Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off.

Defense Opposition To Webb GI Bill Rankles

It's time to ask the embarrassing questions concerning reform of the GI Bill. For starters, what was the legislative intent of the first GI Bill? Was it not to aid returning World War II veterans to get an education, and thereby to function as an investment in the nation's future?

Given this, the Department of Defense's Chicken-Little argument in opposition – that it will damage military retention -- is a slap in the face to those who conduct "diplomacy by other means."

The GI Bill was never intended to be a recruiting/retention tool. A simple parallel from American history applies. As the nation's founders -- and multiple administrations since them -- discovered, it is one thing to persuade the people to go to war yet quite another to keep hearts and minds on such a track. At a time when major Wall Street firms arguably benefit from huge federal bailouts, attempts to low-ball educational support to returning veterans ring disingenuous at best... and stand to have a chilling effect both on the morale of those currently serving and on recruitment.

This is not the first time "Pentagonorrhea" has infected policy and its implementation. But for the White House to buy into such an on-the-cheap policy goes beyond the pale. The legislative branch has both a practical and an ethical responsibility to refuse this flagrant breach of faith with those who have volunteered to wear the uniform and go in harm's way.

JOHN DELANEY
Lieutenant Colonel 
Infantry (Retired)
Via e-mail

What am I missing here?

The military doesn't want improved GI Bill benefits because they think they'll lose their all-volunteer force. Hummm…Does that say something about the soldiers, or about Bush's idiotic war?

RON MACQUARRIE
USMC-Ret.
San Clemente, Calif.

While deployed, I have been reading the debate over what to do about the GI Bill. My idea is to stipulate that if a service member wants to transfer his education benefits to spouse or children, then the member will agree to stay on active duty a set number of years or even until the 20-year mark?

MATTHEW IRWIN
Airman First Class, USAF
Via e-mail

TSP -- 'TIL DEATH DOES ITS PART

You noted in a recent Military Update that separated veterans and military retirees who opened Thrift Savings Plan accounts while they were on active duty can roll other 401(k) accounts or individual retirement accounts (IRA) into their TSP accounts where their investment fees are much lower.

But many people are not aware that if a TSP participant dies, his or her beneficiary, whether spouse or non-spouse, will be required to take all the money out of the TSP. If they choose, of course, they can deposit it into an IRA.

I find it perplexing that the TSP requires a surviving spouse to take all of the funds out, even though they can continue to defer taxes in another account.  I am sure many would prefer to leave the funds in the TSP because of the low cost.

 TSP participants need to be aware of these rules to properly plan for their and their spouses' retirement years.  Despite the low costs associated with the TSP, spouses should be prepared to choose other alternatives, if and when events require, and not just say the TSP "is benefit for life."

HOMER J. SMITH
Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret
Sumter, S.C.

LINK RETIREE AND ACTIVE DUTY RAISES

I retired as an E-9 on Dec. 31, 1964. Even considering that today's retirees fall under the High-3 formula for calculating their retired pay, my retirement is several thousand dollars less per year than today's retirees.

If you took the same rank and time in service from about 1960, and looked at individuals' retirement pay through the present, I would bet there would be different payment levels depending on date of retirement.

The amount of money used to maintain this mess is probably more than it would take to pay each of us our percentage based on current active duty pay scales.

If we all asked House and Senate members if they would support this issue, or we would vote for the one that would, then together we might get something done. As long as it is not a concerted effort, nothing will happen.

ERNEST LAND
Master Chief Aviation Maintenance Technician, USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

I suspect "the mess" is not difficult to maintain.  The Defense Finance and Accounting Service simply applies to current retiree annuities the same COLA used to adjust other federal entitlement programs. Surely that is far less costly to the government these days than matching COLAs retroactively to active duty pay raises.

Besides, doing that would raise annuities for many retirees but lower them for others who benefitted from years when COLAs exceeded active duty raises.

The relatively higher value of active duty pay today can be credited in part to the fact that we are a nation involved in two protracted wars and relying on an all-volunteer force that Congress wants to be certain is adequately paid.  If this were a more peaceful era, military retirees likely would be more satisfied with their current arrangement, having COLAs tied to consumer price changes.

Experienced advocates for service personnel know that the pay adjustment advantage for long periods can swing toward retirees again, and away from the active military, when wars are in the rearview mirror and the government's focus shifts to getting federal budget deficits, or military personnel costs, "under control."

Such a time surely will come again.  That is one reason why groups like the Military Officers Association of American want to preserve recent pay and benefits gains against deficit reduction campaigns by having Congress endorse a firm set of compensation principles for the military. – T. P.

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com.

How do you feel about these issues?
Let your public officials know how you feel.