1. I am a Marine, I have a problem. This is the first step to recovery...

2. Speech:
-Time should never begin with a zero or end in a hundred, it is not 0530 or 1400 it is 5:30 in the morning (AKA God-awful early).
-Words like deck, rack, and "PT" will get you weird looks; floor, bed, work out, get used to it.
-"F *ck" cannot be used to replace whatever word you can't think of right now, try "um".
-Grunting is not talking.
-It's a phone, not a radio, conversations on a phone do not end in "out"
-People will not know what you are talking about if you tell them you are coming from Camp Lejeune with the MWSS platoon or that you spent a deployment in the OCAC

3. Style:
-Do not put creases in your jeans.
-Do not put creases on the front of your dress shirts.
-A horseshoe cut looks dumb, not motivating.
-A high and tight looks really dumb.
-So does a low reg, but not as bad.
-A hat indoors does not make you a bad person, it makes you like the rest
of the world.
-you do not have to wear a belt ALL the time.

4. Women:
-Air Force girls are easy, very easy, not all women are this easy and will probably punch you in the nuts if you treat them like Air Force girls.
-Being divorced twice by the time you are 23 is not normal, neither are 6 month marriages, even if it is your first.
-Marrying a girl so that you can move out of the barracks does not make "financial sense", it makes you a retard.

5. Personal accomplishments:
-In the real world, being able to do pushups will not make you good at your job.
-Most people will be slightly disturbed by you if you tell them about people you have killed or seen die.
-How much pain you can take is not a personal accomplishment.
-The time you got really drunk and passed the sobriety test anyway is also not a personal accomplishment.

6. Drinking:
-In the real world, being drunk before 5pm will get you an intervention,
not a "good for you"
-That time you drank a 5th of Jaeger and pissed in your closet is not a
conversation starter.
-That time you went to the combat medic school and practiced giving vodka iv's will also not be a good conversation starter and should not be used on a resume

6. Bodily functions:
-Farting on your co-workers and then giggling while you run away may be viewed as "unprofessional".
-The size of the dump you took yesterday will not be funny no matter how big it was, how much it burned, or how much it smelled.
-You can't make fun of someone for being sick, no matter how funny it is
-VD will also not be funny

7. The human body:
-Most people will not want to hear about your balls. Odd as that may seem, it's true.

8. Spending habits:
-One day, you will have to pay bills
-Buying a $30,000 car on a $16,000 a year salary is a really bad idea.
-Spending money on video games instead of on diapers makes you a fool.
-One day you will need health insurance

9. Interacting with civilians (AKA YOU):
-Making fun of your neighbor to his face for being fat is not normal.

10. Real jobs:
-They really can fire you.
-On the flip side you really can quit.
-Screaming at the people that work for you will not be normal, remember they really can quit too.
-Taking naps at work will not be acceptable.
-Remember 9-5 not 0530 to 1800

11. The Law:
-Non-judicial punishment does not exist and will not save you from prison.
-Your workplace unlike your command can't save you and probably won't, in fact most likely you will fired about 5 minutes after they find out you've been arrested
-Even McDonalds does background checks, and "conviction" isn't going to help you get the job
-Fighting is not a normal thing and will get you really arrested, not yelled at Monday morning before they ask you if you won.

12. General knowledge:
-You can in fact really say what you think about the President in public.
-Pain is not weakness leaving the body, it's just pain.
-They won't wear anything shiny that tells you they are more important then you are, be polite.
-Read the contracts before you sign them, remember what happened the first time.

The DBB acknowledges in passing that the high-risk nature of military service is an "important factor" in the current 20-year retirement plan being more generous than the private sector, but then proceeds on with their analysis that compares the two side-by-side, like they don't understand what their own words mean.

The military retirement plan doesn't compare well to private sector plans because the demands of a 20-year military career aren't in the same league as the private sector--even for the specialties the DBB dismisses as "low risk." No need to list them all here, because the readers of this blog are quite familiar with them, but it should be obvious that a person who works for 20 years in the HR department of a bank, say, has a much different experience than a soldier who serves 20 years as a personnel clerk/tech. And the differences just get more severe as you move up the risk spectrum of military jobs.

I get that the DoD budget needs to shrink to be sustainable. The retirement system probably could use some reform and modernization. But using the private sector as a starting point is a flawed method, in my opinion.

Also, any significant restructuring should be substantially "grandfathered" for those who signed up long ago with the promise of the current system on the horizon. Pulling that out from under them would be a pretty big break in trust.

Last point: if the (a?) idea of this change is to keep people from jumping ship at 20 years, doesn't that necessitate an accompanying restructuring of the "up or out" promotion system? Did DBB even mention that at all?

The right question isn't to compare to business pensions. That's relevant information, but not ultimately the right question.

The real question is: is the current retirement system the most efficient way to use our money to get the recruitment and retention we need? If going to 'business style' pensions means we lose a huge share of the talent pool, then it's really not relevant that military pensions are more generous. NFL quarterbacks get all sorts of benefits better than typical business employees, too.

