New Opportunity for Proper Evaluation of Reserve Retirement Program
Commission on National Guard and Reserve (CNGR) Considers Compensation Changes
The age 55 receipt of retire pay concept seems clearly tossed out by the Military Compensation Panel's recommendations. Is it dead? Advocates must realize that panel doesn't have the final say on its fate.
A new commission, empanelled by Congress may be the final hope for this particular proposal – or one at least equal or better in retaining Reservists for 20-year careers.
That commission, needs a demonstration of strong support by Reservists themselves to demonstrate retirement pay at 55 is their preferred reform. The commission's web site is at http://www.cngr.gov
Indisputably it is, given that the much more costly immediate annuity after 20 years that their Active Component counterparts enjoy would cost quite a bit more. The age 55 receipt of retire pay was viewed as "compromise" at its birth.
The Rumsfeld Military Compensation is making headlines had a charter from him to chill the spines of military reservist benefit advocates. It's conclusions reflect Mr. Rumsfeld's agenda of killing true retention benefits in favor of bigger, better guns, etc., to use his false choice dilemma.
His desire is to give an appearance of inevitability to discourage true reform advocates, yet even Congress cannot be said to support the compellingly poor recommendations of the panel.
Rummy's panel does not, and will not, have the ability to implement their dire recommendations, nor does the Secretary.
That panel largely reflected the recommendations of the President's Secretary of Defense and his staff who were seeking a forum for their agenda that appears objective and the result of study of facts, etc.
This despite a GAO study not long ago released that indicated the DoD did not have metrics nor facts available to make such determinations of what is or is not effective retention incentives, nor even appropriate retention goals. When ideas such as Retire Pay at 55 were the subjects of study, this was the major conclusion of the GAO.
As the Military Officers Association of America recently opined on the DoD compensation panel’s recommendations are rehashes of 40 years of suggestions, all made before. They further commented that a significant incentive to remain was needed and that is why the 20-year vesting was in place. It was designed to overcome the strong incentive of leaving military life prior to 20 years by virtue of the fact of a lost retirement if one did.
It the Congressional function to pass Reserve Retirement reform bill, which the President can sign, or veto, and vetoes can be over-ridden if needed by Congress. This panel is just, to emphasize the point, simply a group of people without standing in this, except by virtue of influence they can exert on Congress.
Congress can - and I think likely will - ignore many of their "findings" - particularly if their own panel disagrees.
The Congressional panel IS a creature of Congress - a little more influence by the virtue of the fact it has less bureaucratic territorial imperatives than a Secretary's in-house, brown-bag-lunch study group giving its thoughts on an issue that effects their budget and agenda.
I'll add also, that commencement of a retirement system for the Reserves, that blends both the useful aspects of military retirement and civilian (i.e. FERS) is fine. But in doing so, it must not forget that the Active and Reserve Component systems of retirement are for those who are in the military. It is only logical that incentives must be stronger for the Reserve program.
Reservists have their lives lived in both worlds, and face a conflict at times - civilian verses military careers. Reservist have a tremendous balancing act to perform, of trying to take care of current career and family needs, future planning, and coordinating the conflicting demands of Reserve unit membership.
Added to that is the fact we will be facing a treacherous enemy for likely a decade or two in the Osamas of the world. And after that is won? We'll see.
