 28 years as a Navy civilian employee and Senate Armed Services Committee staffer, said the military needs to make its benefits more “portable” to adjust to the needs of a changing work force.
The commission believes future troops should be able to move from the active force to the reserves, then to the civilian world and back to the military without losing benefits, Lewis said.
“We don’t want to cram anything down anybody’s throat,” she added.
The report calls for its recommendations to be phased in over a five-year period, with those who enlist during that stretch allowed to choose between the old and new systems. Those already on duty would be permitted to stay in their current retirement plan and begin collecting benefits when they retire, regardless of age.
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Ellie
WASHINGTON
A commission urged Congress on Thursday to overhaul military pay and benefits, suggesting that most retiring troops sacrifice part of their pensions unless they agree to wait until age 60 to begin collecting their monthly retirement checks.
In a wide-ranging report, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve also urged the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security to put new emphasis on the military’s role in responding to domestic terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
The United States “does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available” to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, the report asserted. It called the deficiency “an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk.”
The report said that repeated use of Guard and reserve forces, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, have left many reserve units near the breaking point.
“There is no reasonable alternative” to continued reliance on the reserves, it added, but that force must be more integrated into the active military to reduce the strain on both.
The commission’s proposal on military retirement would alter one of the military’s signature benefit programs. It drew immediate criticism from a prominent retiree group, the Military Officers Association of America.
“I don’t see that going through,” said Steve Strobridge, the group’s director of government relations.
Generations of troops have been entitled to begin drawing retirement pay after 20 years of active service, regardless of their age. The benefit has permitted hundreds of thousands of former soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to embark on second careers while in their 40s and 50s, using their military pensions to supplement their civilian salaries.
But the commission, which was dominated by former service members, said the system works against reservists and National Guard members, whose eligibility is computed differently. Reservists and Guard members cannot collect pension checks until they turn 60, and three-fourths of them do not serve long enough to qualify for any retirement benefit, the panel noted.
Even among active-duty troops, only 47 percent of officers and 15 percent of enlistees reach the 20-year mark.
The commission urged that retirement benefits be provided to those who leave the military after as few as 10 years, active or reserve, and that the active force and reserve operate under the same set of rules for eligibility.
The proposal would allow those with 10 years of service to begin drawing pension checks at age 62; those with 20 years, at age 60; and those with 30 years, at age 57. Retirees could make earlier withdrawals but would pay a penalty for the privilege.
The panel also pushed for periodic bonuses to those who make a career of the military. Members tempted to retire after 10 years, for example, might be offered bonuses to induce them to remain in uniform for an additional period. The bonuses could be varied depending on the members’ job assignments, giving the military an additional tool to hold experienced troops with needed skills.
The report did not put a price tag on the commission’s retirement recommendations, which were a relatively small part of the commission’s work. And while Strobridge expressed reservations about those proposals, he said the Military Officers Association of America was pleased by much of the rest of the report.
The commission urged a variety of changes in the military’s system of health benefits. Among those were a proposal that reservists be allowed to enroll in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, the health insurance program for federal civilian workers.
Patricia Lewis, a commission member who spent more than 28 years as a Navy civilian employee and Senate Armed Services Committee staffer, said the military needs to make its benefits more “portable” to adjust to the needs of a changing work force.
The commission believes future troops should be able to move from the active force to the reserves, then to the civilian world and back to the military without losing benefits, Lewis said.
“We don’t want to cram anything down anybody’s throat,” she added.
The report calls for its recommendations to be phased in over a five-year period, with those who enlist during that stretch allowed to choose between the old and new systems. Those already on duty would be permitted to stay in their current retirement plan and begin collecting benefits when they retire, regardless of age.
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Ellie