Alternative Military Retirement Plan 'Stinks'

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

I just finished reading the article on the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation and its recommendations for testing a new military retirement plan. I am opposed to creating “a complex four-part retirement plan” as the article describes.

Not only will this create an additional retirement bureaucracy, but the plan itself would allow the government to delay paying retirement benefits up to 22 years for someone who enlisted at age 18 and retires at 38.

This proposal serves only the interests of military bookkeepers, and appears to be a smoke-and-mirrors effort to get service members to willingly sacrifice years of benefits. This proposal stinks.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

DANIEL S. SPICER
Lieutenant Commander,  USN
Baltimore, Md.

Why do these people seem determined to have our country defended by idiots?

The retirement changes recommended would mean that the average enlisted recruit coming in at 18, even if they and served a long and honorable career and advanced to pay grade E-9, would be forced on to the streets at age 48 to “break into” industry and with little to show for their sacrifices or those of their families.

They would not draw a dime of the retirement they earned for another nine years and at a time in their life when they might well have kids in college and a mortgage.  It’s very possible they would lose everything they worked if their income takes a huge dive just as their needs peak.

Who in their right mind would sign on for that?

For the average commissioned officer coming in at age 22, they would be put out in the streets at age 50 to 52 and be unable to draw a dime of their annuity for another five to seven years, again at time when it is very common to still have kids in college and a mortgage.

This change would have the pernicious effect of motivating people to hang on to the bitter end (high year tenure), long after they had "Peter principled" themselves, in order to shorten the “hang time” between forced retirement and drawing retirement pay.

Today those folks typically retire five to eight years before they are forced to, making way for younger and more capable folks to take up the fight.  These folks staying longer would in turn slow promotions and drive other good people out of the service.

There is absolutely no goodness in this proposal!  I am sick to death of “better deals for the taxpayers” that are balanced on the backs of our soldiers!  How about this good deal for the taxpayers: they did not have to learn German or Russian and they have not had to deal with a Middle East completely controlled by Saddam Hussein with oil prices that would have made today's prices look cheap.  They live in the freest country on the face of God's Green Earth, and sleep in peace and safety every night.

LEE TAYLOR
Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
Via e-mail

It never ceases to amaze me how the Pentagon finds these retired admirals and generals who once fought for military pay and benefits to become highly compensated lackeys.  Shame on them all!

I'd like to see a retired enlisted senior noncommissioned officer or two appointed to these boards.

I was fighting mad in 1996 when TRICARE was first introduced shortly before my own retirement.  Having to contribute anything as a military retiree for a promised and earned benefit still makes my blood boil.  And I knew what would be set in motion.

Your reporting on these matters is much appreciated.

RON SLIGA
Chief Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Gautier, Miss.

Would service members who opted to fall under this alternative retirement plan, and their eligible dependents, still receive all current benefits such as exchange and base privileges, as well as health and dental coverage?

If so, where do I sign up?

COLEMAN
Hospital Corpsman Second

No.  Though the plan is designed to vest participants in future retirement benefits after 10 years of service, they would need to serve 20 years to qualify for any health care benefits. – Tom Philpott

The Department of Defense can make all the studies it wants and come up with savings to the government, the same government I served in Vietnam and the Gulf War.  But the sentiment from me and all other retirees I have spoken with is to leave the system as is.

What better way to enhance retention and enlistments than to offer a solid base for retirement and medical care, two of the prime issues even younger soldiers look at and consider when enlisting and extending their time in service.  These benefits thus provide “continuity” of experienced soldiers and solidify our forces.

There is much opposition to both these proposals to change retirement and health care fees.  All the services will receive a backlash of complaints, resentment and separations if these changes move forward.  Please leave things as they are for God, country and our serving military personnel

TIMOTHY W. TOLER
Lieutenant Colonel
Via e-mail

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.