The other side of that coin is that if you can recruit and retain the force you want while slashing retirement benefits to the bone, fine, let's do that -- the objective is to get the human capital we need in the most efficient way for the nation is a whole, period.

My own read is that the answer is almost certainly no, that we don't need to spend as much as we do today on benefits. All the data I've seen, and there are lots of studies out of RAND and other credible institutions, show that the super-expensive, back-loaded benefits we offer today are far from optimal. You get way, way more leverage from cash up front to new enlistees / new officers than you do from TRICARE For Life or from 20 year pension levels. Moreover, have a pension system that more gradual vs nearly all-or-nothing with the 20 year cliff, would give you a lot more flexibility -- fewer incentives for less talanted time-servers to stick around after they'd otherwise be inclined to move on, and more incentives to the truly motivated to stick around.

Ideally you'd also be able to vary compensation by MOS or even individual performance levels, but I realize that sort of free-market thinking is way too radical for the military... bastion of collectivism that it is. :)

Any comments Tom on how the brief opens...The AVF is a resounding success?

How many times in 20yrs at a private company have employees deployed to a warzone or a foreign country.
This reason alone is why we deserve what we have now.
Deploy to A'stan or Iraq the people who made this slide and then let them see if we don't deserve our retirement benefits

I am an Active Duty mid-level type. As such, I realize I am biased about this topic.

That said, I also realize the DoD retirement system in not sustainable.

I have been deployed and been to more ramp ceremonies, memorials etc. than I care to count.

I still believe the benefits system needs to be revamped in spite of my experiences.

I respect the opinion of the DBB and why they are doing their analysis. The numbers put forth in the study cannot be sustained in our current fiscal environment...so what is the fix?

Anybody read the recent USA Today article by Congressman Forbes on how we can't trim the DoD in this time of austerity because of all the looming threats and the fact that DoD did not cause the deficit problem?

So if you can't cut the DoD healthcare system...and you can't cut the $700B a year "normal" DoD budget (including OCO) what do you cut? Mandatory pays like Social Security and Medicare? Education? Interior? Energy? Basically everyting in this country miltiary folks are fighting for?

It seems to me very much that DoD needs to be a part of the cutting solution...and it starts with the healthcare and benefits system we are all slated to receive.

That said, I completely understand this is political dynamite. Tell the young 3 or 4 striper with a few tours downrange under his belt that "we're drastically changing the retirement plan on you....." and they'll walk. So will a bunch of mid-level officers with 12-15 years in who realize they arent the fast burners...whats the point of staying in?

More tours downrange for a 401K???

So, the tours downrange has really got me, because any military member can one day be strolling the beach at Manila bay enjoying the 4hr workday, and the next day be on the Baatan death march. Do the guys on the death march get a few more benefits when they retire?

"but I realize that sort of free-market thinking is way too radical for the military... bastion of collectivism that it is. :)"

No I am ready to test bed them side by side. If mil compensation looks like civilians just use civilians to fight the wars. All it takes is the right color ID Card to meet the Law of War requirements to be a "combatant". Mercenaries are a fine tradition in warfare, my sense is that we're going to have to pay our mercs more than we currently do our troopies but the market will let us know.

There is a fair amount of un-discussed suck in just moving around all the time so you can't get rich just by: buying a house, living in it, taking the tax break, and getting rich by living in your house. Another suck is it is getting harder and harder to get employed when you're 40ish-50ish-60ish even if DBB thinks: "military skills are transferable to the private sector" if you're 20-30 years behind your civ peers or you can't get a job at all (maybe I can get on w the DBB?).

This is not all in the box mil or govt thinking, there are market forces at work here (in recruiting/retention), we just don't know where the breaking point will be. My sense is that we will break the force faster by jacking w dependents health care than we will by jacking w SMs retirement.

The Defense Business Board probably would have been better off just looking at Police, Firefighter, FBI retirements etc..... why branch out and look at bank clerks and Crispy Cream retirements? Civilian retirements are going the way of the Dodo, in a few years DBB can come back and determine that: Civilians get NO RETIREMENT or maybe teeny tiny 401K and they can advocate that Cavalry Scouts and EOD also get NO RETIREMENT so we can be more like Crispy Cream. We're supposed to think that constitutes deep thinking? I can name several other differences in job description besides just the retirement.

These analyses never consider the compulsory aspect of military srvice in general.

Yes, we are all volunteers. But an aspect of that initial choice is accepting a high degree of government control over your life (and your family) for the next 20+ years -- to a degree that is not comparable in any other field.

You don't just make an initial choice -- you sacrifice choices for decades to come:

1) Where I want to live
2) Where I want to work, and what job I want
3) Whether I move or not
4) Whether I deploy or not

Yes, there are points in your career where you have the choce to "off ramp". But you also have mandatory service obligations (post PCS, post School) and orders that you can't refuse. You also have the prospect of involuntary recall.

Even the "slouch" that manages to go 20 without deploying may well have moved 10-12 times in that 20 years -- and many of those were not exactly garden spots.

