| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front Economy | |
| US Military Benefits Cost Spiralling | |
| 2006-01-20 | |
| Back when DID covered the costing of the new CVN-21 Class aircraft carriers, we noted that one of the key sources of proposed savings was a trend toward more automation and fewer personnel. Now the GAO helps shed light on the larger phenomenon behind those moves. A recent GAO report that pegged the average for active duty enlisted personnel and officer compensation at $112,000 a year, 51% of which takes the form of health care and other benefits (NAVSEA's figure was $90,000 FY 2004). This amounts to about double the average for civilian payand also represents a much higher benefits ratio than civilian pay, . Ironically, the GAO report also found that the US military's efforts to educate its personnel about this important recruiting and retention lever did not get good marks, and that many military members were unaware of how competitive their compensation was. GAO Comptroller David Walker's key point at a recent GovExec.com breakfast was that the budgeting process needed to reflect the full financial impact of funding decisions. For example, health care costs since are not only spiraling in the present thanks to a benefits expansion in 2000 - they also represent a major future stinger. Specifically...
| |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #8 If you 'retire' from the Navy with more than 20, but less than 30 years active duty, you are in what is called the 'Fleet Reserve.' You are subject to recall during this time until you reach the 30 year mark. Then you are retired and no longer eligile for recall. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2006-01-20 17:18 |
| #7 49 Pan, good points ! |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-01-20 16:41 |
| #6 When I enlisted we were sold on the health care, and retirement. The $240 per month paycheck did not go far but I knew I was investing in my family. We were promised 50% base pay and heath care when we reitred. Soldiers today are promised 40% and we all know the health care is going, going and almost gone! I'm not complaining here but the military is not a "JOB" that one retires at when they turn 60 or 62. In a "job" you go home to your wife and kids most nights, live in one neighborhood and see your relatives regularly. In the Mil your gone from your family the better part of your career, visiting relative is a yearly two week event at best, and while your peers are sitting in corperate cafeteria, a soldier is sitting in some shit hole country eating cold chicken chow mein from a brown plastic pouch. These soldiers give the very best years of their lives gone from home defending the bean counters that want to "Cost Cut" for a corperate budget. Soldiers retire at 20 years with bad knees, compressed discs, and other service related problems. These injuries came from hard landings in aircraft, parachute jumps, road marches and combat, not from tennis elbow. This crap just pisses me off. We will spend $20 Million on a helicopter and thousands of dollars per hour to fly them but for our most valuable asset we bitch and complain about the cost and try to cut back AFTER they have given to us their all. Without that guy sitting in a hole in some crappy place away from the people he loves doing the great things he is doing we all would be ducking from another attack here in America. Sorry ed but I think your dead wrong! After 20 to 30 years of dedicated service its about time a soldier can spend time in the country he has spent his productive years defending, without some string forcing him to hang on to a military post as a has been admin clerk. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-20 14:54 |
| #5 Well put Cleremp, a big problem post Vietnam was officers and Senior Enlisted staying in forever (past 30 years). On another note they just doubled my Tri-Care payments but it is still a good deal for retirees. I don't like paying more but compared to my coworkers I am getting a great deal. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-01-20 14:17 |
| #4 Not just emergencies - the usual terms in the contract says something like 'at anytime'. Some people have been called back prior to 9/11 for their experience and expertise. There are still ceiling number problems. Not only is the overall population limited so are ranks. Congress decrees how many senior officer and enlisted slots can be filled in the service. So as long as those 'older' rankers are on the books, then those below can not get promoted till slots above clear. That causes retention problems too. You'll have to create a new set of books [not that Congress doesn't do that already - running two sets of books in accounting], in order to move 'extended' personnel into a 'veterans', 'old guard', 'invalids', or 'auxillary' parallel personnel structure. |
| Posted by: Cleremp Angease4894 2006-01-20 12:02 |
| #3 Yes, retirees can be called up during emergencies. But I am talking about giving them the option to stay in service about as long as civilians (and not collecting retirement bennies while still in service). Currently, enlistees are forced to retire after 20-30 years and immediately collect retirement pay, regardless of whether they go into the civilan work force or deep woods Montana. Even if the average lifer stays an extra 5 years, it will still have a major impact on the budget and provide an experienced force for stateside duty. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-20 11:31 |
| #2 Ed. Retirees are not 'retired' as in the civilian sector. All are subject to recall upon the direction of the Secretary of their service. The Army has a three level recall program. Level one is those less than 5 years retired and in good health. Level two is more than five years and in good health. Level three is all others. The current law makes the reactivated retirees available for stateside duty. There was a recent proposal to modify the law to allow volunteers among that group to deploy oversea. Regardless, any activation will still be limited under law by the manpower ceiling. This amounts to about double the average for civilian payand also represents a much higher benefits ratio than civilian pay What this doesn't say, is that mil pay has up till the recent events not been comparable with the civilian world. That means for generations the recruiting and retention programs have sold 'retirement' benefits as a delayed reward for service. Now that the current crop of active members are getting some comparative compensation for a dangerous job during wartime [and the market forces of supply and demand apply] the bean counters are lumping in all those who served at much lower pay for the bennies. Now while Congress can find 'new' monies for an elderly drug program, they don't want to pay the bill they created by previous obligation. |
| Posted by: Uneang Glavise6713 2006-01-20 11:20 |
| #1 I'd like so see the the military keep personnel past the enforced retirement age to 60 years old, with the proviso that after 30 years, they will be kept as stateside cadre. Not only can they contribute to what they are trained to do, but the DOD also saves on retirement costs. It makes little sense to put people out to pasture as young as the late 30's. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-20 10:30 |