Hagel: Military compensation changes coming

Marine Corps Times — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:40:46 -0500

From: Marine Corps Times

Big changes are probably coming soon to military pay and benefits, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told troops Wednesday.

That has been the drumbeat for months, and Hagel said he expects it to come to a head as a top political issue in the next few weeks when a commission impaneled by Congress releases the results of a massive two-year study.

"I think this will be as big an issue ... over the next year as there is, and it should be, because when you are talking about that entire compensation package for all of you and your families, I mean that is key," Hagel told several hundred sailors during a visit aboard the amphibious assault ship America, just off the coast of San Diego.

"I think this year will be the beginning with those commission recommendations of where we start moving forward on making some of these calls," Hagel said after a sailor asked him directly about the future of military retirement.

Hagel was referring to the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, which Congress created in 2013 to study potential changes to military pay and benefits and make detailed recommendations for Capitol Hill to consider.

The commission's report is complete and will be released publicly by Feb. 1. It is likely to recommend significant changes to the 20-year cliff-vesting retirement pension that the military has offered for generations. Additional proposed changes to other aspects of military compensation also may be coming.

Hagel stressed the importance of grandfathering today's service members under the existing retirement system, which has been a key tenet of the commission's study: Only future troops would be forced to accept a new retirement system.

"This country cannot afford you all, each of you, being worried about your future retirement, your future benefits, your future pay," Hagel said. "We want you focused on your job."

Hagel is making a three-day trip across the country to speak directly with soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. After announcing his resignation in December, he is expected to leave office in February and said he wanted to make some final visits to thank the troops for their service.

Military compensation has became a high-profile target for cuts since Pentagon budgets stopped their steady wartime rise in 2010. These days, the overall defense budget is essentially flat, and the top brass says if per-troop personnel costs continue to grow, that could crowd out funding for weapons modernization and high-tech research.

"We cannot sustain the current trajectory that we are on with the current system we have," Hagel said. "We have opportunity here to make some shifts, some reforms, early on over a period of time, which assures that no one gets hurt on this. And the longer we defer it and not make these decisions on how do we come to grips with these realities, the more difficult it's going to be and in particular the more costly it's going to be, I think, for the men and women in uniform.

"We've got to address this. And we have to be honest about it. And we have to deal with it," Hagel said.

Scaling back troops' pay and benefits will be a careful balancing act, he said, because the military will need to offer a compensation package that is generous enough to continue to draw an educated and high-quality force.

"In the end, as advanced as our technologies are, as good as they will become, even better, without quality people, it won't matter. ... We are going to continue to keep and must prioritize a cycle of bringing good people, the best people, into this business."

He said the military health care system is also under review, with Pentagon officials asking many fundamental — and, Hagel added, "appropriate" — questions about its future as well.

"Should we have the system we have now? ... How better can we serve the men and women and the families who serve this country? Is there a cheaper way? A smarter way?" he said.

"We are reviewing everything. We are looking at everything. ... It's appropriate to review it right now when we are looking at all the components of your total compensation package."

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/benefits/2015/01/15/hagel-compensation-change/21782607/

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 9:45 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:45:16 -0500

Glad they are not forcing the new retirement plan on current service members. Just hope it does not push the next generation of service members away.. I am very interested in seeing how the military has "fixed" their compensation plan.

Response by CPO John Sheuring made Jan 16 at 2015 10:13 AM

CPO John Sheuring — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:13:42 -0500

Interesting, I was unaware that the military brass was looking at "fixing" the retirement benefits for military personnel. I hope this does not affect my retirement and my disability but as I have learned over the last 4 years, just when you "think" you know and understand, the rules change. One of the primary benefits for military service which differs from other companies and organization is that if you put 20 years in, you get a retirement which allows you to move on to a civilian career. This has been a goal for many people to reach, like myself, and have the chance of a good retirement when the body decides to start falling apart and you want to enjoy the rest of your life.

What parts are they wanting to fix? So is the military now being decided from a numbers point of view instead of a person? Because of the "cutbacks", which I find that word interesting because it seems that it is the military person who takes it on the chin, what "new, cheaper, smarter" way do they purpose to "help" the military retirement. I of the mind like 1LT Aaron Wolf, what will this entail with the new recruits and military personnel?