That doesn't even address other personal freedoms you sacrifice.

Yes, of course it is a choice. But if you quit paying Soldiers, don't take care of their families, and reduce their benefits, then you will need to make service compulsory to fill the ranks. Becuase there won't be enough willing to deal with the BS otherwise. And those who are may not be the ones you want.

At least you're not hanging around the house all the time. When I was teaching at CGSC/ILE I remember one of my MAJs telling his wingman: Last night my Wife asked me "when do you go to the field?" His wingman responded: "MY WIFE asked me that two mos ago!"

I think we can nibble compensation and retirement around the edges but need to be careful we don't break the system. There are market forces at work here and we may collectively decide that something is "fair" but it only works if a bunch of 19 year olds are willing to enlist, and a bunch of 26-28 year olds decide it is worth staying around for a career. A bunch of Oldsters or politicians deciding it is fair does not mean it is Feasible.

The quickest way to save lots and lots of money on Everything is to develop a strategy we can carry out w a much smaller force. Just assuming we need a large force serving for a lot less compensation may not be feasible. DoD needs a strategy that does less with less.

Flip to slide 18 and and you'll get a sense of what the grounding assumptions are. Notice the yellow box at the bottom notes that the tweaks listed on that slide will result in a 40% savings to the government in military retirement benefits through FY32, and the bullet above the table flatly declares 40% chopped off the top is not enough.

Next, flip to slide 23 to observe and ponder the implications of the red line. That line estimates about a 20% decline in cost to the government between now and 2050, while the Census Bureau estimates population will grow by 40% over that period. In short, the DBB thinks the costs of the military retirement system should be a flat line forever. I wonder, are they assuming the size of the military should always be shrinking as a percentage of population?

For the historo-philes out there, I know that Hessians weren't mercenaries. Pop military culture has co-opted the term to mean that, though, and I like snappy titles.

I think the salient point of this entire presentation is made on slide four. The rationale driving the whole thing is subtly revealed, but once placed it becomes the thematic anchor for the rest of the exercise. In short, this whole thing is based on a philosophy that has severe implications:

"Let's make a one-to-one comparison between the military and the civilian sector."

I don't have to enumerate the flaws in this ideology for the readers of this blog. However, the one that seems most important to me is one that the writers of the report themselves acknowledged on slide eight-- that it is "unfair" (personal note, "fair" is now apparently in the DoD's dictionary) for veterans of multiple combat tours but with less than 20 years in service to receive no long-term compensation. The authors are discussing the principle in terms of the corporate world-- there's no opportunity for a 401(k) rollover going to the next job. Military members swapping rounds with the enemy and humping heavy packs over mountains have another view. "It's not the years, it's the mileage."

I understand the value of the proposed "solution" in that the less-than-desirable leaders just trying to hang on for retirement would excuse themselves early if they could get a percentage. At the end of the day, it would cut everyone's losses. But therein also lies the hitch in the plan. The incentive to separate from the military early applies to everyone, including stellar performers. That's what makes this plan the next significant step along a downward spiral of ever-more cozy relations with the defense contractor set.

For lack of a better term, what the study's authors failed to recognize in the course of their examination is the "shit factor" of military service. It's impossible to ignore this aspect of the job, and as such it prevents the one-to-one comparison from being convenient enough for this study to be bullet-proof. For the last ten years, military members of any specialty have not been employed in an occupation comparable to a civilian "counterpart." Much lip-service has been paid to "the sacrifices" made of military members, but in many ways, including terms of real-dollar valuation, they've also been taken for granted. To wit-- no Ranger or SEAL will argue that they have a more luxurious lifestyle than the Blackwater guys.

After several years, the trend is well-established. From truck-drivers and UAV mechanics to special operators and food-service providers, you can do better on the outside. If the Pentagon wants to push this pay initiative, it's going to have to broaden its one-to-one comparison and look over its shoulder. DOD is about to enter a free market where competitors like KBR and Xe await.

And, as discussed previously on this blog, they're woefully unprepared. This is one battlefield where the Defense Department will get chewed to pieces.

The US government has already created a behemoth that it possibly can't stop. Forget about Eisenhower, this is the industrial-military complex. KBR goes without saying. Lockheed and Boeing are mainstays to the country's defense, and are not only too big but also too necessary to fail. Last time I read up on them, Xe had their own aviation assets (estimated battalion sized), an engineering element, and a couple thousand shooters, intel analysts and trainers. In addition to being a large company that will have to find ways to maintain cash flow as current conflicts die down, it's also a few Harriers short of a MEF. You also have multiple other contractors providing services that are decidedly "kinetic" in nature. Pandora's box is opened.

