The Question that Must be Answered: Where next?
Senior Army Reserve officer's email asks:
"What is the latest on the bill(s) [HR 783 and its Senate companion S. 639], and what are the future plans?"
My attempt to answer:
Sir,
Thank you for the questions.
The latest on the bills, per se, is not much. While the House bill has recently been joined by an additional representative as a co-sponsor, bringing it to 116, it has been very slow in growth in co-sponsor growth over the past few months, and the Senate companion bill has shown far too much stability at 12 sponsor and co-sponsors.
"What is the latest on the bill(s) [HR 783 and its Senate companion S. 639], and what are the future plans?"
My attempt to answer:
Sir,
Thank you for the questions.
The latest on the bills, per se, is not much. While the House bill has recently been joined by an additional representative as a co-sponsor, bringing it to 116, it has been very slow in growth in co-sponsor growth over the past few months, and the Senate companion bill has shown far too much stability at 12 sponsor and co-sponsors.
Activity has been seen in the what has been attempted other than with the bills. For instance, former Senator Corzine (now New Jersey's governor), had place the retire pay concept for the third time as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill.
The first two attempts showed distinct party-line voting - defeated each time by a technical requirement to attain 60 votes (I believe the highest was 51). But it has never passed the Senate.
The House has never considered the concept of Reservist retire pay at age 55 at all on its floor.
A much scaled-back attempt was made by Sen. Chambliss to pass a bill that exchanged a 3-month reduction in age from 60 for each 180 days of active duty in contingency operations since 11 Sep 2001.
It did pass the Senate, but was defeated in the conference committee comprised of House and Senate conferees.
These bills have been very unpopular with the Administration and its DoD. They have done all they can to 'study' the item to death from the beginning to take its momentum away.
And the Administration's majority party counterparts in the House and Senate have been supportive of its defeat.
A recent 'blue-ribbon' panel of 'experts' on the Military Compensation panel chartered by the DoD has cast the battle in an interesting light:
Amongst other highly (by the DoD) favored items, it recommends both Active and Reserve components receive their retire pay at age 60!
Hardly progress being noted by all of this for Reservists or our Active duty counterparts!
The DoD currently seems to currently have the initiative on this.
However, the draconian proposals to military compensation the wrong way by the DoD's military compensation panel may in fact be a blessing.
Their proposal to make the Active Component retirement worse is forcing the military associations to get involved in more than what I think has been of late a perfunctory manner in the retirement reform issue.
It seems the DoD is proposing that procurement of equipment, etc., is to be in part paid for by these changes. (I won't even bring up TRICARE rate increase issues, and the problems this creates for Reservist retirement!)
It is my suggestion that if one supports retirement pay at age 55 for reservists... this issue can be turned back on the DoD with the steam generated by the proposals.
If reactions funneled into renewed efforts and movement to protect and improve retirements for the Total Force.
The associations are not the primary hope. It is the grassroots that must be energized again. DoD is doing its part to energize it!
This is probably more reply than you envisioned. I hope it proves food for thought and thank you for your patience.
SFC Michael Mitchell
USAR-Retired Reserve
The first two attempts showed distinct party-line voting - defeated each time by a technical requirement to attain 60 votes (I believe the highest was 51). But it has never passed the Senate.
The House has never considered the concept of Reservist retire pay at age 55 at all on its floor.
A much scaled-back attempt was made by Sen. Chambliss to pass a bill that exchanged a 3-month reduction in age from 60 for each 180 days of active duty in contingency operations since 11 Sep 2001.
It did pass the Senate, but was defeated in the conference committee comprised of House and Senate conferees.
These bills have been very unpopular with the Administration and its DoD. They have done all they can to 'study' the item to death from the beginning to take its momentum away.
And the Administration's majority party counterparts in the House and Senate have been supportive of its defeat.
A recent 'blue-ribbon' panel of 'experts' on the Military Compensation panel chartered by the DoD has cast the battle in an interesting light:
Amongst other highly (by the DoD) favored items, it recommends both Active and Reserve components receive their retire pay at age 60!
Hardly progress being noted by all of this for Reservists or our Active duty counterparts!
The DoD currently seems to currently have the initiative on this.
However, the draconian proposals to military compensation the wrong way by the DoD's military compensation panel may in fact be a blessing.
Their proposal to make the Active Component retirement worse is forcing the military associations to get involved in more than what I think has been of late a perfunctory manner in the retirement reform issue.
It seems the DoD is proposing that procurement of equipment, etc., is to be in part paid for by these changes. (I won't even bring up TRICARE rate increase issues, and the problems this creates for Reservist retirement!)
It is my suggestion that if one supports retirement pay at age 55 for reservists... this issue can be turned back on the DoD with the steam generated by the proposals.
If reactions funneled into renewed efforts and movement to protect and improve retirements for the Total Force.
The associations are not the primary hope. It is the grassroots that must be energized again. DoD is doing its part to energize it!
This is probably more reply than you envisioned. I hope it proves food for thought and thank you for your patience.
SFC Michael Mitchell
USAR-Retired Reserve