This is new measure is something that we will all have to watch closely and pray they do not cutback our benefits.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 10:26 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:26:22 -0500

Last I checked (2012ish) the budget for retirement and medical care for the DoD was $51B. That is a lot of money and a very easy target to cut because after all we are only 1% of the population so even if all of us together try to get through to our representatives we are still only a small part of the population. A chunk of that $51B could go towards a lot of other programs.

For those that don't know your tri-care benefits are also on the chopping block, expect to see co-pays and the like soon. Retirement is just one piece of the puzzle.

I will use this opportunity to beat a drum, if you are not part of a professional organization like the Air Force Sergeant's Association (AFSA), then you need to be if you would like to keep your benefits. AFSA for instance has 4 lobbyist that do nothing but work to keep and enhance our benefits. The most recent big win was getting Tuition Assistance turned back on. Starting this year AFSA is offering a 5 year cyber membership for $25, that is a lot of protection for not much money.

http://www.hqafsa.org/

Air Force Sergeants Association

Home of Air Force Sergeants Association

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 10:48 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:48:11 -0500

I would say, Brace yourselves, retirees ... I'm afraid TRICARE is about to sky-rocket.

I'm glad to hear the SECDEF say that these changes will be grandfathered for active duty personnel. That seems only fair.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Jan 16 at 2015 10:58 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:58:10 -0500

I saw this a bit back:

http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/military/2014/12/22/budget-experts-move-tricare-beneficiaries-to-obamacare/20751265/

Hope this does not happen. We earn our benefits, arguably, harder than anyone else in this country. If they change this to screw over the military more (remember Vietnam?) then I am sure we will be lacking for a military.

Budget experts: Move Tricare beneficiaries to Obamacare

A group of congressional budget experts suggested the Pentagon trim its health budget by outsourcing beneficiary care

Response by CPT David Bernheim made Jan 16 at 2015 11:30 AM

CPT David Bernheim — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:30:30 -0500

"Should we have the system we have now? ... How better can we serve the men and women and the families who serve this country? Is there a cheaper way? A smarter way?"

Point well-taken. We must ratchet pressure on Congress to review and revise their own "total compensation package".

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 16 at 2015 12:11 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:11:23 -0500

This ought to solve those pesky draw-down/excessive retention problems we've been having.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 12:40 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:40:15 -0500

I wonder if Hagel is going to need surgery on his back?????

Response by PO2 Lester Sullivan made Jan 16 at 2015 2:20 PM

PO2 Lester Sullivan — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:20:32 -0500

Gov is playing 1 BIG Ponzy scheme:(

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Jan 16 at 2015 2:28 PM

CW5 Jim Steddum — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:28:57 -0500

Will it happen in the next two years? Maybe there will be an new national perspective come November 2016.

I find it interesting that Hagel himself is a Vietnam Veteran with a few years of experience... bot a whole lot more business, lobby, and political experience.

I agree we need reform, but not to this end. We could save several billion with acquisitions reform and campaign finance reforms and even applying the same ethics rules the military has to the rest of the government (ie Congress).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KuXqjuZYSU

Clark Kent Ervin Part 4: Wartime Contracting Fraud

Clark Kent Ervin discusses his work on the Wartime Contracting Commission, which identified up to $60 billion in wasted funds, and the impact this had on the...

Response by SSG Keith Brewer Sr made Jan 16 at 2015 6:54 PM

SSG Keith Brewer Sr — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:54:09 -0500

That is the biggest bunch of political bullshit ive heard since the last time I saw Obama on TV. In other words. Chuck has drank too much from the punch bowl and wants to erode benefits we signed up for when we raised our right hand and swore an oath... the oath only counts for us and not the administrators of the military. This is just another political speech to shepherd him out to his lifetime benefits that wont be touched. Seems he forgot that at one time he was a veteran and soldier... I admire his service and being wounded but I don't admire anything he has done as the SECDEF. Politics is an evil lover that needs to be removed from consideration when thinking of the Vets current and past and most importantly for the future. Im to old and plus im disabled from my wartime service to go through training again and the younger generation is not gonna stand up for a government they don't trust and put it on the line to ensure freedom when all they hear is pure BS coming from the men and women at the top of the food chain.