This is an extremely dangerous combination as it is, but adding to the witch's brew is the American public's disillusionment with the current wars. The zeal of patriotism is fading and people are watching the green more than the red, white and blue. It should not be underestimated how strong feelings of patriotism and a sense of honorable service have kept many good service members in uniform. Many would say immediately, and genuinely, that they don't do this for the money. However, the proposed actions by the committee go beyond dollars and cents. Service members will look at this as another hedge by the government on their oath and obligations. No troop walks outside the wire without confidence that the man to their right and left will do everything in their power to bring them home. This smacks of the government shouting "we're behind you... way behind you." Any marginally intelligent person would begin to wonder what's next. In fact, the issue at hand already feels like the other shoe dropping to many service members who have witnessed declining support in the last few years. While the report touts on slide four that " Congress has shown consistent support for the military through compensation and benefits," I myself have noticed a decline in TriCare benefits since I first entered service. The belief among service members in some kind of sacred social contract between the military and its government has always been an illusion. However, even the proposition of the ideas in this report cannot fail to cause the scales to fall a little faster from the eyes of many. I doubt many will, as Mr. Ricks friend put it, "grab pitchforks and torches." "Rebelliion" is too big a word for this situation. However, we are gradually approaching a situation in which "union" is not too big a word. Though they may only make up 17% of the force, there are still lots of people who have given 15 years to the military expecting to get their retirement, and have suddenly had the terms and conditions of their employment radically changed without any discussion. If we're going to renegotiate the terms of a contract, then there are lots of people who want to have a seat at the negotiating table.

In my estimation, this new plan will hasten a growing problem in the American defense apparatus. Senior leaders with indispensable skills and experience at the E-6 to E-8 levels will have increased incentive to "take the money and run" early to other opportunities. This will create shortfalls in critical areas, which contractors will only be too happy to fill by providing the same personnel back to the service at much greater expense. The "new hires," in their khakis, polo shirts and goatees, who drink beer in their residence on the FOB and answer to no particular boss, will lure younger service members to follow suit. As manpower sustainment becomes cost-ineffective, the Defense Department will resort to their favorite method of reducing the human footprint on the battlefield-- technology. We have unmanned aerial vehicles, and research is already well underway on ground-based models. It's only a matter of time before a significant amount of our combat capability and almost all of our logistical assets (talking to you, Air Force) become automated. However, there's an ironic trait to these R&D programs-- they turn out to be the giant money pits that cause dilemmas in the defense budget to begin with. I believe there's an article coming out this week about such a debacle with the F-35 in CQ.

In the meantime, we wind up more and more dependent upon contract services for the provision of our national defense. Whatever the direction technological research and ethical policy follow, we now seem intractably committed to a march toward privatizing war. The economic problem is colliding with the strategic one-- America perceives the threat to its national security is so great that a military force sufficient to respond to or deter it outstrips the country's financial capability to maintain it in a standing capacity. There are many ways to economize. We're choosing to privatize things. But we can only privatize so much.

The closest comparison we have at present is the space program. Never again will the federal government fund a major vehicle program. It's all going to be farmed out. NASA will maintain the astronaut training program and the military will most likely supply the staff, but the rockets and equipment will all come from the private sector. The military will ironically follow a mirror-image model. The federal government will have to maintain control of large-scale strategic assets, but for rapid-response human assets will return to models more reminiscent of Italy in the 1400's or Britain in the 1500's-- the recruitment of mercenaries.

I don't want to make nihilistic projections of a dystopian future in which corporate armies dominate the globe, because I don't seriously we're heading toward that. However, the inability to maintain a well-experienced and sizable standing force will have a lasting impact on our foreign policy. The number of total troops may remain the same, but intangibles like experience are harder to measure and will inevitably diminish under this policy. Whether anyone in the government grasps this before any decision is made or afterward should it come to pass will have a huge impact on policy for decades. When it comes time to cross the Pakistani border and kill Bin Laden, who ya gonna call? If we want to go the SOF route, we not only have to maintain those specific units but also a sufficient talent pool from which to recruit them. If we go the contractor route, it's a one-time bill. It would be interesting to see what the comparative price tags would be for keeping a SEAL team around for 20 years to have a federal entity staffed by "volunteer" professionals and simply hiring a group of "contract" professionals to clean up the Pirates of the Somali coast.

Some might argue that wouldn't be an appropriate comparison because of international diplomatic considerations. To them, I'd respond "that's precisely the point."

The basic framework of all this seems to have evolved from a study Rummie had done 5-6 years ago. The whole 10 year vested/payoffs begin at age 59 sort of thing. It's been kicked around for quite awhile, and always with the proviso that AD folks currently in the system would be exempt. Now the new spin appears to be that they want to shift everyone over immediately. As a guy with 19 and 7/12 years of service let's just say I am a little nervous here. No, Congress taking the same deal won't make me any less convinced about taking up a pitchfork if I have to wait 15-20 years to start collecting on my commitment that until an hour ago I thought was looking pretty secure in five months. And that quote about having a second career is laughable in the present economic climate. The Air Force has been told only one our of every two open civilian billets can be filled, contractor positions are pretty well doomed, and I heard yesterday INSCOM is going to cut 7-8% of its civilian personnel across the board. Suddenly that fancy security clearance doesn't look so good on the resume. Federal jobs are drying up and the private sector outside of Ike's military industrial complex isn't doing any better. I suppose if I wanted to go back to MacDonalds and work with my kids flipping burgers there might be a second career coming should I choose to retire in January.

