280PLUS
Member
This was an excellent read.
Nicely done..............
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/PASSINGOFGENERATION.HTML
You should also read the following information which I recently received from a MOAA newsletter. It will be interesting to see what happens as a result of the study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 3: Pentagon Advisory Committee To Consider Retirement, Health Changes
At a June 7 meeting, members of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation discussed their plan to develop a report to the Pentagon this September with recommendations for changing the military compensation package.
The Committee will focus on three major areas: the balance between cash and in-kind compensation, the balance between current and deferred compensation, and flexibility of the system to meet force management goals in both peace and war for active and reserve components.
The Committee is chaired by Adm. Donald L. Pilling, USN-Ret., a former Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and has six other members: Dr. Walter Oi, an economics professor who served on the Gates Commission that worked on the All Volunteer Force in the 1970s; Dr. Martin Anderson, a Hoover Institute Senior Fellow who advised President Nixon on the All Volunteer Force; Mr. Fred Cook, a former Marine who runs a management-compensation consulting firm; Mr. Joseph Jannotta, a former naval aviator and career consultant now affiliated with the Chicago State University Foundation; General Lester Lyles, USAF-Ret., a former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff who now runs a consulting firm; and Dr. John White, a former Deputy Secretary of Defense and current RAND trustee.
Given the repeated complaints of senior Defense Department officials that military health care and retirement benefits cost too much, it's not a surprise that the committee members indicated Tuesday that they intend to look at possibilities for civilian-style retirement options that would shift emphasis toward longer service and 401(k)-style retirement benefits, and increased beneficiary payments for health care.
They said their recommendations likely would have little impact on the current force, but would be mostly prospective in nature. That's what happened in 1986, when Congress enacted the so-called REDUX retirement system that cut lifetime retirement benefits for post-1986 entrants by about 20% due to lower initial payments for 20-year retirees and reduced annual cost-of-living adjustments. By the late 1990s, lower retention among REDUX-eligible servicemembers prompted Congress to repeal that plan.
The Commission also will be looking at ways to adjust the Guard and Reserve compensation package to recognize the much bigger role those members now have in operational missions, something MOAA agrees is long overdue.
MOAA will be following the Commission's progress with great interest. Our perspective is that there are good reasons why so many previous proposals to adopt more civilian-like retirement plans for the military haven't been successful. The main reason is that conditions of service for military members are so radically different from those of private sector workers. Another is that the services are dependent upon promotion from within. Paying more benefits to people who leave service voluntarily (civilian-style vesting) while reducing retired pay for people who serve a career can leave the services vulnerable to losses of mid-career personnel, particularly during periods of high operational stress. Unlike civilian firms, the military can't just go hire more experienced soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, but must spend many years and millions of dollars recruiting, training, and growing those replacements.
Fortunately, Congress has been considerably more attuned to such issues in sorting out which changes make sense and which ones don't.
Nicely done..............
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/PASSINGOFGENERATION.HTML
You should also read the following information which I recently received from a MOAA newsletter. It will be interesting to see what happens as a result of the study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 3: Pentagon Advisory Committee To Consider Retirement, Health Changes
At a June 7 meeting, members of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation discussed their plan to develop a report to the Pentagon this September with recommendations for changing the military compensation package.
The Committee will focus on three major areas: the balance between cash and in-kind compensation, the balance between current and deferred compensation, and flexibility of the system to meet force management goals in both peace and war for active and reserve components.
The Committee is chaired by Adm. Donald L. Pilling, USN-Ret., a former Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and has six other members: Dr. Walter Oi, an economics professor who served on the Gates Commission that worked on the All Volunteer Force in the 1970s; Dr. Martin Anderson, a Hoover Institute Senior Fellow who advised President Nixon on the All Volunteer Force; Mr. Fred Cook, a former Marine who runs a management-compensation consulting firm; Mr. Joseph Jannotta, a former naval aviator and career consultant now affiliated with the Chicago State University Foundation; General Lester Lyles, USAF-Ret., a former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff who now runs a consulting firm; and Dr. John White, a former Deputy Secretary of Defense and current RAND trustee.
Given the repeated complaints of senior Defense Department officials that military health care and retirement benefits cost too much, it's not a surprise that the committee members indicated Tuesday that they intend to look at possibilities for civilian-style retirement options that would shift emphasis toward longer service and 401(k)-style retirement benefits, and increased beneficiary payments for health care.
They said their recommendations likely would have little impact on the current force, but would be mostly prospective in nature. That's what happened in 1986, when Congress enacted the so-called REDUX retirement system that cut lifetime retirement benefits for post-1986 entrants by about 20% due to lower initial payments for 20-year retirees and reduced annual cost-of-living adjustments. By the late 1990s, lower retention among REDUX-eligible servicemembers prompted Congress to repeal that plan.
The Commission also will be looking at ways to adjust the Guard and Reserve compensation package to recognize the much bigger role those members now have in operational missions, something MOAA agrees is long overdue.
MOAA will be following the Commission's progress with great interest. Our perspective is that there are good reasons why so many previous proposals to adopt more civilian-like retirement plans for the military haven't been successful. The main reason is that conditions of service for military members are so radically different from those of private sector workers. Another is that the services are dependent upon promotion from within. Paying more benefits to people who leave service voluntarily (civilian-style vesting) while reducing retired pay for people who serve a career can leave the services vulnerable to losses of mid-career personnel, particularly during periods of high operational stress. Unlike civilian firms, the military can't just go hire more experienced soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, but must spend many years and millions of dollars recruiting, training, and growing those replacements.
Fortunately, Congress has been considerably more attuned to such issues in sorting out which changes make sense and which ones don't.