Critics say 40 years of pension for 20 years of work is overly generous, but retirees say they deserve it for doing risky jobs that are tough on them and their families and that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't volunteer for.
A Navy Chief Petty Officer who earned $80,000 a year, is married and served for 20 years can immediately get a pension of about $2,200 monthly that would grow with cost-of-living increases. He or she can get free health care at military facilities on a space-available basis and can continue using commissaries — the latter two benefits being a reason some retirees like to live near military installations, officials say. Those who enroll in TRICARE insurance for private sector care can pick between two plans, paying only $274 annually for an individual or $548 for the family for the standard plan, far below civilian insurance costs.
There are nearly 2 million retirees currently getting military pensions at an annual cost to the Defense Department of $4.5 billion. Of those, 840,000 are under 62 — and more than 80 percent of those were enlisted, as opposed to higher-paid officers.
The retirement system hasn't been changed materially in more than 100 years and was designed when people didn't live as long, second careers were rare and military pay was low. Many people now have second careers after retiring, collecting the pension as well as income from their new jobs — and in their 60s are also getting Social Security payments, to which they contributed while in the military.
The change provoking outrage among military and veteran groups this week would reduce retirement benefits for working-age retirees. Starting Dec. 1, 2015, cost-of-living adjustments for pensions of people under 62 would be modified to equal inflation minus 1 percent; then at 62, retirees would receive a "catch-up" increase that would restore their pensions to reflect levels as if the cost-of-living adjustment had been the full consumer price index in all previous years.
But they wouldn't get back what was lost, meaning a reduction of nearly $72,000 in benefits over a lifetime for a sergeant first class who retires at age 42, by one group's estimate. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said a veteran of identical rank who retired at 38 would still wind up with $1.62 million in retirement pay over a lifetime.
But officials have said repeatedly in recent years that changes in the system would not affect current military members or retirees. Rather, they would be applied to future recruits.
"Keep your promise" was the theme of a lobbying effort by the Military Officers Association of America.
American Legion National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger said the group was "horrified" that the Senate could pass a bill "so unfair to those Americans who have served honorably in uniform."
The Veterans of Foreign Wars predicted the change would prompt an exodus of those at midcareer once the U.S. economy rebounds, and that it will hurt efforts to recruit new people into the all-volunteer force.
CHANGE IS COMING, BUT WHAT CHANGE?
By passing the pension cut now, lawmakers jumped the gun on a review panel broadly studying modernization.
The nine-member Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission was mandated in the last budget year to study the full breadth of issues including regular military pay, health care, the promotion system, retirement pay and family support programs. "Everything is on the table," Christensen said.
In an era of tight budgets, personnel costs now make up nearly half of the Pentagon's funding, and officials fear continued growth will force disproportionate cuts in other areas, such as training and equipment. Health costs alone have skyrocketed nearly 200 percent since the year 2000 and will balloon further in coming years without changes, officials say.
"Modernization is a certainty," said James Hosek, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation and expert on defense manpower.
Retirees argue that cutting troop benefits is the last thing that should be done — and some suggest efforts to curb personnel costs should first target what they see as bloated civilian staffs as well as redundant uniformed bureaucracy in which each service branch has its own medical command, cyberassets, intelligence assets and uniforms — just to mention a few complaints.
Ideas already floated for compensation changes include earlier vesting in pensions; giving troops a lump sum on departure rather than long-term pensions; slightly increasing health care premiums; and replacing pensions with a 401(k)-type saving plan, which would be offered, not forced on current members and retirees. Some analysts say modernization will inevitably mean less generous benefits for military members, but others hope that may not be the case if creative efficiencies can be found.
The challenge for the commission is to reform programs so they're more affordable and sustainable and yet offer benefits attractive enough to keep drawing people to volunteer for the nation's armed forces.
The panel is scheduled to make recommendations to Congress and the president in May.
- Debate Takeaways: Rubio shaken, Trump not...
- Charity parodies — videos tell another...
- Rubio faces barrage of attacks in Republican...
- Rescuers in Taiwan pull out survivors from...
- 5 things to know about the Super Bowl and sex...
- N. Korea praises launch, others see as covert...
- Over 100 missing, 14 dead as strong quake...
- Pope's sex abuse panel tells survivor to take...
- US adds just 151k jobs in January; 4.9... 29
- Donald Trump calls for Iowa election... 14
- Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul quits 2016 GOP... 12
- Once a bromance, now a brawl: Trump and... 10
- 5 things to know about the Super Bowl... 9
- In a U.S. divided on gun control,... 8
- Clinton's New Hampshire challenge:... 6
- Clinton seeks to cut into Sanders' New... 6