The presentation is right that military compensation is very good. It's better than many people, both civilians (who pity service members' pay) and service members (who complain about their pay), seem to realize. The chart (slide 17) showing that officers place among the top 20% of college graduates is not a surprise. I am certain that I'm doing better as a junior Captain (who had an ROTC scholarship) than the vast majority of my civilian classmates who graduated into the recession (with student loan debt). I imagine that's also true for a Major in his early thirties who earns $100K and is less than 10 years from drawing a pension worth approximately $2 million in today's dollars.

But that is the cost of attracting and retaining some talent... at least while the job continues to involve 12-month rotations to Iraq/Afghanistan every other year, and the organization continues to treat people like numbers instead of human beings, along with all the other usual concerns we discuss here.

Adjusting how benefits work to make things "more fair" sounds great. There is indeed something wrong with the all-or-nothing 20-year system. And I love the idea of receiving money upfront instead of receiving a vague promise of money decades from now. But making benefits "payable at age 60 to 65 (or Social Security age)" (slide 13) sounds like it would amount to a very deep cut in total compensation. No way you can do that without seeing an equally dramatic reduction in the quality of people willing to do the job. We need to remember that, to some degree, you get what you pay for.

You rock. I've always appreciated your input, but this may be the best yet. Thanks for articulating what I wouldn't have been able to do.

Anybody take the time to check out the composition of the "Defense Business Board?" I think this entity would be better named "Defense Contractor Health and Welfare Board." Make no mistake, folks, the deck is stacked here, and it's stacked in favor of those who want to continue to produce overpriced and shoddy weapon systems designed and built to meet "requirements" promulgated by senior uniformed officers who persist in chasing illusory threats. It doesn't help when we consider that virtually every officer who retires with two or more stars is able to walk into a high paying job with a company represented by the "Defense Business Board." This applies to services contracting as well.

The deck is stacked against you slackers who don't make it to the flag ranks. Your favorite general or admiral won't really be affected by this type of radical change to the retirement system. Due to some very interesting changes to the retirement system some time ago, generals get more retirement pay as a percentage than anyone else. This, coupled with the fact that generals typically retire in their late 50s means that the suggested changes won't affect them at all. Particularly not when they're able to step out into a senior job with a company that's making tons of money from their service. And, inasmuch as they're your uniformed representatives (shop stewards?), guess how well Sergeant First Class Jones and Lieutenant Colonel Smith (typical retirement ranks) will make out in trying to fight big business.

I spent 21 years on active duty and have now been retired for more years than that. I'm acutely aware of the issues associated with DoD personnel costs. As a retiree at the company grade level (had a lot of enlisted time), I don't make anywhere near what today's retirees will get, but it's not chicken feed either. A lot of people in my position just wring their hands and say they don't have an answer. Well, I do have some thoughts.

First I accept that personnel costs are unsupportable in the long term; I support DoD efforts to raise the cost share amounts for Tricare. I won't like it, but I know I have to kick in more. But on the larger issue of medical care, well, I was promised it and I expect to get it. And on the subject of health care (and this is something that all service personnel need to realize) attempts by outfits such as this Defense Business Board to equate American military retirement to that of Canada and other Western nations is inherently dishonest. Why is it dishonest? Well, because those countries have true national health care systems. Not fraudulent schemes like Obamacare, but true national health care. If I were retired from the Canadian armed forces or the German armed forces, the military wouldn't even be involved in my health care. I'd be on the national system. But since we have a disgraceful health care system in the U.S., I'm forced to have to deal with the DoD. Which in turn causes the DoD to whine and snivel about my costs. Well, screw them. It ain't my fault that the U.S. is a third-world country when it comes to health care. You guys on active duty mark my words. DoD will try to hose you big time in this area.

More on health care. VA. You're going to be hearing a whole lot about how VA is so expensive. And it is. Why is that? Well, I'm on Tricare right now, but I've been on VA (Vietnam, don't ya' know) and I can go back to VA anytime any one of several possible issues kicks up. So I can go to VA and drive up its costs because of a stupid and needless war. Sound familiar? Take a look at anticipated VA costs in the outyears. First, you'll have a ton of guys from my cohort (Vietnam) getting old and finally giving in to shit caused by military service. Lots of guys will die in VA hospitals. Then come you guys. You guys are good news and bad news. Good news is field medical care is so good that lots of guys who would have died in Vietnam lived, just as lots of guys who would have died in WW2 lived in Vietnam. Bad news is lots and lots of customers for VA from your cohort. VA expenses are going through the roof and you just know what a "grateful government" is going to do. You're going to be hosed here, too.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if we didn't have stupid fucking wars. That is the bottom line. And I do not pretend to understand why people stay in the Army these days. But,"wait," you say, "you went to Vietnam and then you stayed." Well, yeah, but you know, we had a challenge of rebuilding the Army, plus we had the Cold War, plus we kind of figured the politicians and generals had learned their lesson in Vietnam. Cold War: it was serious. It wasn't BS like this war on terror. It was real and we felt it. That's why we were there. It was existential. The Soviet Union was nothing to laugh about. The Euros took it seriously, too. The whole world took it seriously. Now we have the war on terror. The war on guys in caves. The rest of the world views it as a paramilitary or low level military action. Yeah, something to take seriously, but Gotterdamerung? Really. Only the U.S. promotes this shit to big war status. Not demeaning you dudes doing it in any way you understand, but, hey, if Vietnam and Korea were essentially side shows, what do you call this?