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Jan 16 at 2015 8:22 PM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:22:51 -0500

The government shouldn't change the compensation system; it should be a champion rather an adversary of the military. DOD took a huge budget already. If we rise and fall together, ok. Other agencies turn. Let's reduce the number of 3-letter agencies. Here's a list of some I googled: (There's a lot more)
CIA - Central Intelligence Agency
DEA - Drug Enforcement Agency
DHS - Department of Homeland Security
DIA - Defense Intelligence Agency
DOD - Department of Defense
DOE - Department of Energy (yes, them too)
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
INR - Bureau of Intelligence and Research
ISR - Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency
NRO - National Reconnaissance Office
NGA - National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NSA - National Security Agency
ONI - Office of Naval Intelligence
TFI - Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

I'm a supporter of the Intelligence community, but I'm not convinced we need eight separate intelligence agencies. We can consolidate and reduce expenses. Put that money in the pot
It's an example to point toward a large redundancy issue in gov't. We need consolidate before we sacrifice service member's compensation. We don't need to slide back. Already, the armed forces get 1% increases while inflation rise 3-5% every year

Response by CW3 Eddy Vleugels made Jan 16 at 2015 9:46 PM

CW3 Eddy Vleugels — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:46:50 -0500

I do believe that changes are coming, and they are necessary, especially in the way that we are compensating and calculating retirement for our military; in Europe, many of the military departments are also taking a look at the same issues. Retirement ages are being raised in many countries, up to 55 years of age or 35 years in service. Pensions are adjusted accordingly. The Europeans have also adjusted their way of letting someone be a Corporal or Sergeant, or LT or CPT for an entire career, if that is what the individual is happy with. Maybe that is something we ought to take a look at.

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Jan 16 at 2015 9:56 PM

1SG Michael Minton — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:56:21 -0500

as little as the military gets paid for their sacrifices and putting life on the line for this country, they should be getting a raise instead of cuts. if they want to review something for cuts in pay and retirement, they need to look at government workers. they have guaranteed jobs (military does not), that get paid alot better then the military, they get work bonuses, health care, etc. and the government is so large it needs to be cut down, the military is being cut back to prior to WWII. this commision was done while democrats controlled the senate and president. we know they have no problem gutting the military and distain for the soldiers. anything need cut, first stop is the military, not the billions they waste, not the billions they give away on social programs. they come for the people that has already sacrificed more then they will ever know in their lifetime. hagel is disgusting and glad his ass is gone, he was nothing but a yes man and has done so much damage to thee military.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 12:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 00:51:42 -0500

They could come up with an automatic raise in base pay and most of the conversation would end. Let's say 2.5 percent every year

Response by PO1 Gary Michalosky made Jan 17 at 2015 3:29 AM

PO1 Gary Michalosky — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 03:29:54 -0500

Unlike Military Contractors, Service Members as a whole do not pad the pockets of our elected officials with kickbacks and is why they are not whom are looked at when it comes to proposed "cuts". Congress and DoD need to eliminate the many over-budgeted contractors being used to outsource the jobs our Servicemembers once did as a way of keeping a level of active duty on hand. As well, work on the things like what Congress has done with factories who continue to produce military equipment that is surplus, just to keep a Congressperson's pockets padded in his given district.

The Soldier and Salior needs to be considered last everytime when it comes to cuts and it's the high priced contractors that need to be cut first!

Response by CSM David Heidke made Jan 17 at 2015 9:20 AM

CSM David Heidke — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 09:20:49 -0500

He says it all with his first six words.

Response by CPT Sarah Persinger made Jan 17 at 2015 10:46 AM

CPT Sarah Persinger — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:46:37 -0500

They need to fix the VA Comp/disability system. Its breaking us! There are truly people who need and deserve it - and then there are people who absolutely do not. We are paying billions to those who can still work and make their own money.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 12:11 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:11:20 -0500

Hate to say it but it's a supply curve. The higher the price (salary) the bigger the quantity (# of service members). To reduce the number of people and you reduce the price. That should have been the strategy from the get go. No need for random fm programs. The price will drive the supply. Pentagon needs economists giving input.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 12:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:22:52 -0500

"This country cannot afford you all, each of you, being worried about your future retirement, your future benefits, your future pay," Hagel said. "We want you focused on your job."

