One of the reasons I enjoyed being stationed in Okinawa is that living on the little island made me feel remote from the problems of the States – it was like we had the benefits of being an American but didn’t have the daily intrusion of crime stats, actresses being jailed, famines, plagues, locusts (well, you know what I mean). Living in the states though, I woke up to this blaring headline today:
“Pentagon braces for much deeper military spending cuts as part of debt deal,” and, word that there’s a “a plan that would shrink the Pentagon’s planned budgets by $1 trillion over the next decade.”
Now, I do concede that there are areas than can be cut (combine the medical services, PCS members after 4 or 5 years, charge O-6 and above fees for their preferential parking, etc.).
And I know that a lot of the politician’s talk is just bumper sticker phrasing – goodness knows that politicians wouldn’t want to offer substantive ideas that they might be held accountable for.
But whenever the issue of cutting defense is brought up, I become concerned about the frequency and ease that specific cuts are directed toward active duty members and their families. As Robert Kagan says: “defense has no domestic constituency.” (It is a relief to know that there is a corporate constituency that legislators will listen to and avoid cutting any military related pork that might harm their reelection funds.)
I may know one reason for my concern: these proposed cuts are usually suggested by groups whose names include important sounding terms like Initiative, Foundation, Institute, Business Board, and Committee for something. And these groups seem to be staffed by budget wonks, Congressional 20-something staffers, senior “fellows” (do their business cards actual read “fellow” as their job title?) and other bureaucrats – all nice people I’m sure, with nice degrees who get nice press coverage, but with probably little or no military time PCSing, TDYing, or deploying.
Thus, cuts to retirement plans, housing, schooling, medical, etc. get tossed around pretty easily without a handle on the impact to the people serving (such as described in this article, “Daddy, Why Is My School Falling Down?”) or the impact on retention and recruitment.
One proposed area of change consistently mentioned is the retirement system and making it mirror the plans of non-military careers. This idea always intrigues me. The military is a workplace that is different than the typical job (on call anytime to deploy down range or for humanitarian reasons, ongoing physical fitness requirements, advanced degree requirements, get promoted or get out, move every 2 or 3 years, etc.). Thus, this type of job requires a retirement plan that is different from the standard workplace in that it is more rewarding, as well as attractive enough to get people to sign on to these conditions. Maybe I’m naïve but if the military changes to a standard retirement plan like non-military jobs, it’s going to be tough to attract people as well as retain the good people.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what specifics come about from negotiations between Congress and the President. But, thankfully, there is a voice for military members that will be involved speaking up for and delivering information to the military member and his or her family – an organization I like to call MOAA.
And, it even has staff who are non-military, wonks, Generals, Admirals, etc. who work hard to listen to and understand the concerns of military members and their families – and are all nice people! (I don’t know if we have any “fellows” though).