Wanta cut the budget? Stop stupid wars. You can reduce the active forces by hundreds of thousands if you do that. Throw most maneuver units into the reserve and the guard. That way you can do that deferred retirement deal because that's how it's been all of the way.

Active forces? Would I stay in for a career under the terms suggested by this defense contractor outfit? Resounding no. It's already been said, so I'll not say it again. Constant moves, chicken shit all of the time, wars, wives can't do careers, can't build equity in homes, family separations, yada yada yada. And these suits aided and abetted by the perfumed princes somehow think a guy who puts up with that shit for 20 or more years will then wait for another 20 before he gets retirement pay? Riiiiiiiight.

But maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask. I'd never serve in today's military anyway. I'd never work for a government this stupid. And I wouldn't work for senior officers who are so obviously self-interested. Interesting how, when we've now got an Army reaching the breaking point as it is, a bunch of suits come up with a way to totally destroy it. Whose side are these guys on anyway?

I think I put in forty years of work in a 27 year military career.

A lot of the civilian world takes that 40 hour work week very seriously.

My biggest post-Army adjustment was getting four hours a day of my life back that the Army use to fill with QTBs, FOD, PT and a host of other requiremnents.

Reading these slides is somewhat disturbing but expected in our current cost savings environment. I live on a heavily Officer laden military post and I watch daily as I see the moving vans as a new class comes in and another one leaves and I discuss often with my friends that are in lLE or SAMs where they expect to move to next and on a daily basis I see the wives whose husbands are deployed and they spend every waking moment staying busy so they don't think about their husband overseas. The wars have had a heavy effect on all of us that i can not quantify with words alone but at least when we deploy I believe most of us feel that our families are taken care of financially by the military system whether we return or not. Having served as a CAO I have seen that they are however any changes to the contract that we have all signed our lives and our families to will most likely break that trust and weigh on us more the next time we are asked to go downrange. It's not about the money alone but it is about financial security for our loved ones especially when our lives and our Soldiers lives are on the line sometimes on a daily basis.

Slide 5 "The military retirement system has not materially changed for over 100 years" DBB ingnored the redux retirement program!?!? Just because it failed it is like "new Coke" (about the same time period?) it is like it never happened. Redux was supposed to encourage SMs to stay longer by cutting retirement pay at 20 yrs to 40% while leaving 30 years at 75% (transformational) DBB Plan is supposed to encourage SMs to leave after 4-8-15 years (you guessed it transformational!??!). Amazing how that works!!

On slide 4 they say that "Enlisted pay ranks in the top quartile of that of high school graduates" Do 0% of enlisted have education beyond HS? Why not compare the high school grads to high school grads? Army got so it expected Snr NCOs to have Assoc Degree, then a whole lot of the E-8, and E9s had 4 yr degees. I bet it has been hard on these guys that have fought all the wars to keep that up, some of the combat arms MOS are able to make rank pretty quick anyway. I was on the edge of the Tng and Ldr Development Panels a few years ago, SMA (ret) had a doctorate and all the CSMs had Masters, why would a trustworthy and true DBB throw those CSMs in w the HS grads down at McDs? I want to invoke the gargbage in garbage out rule!?!

Slide 7 "It will be very difficult to release personnel with 15 or more years of service, yet these age groups are a likely target for downsizing. As a result, DoD will likely require special pay to ease transitioning out of the military (as was done in the 1990s), therefore, increasing costs" I think the DBB may be trying too hard to run up the score, I thought getting people out of the force would reduce costs!?!??! When you are downsizing and you want people to pull up stakes and start a new career (when unemployment is 9.2%) you are going to have to give them some real encouragement. Portable retirement is not a reliable downsizing tool, SMs are likely leave in droves even if force is at steady-state or we're trying to grow the force. You'll have unintended downsizing everytime the suck level goes up. Encouraging SMs to leave ALL THE TIME probably won't work. I think the REAL LESSON from the 90s is that we thought we were done w war and that somebody had moved our cheese. Now we think we are done w war again? How profound!?!!?

Jacking with junior SMs and/or futures SMs certainly pushes the real savings towards the end of the century. They'd get a lot more instant gratification by jacking with retirees and senior SMs.

All this talk of defense cuts will go out the window as soon as France is invaded or airplanes crash into buildings.