So we have the Feds saying that we should all be responsible for our own retirement planning and we have this guy saying we cannot afford to be thinking and planning and worried about our future. We should only be focused on today on our job right now.

This sounds like another plan to take control away from people and give it to the gov'mnt.

Response by 1SG David Niles made Jan 17 at 2015 12:57 PM

1SG David Niles — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:57:01 -0500

Since I am a grey area retiree, would this affect me, will my retirement change because I am not currently drawing a retirement? will be interesting to see what actual changes they make.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Jan 17 at 2015 4:22 PM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:22:24 -0500

I'm retired but I remember distinctly signing a contract on what my retirement pay will be, that I would get my cost of living adjustments every year & that I would be covered for my health for the rest of my life. Sounds like now the US govt is backing out on honoring this contract. With all the severance pay RIF'ed officers are supposed to get, so many generals with nobody to command, & military spending going to more tanks we don't need, planes that don't fly, & ships that aren't combat ready, the Pentagon shouldn't be punishing us for their mismanagement. I am really fed up on how poorly the military & it's veterans are being treated. It seems the only people who matter to those in DC are those in DC.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Jun 11 at 2015 10:49 AM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:49:31 -0400

"This country cannot afford you all, each of you, being worried about your future retirement, your future benefits, your future pay," I wonder if he read these words after he spoke them...

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 11:05 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:05:29 -0400

OF course, the biggest pirates and pilagers of our tax dollars go untouched and the US Military pays for it... AGAIN. Hmm. I seem to remember I made a deal with Uncle Sam and he (in turn) made a deal with me. Our politicians have been altering Uncle Sam's side of deal since 1993. I can almost see me telling my kides to stay the hell away from military service and do something that would mean more benefits and ability to have a family.

This really sucks!!! Chuck is a dirty politician and comes from the same stock as the rest of them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 1:04 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:04:44 -0400

If it's been said before, I'm sorry to repeat, but sometimes I miss posts on RallyPoint. But I think the major reason behind it is similar to something SMSgt Peeterse said in regards to retirees. As a whole, Active Duty + Guard + Reserve + Retirees, we are still a VERY small percentage of the population. So, if they take things from us, it's two-fold: 1. We're such a small voting population that the government cares less about our wishes, and 2. The vast majority of the population will not notice (or care) when we start to get hit because, after all, nothing bad is happening to them, so it looks like the government did something big and nothing bad happened to them. It's a perfect win-win for the government, and it's been happening since the end of the American Revolution.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 3:41 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:41:23 -0400

While it is disappointing to see politicians fail us in general, we could shift fire and deeply consider how we are spending the money that we do have. Waste is crippling us on several planes. We waste money training and paying salary to too many service members who do not, will not, or cannot meet the prescribed standards. On another level, some units are struggling to get basic supplies, while others (are sometimes required) to purchase equipment that goes unused. The funding issues are multi-faceted, but it'll take much more than one fiscal year, and one Appropriations Bill to fix the problems that we are facing today.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jun 11 at 2015 5:32 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:32:17 -0400

Well I see it like this. They powder our asses and want us to go into the service of the country, Serve and use up our bodies in the service of the country and even DIE if necessary . Yet the Fat cats sit back on their ass and want to cut here, cut there and hell they don't need this or that. Yet they vote themselves raises and vote themselves outta the Obumer medical plan.
They will screw us and anything else they can to save their buts!

Response by MAJ Danny Clark made Jun 11 at 2015 11:14 PM

MAJ Danny Clark — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:14:59 -0400

We need to look past the politics and see reality. For FY 2015, personnel costs are $130 billion out of the $495 billion Defense budget. That's 26 percent of the overall budget. Total procurement (all classes all services) is budgeted at appproximately $109 billion, or 22 percent of the overall budget. Operations and Maintenance is about $230 billion, or 46 percent of the total budget. So, in these three categories we have accounted for about 94 percent of the overall budget.

Pop quiz time. Next year I'm going to give you less money, keep your troop size the same, and keep the optempo the same. I'm also going to push hard to have my favorite R&D or procurement of my pet weapons projects increased. How would you write the budget?