Live Q&As

I couldn't agree with you more.  Congress passed some cuts to 20-year retirement in the mid-80s that were much less severe than those being proposed now, and those had to be repealed in the lat 90s because they were hurting retention and readiness -- in peacetime!  Delaying eligibility for full retired pay until age 57 while providing a new vesting option to people who leave would have far more serious effects.  Taking money from people who stay while paying more to people who leave.  What a concept!  If we'd had this system in place for the past decade of war, we wouldn't have enough people left to deploy.

I haven't seen any specifics on that, but I think we have to take leaders literally when they say "Everything is on the table."  I don't think leaders want to cut housing allowances, but if pressed to come up with options, they could consider things like changing the allowance standard to cover 90 percent of median housing costs rather than 100% of the median.  There are any number of options that could be available if pressed.

If it were that easy, it would already have been done.  Every SecDef has proposed whacking this program or that.  Almost every time, there's a contractor with a vested interest who manages to get the ear of key legislators for whom that contract means jobs in their states and districts.  

I don't think we can assume any program will be wholly exempt from budget risks.  This is one I'm sure most leaders would prefer to protect.  But there's a great temptation to shave something everywhere.

It's a choice....but it's a choice made based on certain promises.  If you change the promises, fewer people are likely to make the choice.  And then it becomes a matter of how important it is to America to sustain a top-quality career force capable of meeting national defense needs.  Most police and firefighters have 20-year retirement plans too, but they get to go home to their families at night, get to stay in the same community for their career, and don't have to be separated from their family to spend every second or third year in vacation spots like Iraq and Afghanistan...or lose spousal income and mess up kids' schooling by relocating around the country or the world every few years.  Tough to civilianize the compensation system when you can't civilianize the conditions of military service.

I don't think anyone wants to see that happen.  But anyone who guarantees it won't is speaking beyond their capability.  We're only at the very start of this budget-cutting process, with several rounds to come over the next several years.  The country's leaders will face a lot of ugly choices.  Even at this early stage, there was one proposal to grandfather only people with 15 or more years, and another recently briefed to the defense business board would have switched the current force to the new system as of a specific date, grandfathering only whatever service was already rendered.  No specifics on how that actually would work.  But if serioius people are already talking about such options, it's hard to see how anyone can say they absolutely won't happen at any time in the future, when the budget crunch will get much tighter.

Assume you mean the chained CPI, which would reduce the CPI (and COLAs) by about .27% a year.  I think almost everyone in a leadership position sees that as a very strong possibility.  MOAA doesn't like the idea, but when you look at the array of likely changes that may be on the table eventually, that may actually prove to be one of the less painful ones.

See my answer to the previous similar question.  There have been multiple grandfathering concepts of varying types.  We certainly think that will be essential.  But we're also concerned about the future force and future readiness.  Grandfathering the future force may be an excuse to do dumb things that affect future troops, and from a retention and readiness standpoint, that's equally bad for the country.  It just kicks the problem 10 years downstream for current leaders' successors to solve.

Absolutely.  People don't appreciate that basic pay is only a fraction of currently serving members' pay.  And the fraction is significantly smaller for enlisted personnel, because housing and susistence allowances make up a larger share of their pay.  Not only that, but today's force is on a high-three-year average system, which cuts their retired pay value by another 8 percent or so.

I sure understand the frequency and importance of this question.  Hope my previous answer addressed it.

They're certainly not off limits.  Last year's deficit commission expressly proposed ending the commissary subsidy and closing DoD-run dependent schools in the US.  Those issues have come up regularly for the past 20-30 years, and they're going to keep coming up.  In this budget environment, they're at greater risk than ever, in my view.

Yes, as I addressed in the previous question.  In fact, lots of DoD-run schools already have been closed.  Those that remain are there for a reason...as you state.  But reason doesn't always prevail in times of extraordinarily tight budgets when the big oxen are trying to avoid getting gored too badly.

MOAA has never said military health care copays should stay the same forever.  We only want recognition that career military people pay very large up-front premiums of service and sacrifice over the course of several decades, and that in-kind premium can't be ignored in comparing what military and civilians pay for their care.  After all, anyone who wants that "great military health care deal" can get it -- if they can meet the entrance standards and are willing to pay the required advance premium for the next two or three decades.  Our view is that the percentage increase in military copays in any year should be capped at the percentage increase in their retired pay.  We think that would be fair recognition for the premium they've already paid in service and sacrifice.

We think it would be devastating to retention and readiness over the long term.  the proposed deal would be great for senior generals and admirals who could serve until age 57 or longer.  It would be a much better deal for people who leave early and would have access to a vested retirement benefit.  But it would be a huge reduction in retirement and retention value for the vast majority of the career force who are required to leave service between age 38 and 52.  "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."  History shows that currently serving people are very astute about looking downstream and appreciating the risks they can expect.  MOAA believes strongly that there has to be a reciprocal commitment between servicemembers and their service.  If we're going to put no limits on the amount of sacrifice we demand from them (the last 10 years being a perfect example), it's pretty tough to argue that we ought to just treat them like any civilian on the compensation and retirement side.  That's a pretty raw way to treat those who have borne 100% of the nation's wartime sacrifice.

Great question!!

1:  Get involved.  Use MOAA's web site to send your elected officials a MOAA-suggested message

#2:  Stay involved and informed.  Sign up for MOAA's weekly legislative update by emailing msc@moaa.org.  We can't keep you posted and alert you when action is needed if we don't know who you are.

#3:  If you're an officer, join MOAA.  For others, join MOAA's affiliate, Voices for America's Troops.  

We're doing our best to be the most effective dog in this fight....but the fight is going to be huge, and we'll need to be the biggest dog we can be.

Exactly.   I constantly tell people that compensation isn't what you're paid.  It's what you're paid divided by what's required of you to earn it.   If we pay you 20% more and double your workload, that's not a pay (or benefit) raise.   If you dramatically cut the military compensation package, you'll find dramatically fewer people willing to sign up for a career in uniform.

Actually, active duty dependents who use TRICARE Standard do pay a 20% copay.