""Throw most maneuver units into the reserve and the guard. That way you can do that deferred retirement deal because that's how it's been all of the way."" That is a trenchant point . If anything these wars have proven is that even with all of the specialized training and occupational tradecraft in the service today, the Guard and Reserve are up to the task of responding to the bulk of these overseas contingency operations (wars). Let General Dempsey et al. bemoan the lack of discipline in garrison-- it is a predicable and existential consequence of an exhausted professional military force--the real debate should not be how to integrate the Guard and Reserve into low-intensity Active Army missions or overseas garrison rotations, but rather how to downsize the Active Army into the Guard and Reserve. Relying more heavily on an army of citizen-soldiers will not only eliminate some the entitlement and dependendancy concerns that other commenters have raised, it will also hopefully make reckless overseas adventures--and bases-- less politically and economically viable. More to the point, in the long term it may save DOD and the VA from going into arrears over benefits and healthcare costs. Finally, it will help avoid any unseemly incidents involving pitchforks and torches, such as insurrections, mutinies and other sundry usurpations by our professional standing army.

"Throw most maneuver units into the reserve and the guard. That way you can do that deferred retirement deal because that's how it's been all of the way." This is working back to the old "American Way of War" (that we have had a hard time shaking since about the civil war) model of combat arms as cannon fodder.

That is backwards. Guard and Reserve can do functional missions much better than they can do Combined Arms (USARC has actually been out of combined arms business for a couple of decades). When people ask how come RC can flip burgers, pump gas, and take care of casualties but they can't do combined arms? Answer is functional support is relatively static "go to this grid coord (or FOB) and pump gas", combined arms op is dynamic BCT is like a football game w 4000 guys on a team. You have to be capable of sychronizing the effects of all that stuff, while you are moving, maybe headed down range at 12-15-20 MPH.

Where DBB says "military skills are transferable to the private sector" (and vice versa I might add) that is all on combat service support side. Snipers, Cav Scouts, tank gunner, infantryman skills are only marginally transferable to the private sector. That is another reason that RC does vertical construction, Civil Affairs, medical, transportation etc.... well that is their "day job" for a lot of those guys before they mobilize. I expect that most of the MDs, Nurses, PAs in a RC Med unit probably do that for a living, not so much RC tankers or Artillerymen.

I love the scary graph on page 20 "Oh my god, look a line that goes up exponentially". Yeah, sure, until you factor in inflation. Factoring in inflation at 3.2% over 23 years all of the figures related to military retirement start to look a lot less daunting.

Go full steam ahead and you get roughtly the same amount of expenditures in real terms (pg 20)
DoDServicePayment +3.4% in real terms
Total Federal Government Cost +2.4%

Transition slowly and reduce payouts by almost half (pg 21).
DoDServicePayment -46% in real terms
Total Federal Government Cost -33% in real terms

Or you spike payments by 10 billion rights now and then let them decline to under 50% of what they are now in real terms (pg 23)
DoDServicePayment -51% in real terms
Total Federal Government Cost -52.7% in real terms

In summary, people who talk about the current system like it's a runaway freight train are full of it. Related debts will ballon, but thanks to inflation the actual amount of Federal spending needed to maintain the system will remain extremely stable.

A couple of commenters have noted that a better comparison is between police and firefighters than run-of-the-mill civilian worker. These workers are better compensated than the average worker.

For a start, police and fire tend to have defined benefit plans like other public employees instead of defined contribution plans like private sector workers who rely on 401(k)'s and the like. In the state where I live, they can also retire with full benefits at 55 compared to the 65 required of other city and county workers in my state.

It's also worth noting that extra danger isn't the justification for earlier retirement; the physical demands of the job are. The creators of the pension plan figure that it's less likely a cop will be able to perform his job at 65 than an accountant. We can nitpick (what about public works folks?), but the civilian world isn't factoring danger into the equation. I'd argue that that's what combat and separation pay are for.

Police and fire where I live also pay in to their own plans—nearly 10 percent of their total salary at the moment. So it's not free either.

It's still more expensive for local governments than plans for other employees. Local governments contribute just over 14 percent for fire and police plans compared to about 12 percent for the basic public employee plan.

In the event anyone is still coming back to this thread, I'll comment. I'm a fireman, so I can shed some light on the pension and compensation issue.

Our compensation is definitely tied to the dangers of our jobs. One of the problems with a 401K for police/fire is fairness for members who die or are disabled in the line of duty. Who is going to take one of these jobs if they cannot expect that their family will be provided for? Some people like to point out that crab fishermen, 7-11 clerks, and lumberjacks have dangerous jobs too, but those are mostly a risk of death. A firefighter, much like the the pointman who survives an IED, is much more likely to be injured in a way that destroys any possibility of future employment. Our injury rate is sky high. Last year, a fire in a neighboring city led to a wall collapse that disabled 7 firefighters. Three will never walk again, and the others were also pensioned out for their injuries.

