Capt Hank
01-28-2005, 16:23
**Divisive Budget Talk Doesn’t Wash
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal carried a front-page story "As Benefits for Veterans Climb, Military Spending Feels Freeze." The story talks about the arguments made by Pentagon officials that military retirees are taking budget money that military leaders want to use to help troops fighting today. The story asserts that Congress, feeling the pressure by veterans groups-MOAA being a "main force"-has boosted retiree and survivor benefits (including TRICARE For Life, concurrent receipt, and SBP, but also including increased pay and other fixes for active duty troops). MOAA was interviewed for the story, and it includes quotes by MOAA President VADM Norb Ryan, Jr. (USN-Ret).
MOAA appreciates the opportunity to have the issues about military benefits aired, but assertions that increased spending on benefits for military retirees and widows is taking money from weapons or other active duty funding needs are off-base. A key point VADM Ryan raised that was apparently cut during the Journal's editing process is that Congress over the past two years has passed legislation specifying that no money for TRICARE For Life or concurrent receipt is to come out of the DoD budget, but is to come from elsewhere in the Treasury.
Additionally, the DoD official asserts that improving retiree and survivor benefits does not affect active duty retention. In fact, the Joint Chiefs of Staff fought to repeal retirement cuts in the late 1990s after those cuts were found to be contributing to serious retention and readiness problems. The Joint Chiefs also told Congress at the time that they supported retiree health care fixes, because active duty troops know that they'll be retired someday, too. The troops are smart and can see through a "give them bonuses now and cut their future benefits" philosophy; that's exactly what gave rise to the retention and readiness crises of the late 1970s and late 1990s, after years of erosion of benefits.
Congress has demonstrated time and again that it will provide funding to meet the needs of both our active duty forces and our military retirees and survivors. If the Administration is choosing to impose internal funding limitations or budget trade-offs, that's hardly military retirees' fault. In fact, it's in direct conflict with the intent of statutes passed by Congress (and signed into law by the President) that were written specifically to prevent that from happening.
MOAA has supported a strong national defense as its top priority for more than 75 years. The WSJ article points out yet again why MOAA and The Military Coalition have a responsibility to help ensure that retention lessons learned under previous administrations aren't lost as leadership changes, independent of any particular Administration's budget-driven proposals.
VADM Ryan's column, "Freedom Isn't Free," from the February 2005 Military Officer Magazine, (written more than a month ago) addresses precisely that point.
The Wall Street Journal article can be viewed at http://webreprints.djreprints.co m/1156160669825.html.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal carried a front-page story "As Benefits for Veterans Climb, Military Spending Feels Freeze." The story talks about the arguments made by Pentagon officials that military retirees are taking budget money that military leaders want to use to help troops fighting today. The story asserts that Congress, feeling the pressure by veterans groups-MOAA being a "main force"-has boosted retiree and survivor benefits (including TRICARE For Life, concurrent receipt, and SBP, but also including increased pay and other fixes for active duty troops). MOAA was interviewed for the story, and it includes quotes by MOAA President VADM Norb Ryan, Jr. (USN-Ret).
MOAA appreciates the opportunity to have the issues about military benefits aired, but assertions that increased spending on benefits for military retirees and widows is taking money from weapons or other active duty funding needs are off-base. A key point VADM Ryan raised that was apparently cut during the Journal's editing process is that Congress over the past two years has passed legislation specifying that no money for TRICARE For Life or concurrent receipt is to come out of the DoD budget, but is to come from elsewhere in the Treasury.
Additionally, the DoD official asserts that improving retiree and survivor benefits does not affect active duty retention. In fact, the Joint Chiefs of Staff fought to repeal retirement cuts in the late 1990s after those cuts were found to be contributing to serious retention and readiness problems. The Joint Chiefs also told Congress at the time that they supported retiree health care fixes, because active duty troops know that they'll be retired someday, too. The troops are smart and can see through a "give them bonuses now and cut their future benefits" philosophy; that's exactly what gave rise to the retention and readiness crises of the late 1970s and late 1990s, after years of erosion of benefits.
Congress has demonstrated time and again that it will provide funding to meet the needs of both our active duty forces and our military retirees and survivors. If the Administration is choosing to impose internal funding limitations or budget trade-offs, that's hardly military retirees' fault. In fact, it's in direct conflict with the intent of statutes passed by Congress (and signed into law by the President) that were written specifically to prevent that from happening.
MOAA has supported a strong national defense as its top priority for more than 75 years. The WSJ article points out yet again why MOAA and The Military Coalition have a responsibility to help ensure that retention lessons learned under previous administrations aren't lost as leadership changes, independent of any particular Administration's budget-driven proposals.
VADM Ryan's column, "Freedom Isn't Free," from the February 2005 Military Officer Magazine, (written more than a month ago) addresses precisely that point.
The Wall Street Journal article can be viewed at http://webreprints.djreprints.co m/1156160669825.html.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------