Shows & Panels
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- The Big Data Dilemma
- Carrying On with Continuity of Operations
- Connected Government
- Constituent Servicing
- Continuous Monitoring: Tools and Techniques for Trustworthy Government IT
- The Cyber Imperative
- Cyber Solutions for 2013 and Beyond
- Expert Voices
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal IT Challenge
- Federal Tech Talk
- Mission-critical Apps in the Cloud
- The Path from Legacy Systems
- The Real Deal on Digital Government
- The Reality of Continuous Monitoring... Is Your Agency Secure?
- Veterans in Private Sector: Making the Transition
Shows & Panels
Military retirement costs are affordable, DoD says
Wednesday - 10/26/2011, 5:34am EDT
The most recent firestorm around military retirement started in July, when the Defense Business Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, issued a preliminary report that recommended major changes to the 20-year pension system. The board suggested converting the pension to something more akin to a private-sector defined contribution plan, saying the current pension system is unfair, overly generous, and unaffordable.
At least on the affordability score, Pentagon officials offered a different view before the House Armed Services subcommittee on personnel.
Jo Ann Rooney
"While the department acknowledges the military retirement system appears expensive, it is neither unaffordable nor spiraling out of control, as some would contend," said Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. "The department annually contributes amounts to the military retirement fund in accordance with the requirements set forth by the DoD office of the actuary. The contributions as a percentage of military basic pay are projected to be relatively constant over time.
Nonetheless, Rooney said DoD is using the business board study as one of several data points as it works on its own review of military retirement. She said the department is applying mathematical models to several different alternatives to try to determine how each would impact recruiting, retention and other factors.
But she suggested that a 401k-style plan is not something the department would favor.
"It generally takes 15 to 20 years to generate the next generation of infantry battalion commanders and submarine captains," she said. "As a result, the department must ensure military compensation, promotions and personnel policies all foster greater retention and longer careers necessary to create these experienced leaders. This need for greater longevity and continuity suggests there are valid reasons why mirroring a private sector compensation package might not be a proper approach for the military."
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said members who serve for fewer than 20 years should get some sort of retirement benefit.
"It's necessary for us as a Congress to do something that helps that 83 percent," he said. "There are many of them who have served overseas. They've spent a great deal of their time and their family's time and contributed a great deal to the freedoms we enjoy in this country. I see nothing wrong with them being able to choose a different retirement plan."
Vee Penrod, deputy assistant secretary for military personnel policy, said her office is looking at military retirement as part of an overall compensation strategy for service member with the aim to design something that makes sense for the 21st century. She agreed it's worth asking whether troops who serve shorter terms should get some kind of retirement pay.
Creating a two-class system?
That's cold comfort to Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America, who testified that grandfathering is not a panacea. He said changing the military retirement system would impact the morale of service members whether they're directly affected by it or not, and said it would create a two-class system within the military. "You have two categories of people serving side by side, who each know they have different benefits," he said. "There is just no way as those people go through 20 years serving together that that doesn't become a burr under their saddle."
Strobridge made it clear that MOAA and other influential military advocacy organizations want to see as few changes as possible to the current military retirement system. He said the groups are worried by the business board proposal and several others, and no amount of analysis inside DoD can fix proposals that he said would make drastic cuts in the value of military retirement benefits.
"So many of these analyses treat people in the context of human resources, as though they're widgets in a box instead of thinking, planning human beings," he said. "There's nothing in the model that accommodates the chance that we might go to war tomorrow. There's nothing in there that accommodates that we might do the opposite — have a budget-driven drawdown. You've built your plans on staying for a career and we're going to force you out. But when you have a very powerful career incentive like the 20-year retirement, it's very resistant to day-to-day manipulation. That's a good thing. If you want to talk fairness, the first thing we have to do is be fair to the people who suffer and sacrifice the longest, and that's the career person. The last thing we should be doing is cutting their package to fund a package for people who leave."
No radical changes
President Obama's recommendations to the deficit-cutting supercommittee included a proposal for a new commission to study military retirement. It would develop a take-it-or-leave-it proposal for the President and Congress to consider. Rooney, the Pentagon's number two personnel official, said DoD will be ready with plenty of input if that commission is actually formed.
But she said whatever happens, the department is determined to make sure it doesn't make radical changes that hurt recruiting and retention.
"That is something we have learned many lessons on in the past, and we will not do anything to our compensation system that leaves us with that hollow force," she said. "We know we're facing drawdowns, and we also know that our future force very much can look different in terms of the type of force we must recruit, the qualifications, the technical aspects. That prompted us try to make sure we have the correct pay and benefits package going forward. We're trying to view all the budget reductions strategically, and this has to be part of that discussion. But it's not a solely budget-driven exercise."