While fire and police have had defined benefit plans, times are changing. Either the multipliers are being cut or the cities are going to 401Ks. In my pension system-which is over 100% funded, thank you-we pay 7% of salary and the city currently pays about 19% of salary. They only pay 19% because they refused to pay in previous years when the market was doing well, and the actuary warned them their share would only increase. That 19% is part of our overall compensation-no raise when the multiplier goes up, there is only so much $$ in the pot. So we give up money now to keep our pensions. We also pay a percentage of our health care, even after retirement.

I can retire with 25 years service at any age, but if I leave before the full 25 I can't collect on it until age 55. Since we can't be hired before age 21, the minimum age we can retire is 46. Very few get hired that early. My payout is 2.8% a year, with a max of 70% of my average of the best 3 of my last ten years. New employees only get 2% and have to work 35 years to get what I will at 25. We receive no COLAs-what you get in your first check is what you will get 30 years later-if you live that long. We have a couple guys who retired in the early 80s getting monthly checks of $800.

The physical demands certainly play a part, and the reason why is that these jobs are very hands on. The tooth to tail ratio in the fire/police services is the opposite of the military. My civilian FD of about 100 members had 10 staff positions, and we were considered very fat for a dept our size. Everyone else works on a fire truck, and even the staff positions occasionally get dirty. In contrast, the military crash crews I was on were 20-30% staff jobs.

After 18 years I was promoted to Lieutenant, which means that I am the first one of my crew into the fire, and the last one out. There are very few 45-50 year olds in the military wearing 50lbs of gear in combat, but you'll find at least one on every rig at our fires. That's just the officers, doesn't count the 15 year fireman who was hired at age 35. Only those in the very best condition and with great genes can do this job into their 60s, and then only if they get into a staff or driver position.

Then there's the ridiculous cancer rate, especially for the guys who served before breathing apparatus were common. Now we find out the carcinogens can also get in through your skin and EARS. We also have high cardiac death rates, related to the adrenaline rush and shock of responding to the bells and going from sleep to fire attack in 5 minutes-no stretching or warm-up time in our job.

Lastly, a word on compensation. I'm in the Midwest, where the autoworkers and skilled trades were making $40/hr before the bottom dropped out. So lots of dropouts and HS grads were making more than me. As a Lt with almost 20 years on the job, paramedic, hazmat tech, and a bachelor's degree, I make $24/hr, and do not get overtime pay until 53 hours/week. Sounds like a lot, right? For comparison, I deployed to OIF a couple years ago, and doubled my take home pay.

If I hear one more old guy telling us how jacked up we are today I may decide to do something truly dreadful to one of the several animals my wife thinks we cannot live without. Do I really need to lay out a series of paragraphs detailing just how totally screwed up things were in Vietnam and Korea or do I merely need to make the easy references to McMasters and Fehrenbach? Let's face it, we don't do the policy behind war nearly as well as the guys on the ground actually do the war and it's not exactly a generational thing.

There was a big art in 8 AUG Army Times about this. Needless to say not too many SMs were jumping up and down over the idea. You don't have to be a deep thinker to say: "Civilians do it like that? So What!!"

One thing that mystifies me: DBB acts like this will somehow improve the quality of the force, HOW? What makes you think marginal performers will get out and the blue chippers will stay in?

They have been attempting to do this for decades, the pay is not out of whack, sorry I think JG makes a great case and the simple facts speak for themselves and it won't happen, they did this before with the "redux", it killed the military for a while, sorry folks, just not gonna happen-
No overtime
No comp time
Deployments
Base pay sucks, please tell me folks how you folks think 18-25k pre-tax a year is too much after 20 years?
Combat

McGunns, I take it your FD paid you while you deployed? If you doubled your take home, please tell me how, I get 4 special pays combined with BEQ/VHA and have a lot of time in and only make 72K pre tax per year, so would love to hear how you doubled your take home.

Spanishmain, come on, really, how about you stop it, there is no comparison and to say there is silly, please, enlighten me as to what civilian jobs are similar? Entitlement? Please, not the same thing as what we have talked of in the past, nice try though. Who are these people you speak of that never deploy? Hmm....Navy does it in peace time, so not them. Marines do it in Peace time so not them. Army? Nope, those poor bastards have been eating it as of late. Does thoust speak of the Air Force?
There is no comparison between the military or ANY other job in the civilian sector.
Anyone else under the UCMJ? Can anyone else be put on bread and water still as NJP? What about jail or Dis-honorable for adultery? (before some idiot goes off, these are just examples)
Hmmm.....what about hours worked? Go do the math sometime and average an 80 hour week and then break down the pay.
What about the whole combat thing?
Hey, another curious thing, have you guys actually looked at what we as enlisted get paid at 20 years? 50% of an E6 or E7 pay, go add it up and tell me if you could make it on that pre-tax for the rest of your time?

The only legit arguments I have seen are an increase in Insurance Contributions, but that should only be done to those retired. As for the other benefits, if someones want's to bring up the same old stuff again I will be happy to go line by line and point out what taxes actually pay for and do not.