VFW Reacts to Survey on Military Compensation

Yesterday morning the VFW was on hand at the National Press Club where the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, or CSBA, unveiled its report from a recent survey of service members, veterans, military families and retirees on military compensation.

When CSBA announced the survey in January, the VFW was harshly critical of the content and potential outcomes. Yesterday, CSBA Senior Fellow Todd Harrison, the architect of the survey, sought to quash some of the criticism, making his case for why the Pentagon should conduct its own similar surveys before deciding how it plans to alter military pay and benefits programs, updating the surveys periodically in an effort to optimize its compensation packages.

In his remarks, Harrison was careful to point out that CSBA’s report only demonstrated how service members perceived the value of the benefits they currently receive, and that the report should not be misconstrued as recommending any specific policy changes. He went on to criticize the Pentagon for its current approach to changing the military benefits structure, warning that proposals to strictly cut certain benefits without planning to enhance others, would prove detrimental to the quality of the force.

In the wake of yesterday's announcement, VFW leaders said that they understand the purpose of this study, but the organization remains concerned about how the Pentagon will interpret the results. In its report, CSBA pointed out that decisions about optimization should not be made solely based on perceptions of the force, but that policy makers must consider factors like fairness, equity, feasibility, and operational impact before making any changes. The VFW reiterated this sentiment in its reaction.

“It’s our duty as veterans’ advocates to ensure that the Pentagon considers the broader implications of changing its benefits system for the sake of not only recruiting and retaining competent professional leaders, but also ensuring the overall physical and financial well-being of the those who volunteer to serve,” said VFW Deputy Legislative Director Ryan Gallucci, who was on hand for the announcement. “Saving defense dollars is secondary to looking out for our troops and their families, and to preserving the integrity of an all-volunteer, professionally-led force.”

CSBA aggregated the data it compiled from more than 2,600 participants according to time-in-service, rank, branch and marital status in an effort to better analyze the data for different cohorts, both career and non-career, demonstrating how each group valued benefits differently.

Through the survey, CSBA discovered that many immediate tangible benefits, like increased base pay, increased leave, choice of duty station or access to exchange services, were perceived as highly valuable to service members across the ranks relative to actual cost. However, long term or contingency benefits like health care or retirement, were undervalued by potential beneficiaries relative to actual cost.

The VFW was not surprised by these findings, as similar surveys in the private sector indicate that civilian employees consistently convey similar misconceptions about their benefits packages. When employees undervalue some of their most lucrative benefits, companies can then justify hollowing out benefit programs under the guise of optimization.

“The Pentagon may want to optimize military benefits packages to simultaneously save money and boost perceived value among the troops, but the VFW is not concerned about perceptions,” said Gallucci. “We’re concerned about protecting our troops and demonstrating the actual value of their earned benefits.”

To read the full CSBA report, click here.

Your VFW has been one of the most vocal opponents of changes to military benefits and quality-of-life programs, exposing ten proposed cuts designed to pay for ten years of war through last year’s “10 for 10” campaign.

VFW advocates from coast to coast have consistently banded together to stop these kinds of toxic proposals whenever they surface, and we will continue to hold defense officials accountable for their decisions on the welfare of the all-volunteer force. Check back regularly with this blog for updates.

(Image: CSBA Senior Fellow Todd Harrison explains how the military envisioned its all-volunteer force in the 1970s during yesterday's announcement of CSBA's report on military compensation. Photo by Ryan Gallucci.)

What Do You Think? Senate Seeks Commission on Retiree Benefits

As part of the VFW's ongoing work protecting the Department of Defense from sequestration and other budget cuts affecting those who volunteer to serve today or may volunteer to serve in the future, we watch and listen very closely for clues about changes to military pay, military quality-of-life programs, and the military retirement system.

As the full Senate prepares to debate the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the VFW must highlight a controversial provision in the committee-passed version of the bill that we believe would jeopardize the military retirement benefit. Title XVI of the bill (S. 3254) would establish an advisory committee known as the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. The stated purpose of the Commission is to achieve fiscal sustainability for the military compensation and retirement systems, and the Commission's recommendations would then be accepted by strictly an up or down vote, without the opportunity to debate or amend.

This stated purpose not only implies that the current system is unsustainable, but it also assumes that the cost is not worth the expense. As you have read before on this blog, the VFW vehemently disagrees. As we read the fine print of the language establishing this Commission, we were disturbed to find that the provisions would prevent anyone who works for a Veteran or Military Service Organization to sit on the Commission, and would further prevent anyone from serving on the Commission who had worked for a VSO or MSO within the last year. In other words, the VFW and other groups who advocate for you have no voice – meaning the voices of our more than two million members and advocates would be effectively silenced.

As if this wasn't bad enough, the Commission's final recommendations on changing the retirement system would then be put strictly to an up-or-down vote in Congress, meaning the VFW and other advocates would never have an opportunity to evaluate the Commission's report or make recommendations that represent the best interest of our veterans.

We believe that stacking the deck against service members and shutting veterans out of a discussion on the future of the military compensation and retirement system is totally unconscionable, and that this Commission must be stopped before it’s too late. The provisions establishing this Commission are not in the House-passed version of the NDAA, and there’s still time for you to contact your Senators to express your opposition to establishing this Commission before the bill comes to the floor.

Over the last few months, thousands of VFW members and advocates, like retired Petty Officer Hal Cleveland, mobilized to fight TRICARE premium increases, increases that Congress ultimately eliminated from the NDAA. Congress listened to our voice before; we can make them listen again. To learn how you can contact your representatives and tell them to oppose the Commission, click here.

Finally, let us know what you think about the potential establishment of this Commission by taking our short poll, and don't forget to leave your comments below.

Do you think this Commission would have the best interest of service members and retirees in mind?

Yes No

pollcode.com free polls

If this Commission drastically changed military retirement benefits, would you continue to serve or encourage others to serve a full career?

Yes No

pollcode.com free polls

Would your Senator's stance on this issue weigh into your decision on election day?

Yes No

pollcode.com free polls

Field Report: North Dakota VFW Calls on Congress to Stop Benefit Cuts

During the Easter congressional recess, leaders from the VFW Department of North Dakota participated in a roundtable discussion on veterans’ issues with Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., and staff members for Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and John Hoeven, R-N.D.

John Hanson, a past VFW state commander and current member of the VFW National Legislative Committee, discussed VFW’s “10 for 10” list of military benefits and quality-of-life programs that the Administration and Congress have put on the chopping block, explaining why the budget cuts cannot happen. He called on the North Dakota congressional delegation to offer a united voice in support of veterans and the military community when they return to Washington.

During the roundtable, participants also discussed rural health for veterans, funding for post-traumatic stress, support for the children and families of deployed service members, the deep VA disability claims backlog, veterans’ homelessness, and funding for veterans’ outreach.

Congressman Berg said that the U.S. House of Representatives this year has passed 13 pieces of legislation, four of which have been signed into law. Berg also said that North Dakota is home to thousands of veterans who he is proud to represent. He explained that the VA needs to be able to meet the medical and mental healthcare needs of all returning service members, and that they cannot waiver in their support to properly care for veterans.

Hanson said he and the North Dakota VFW will continue to work with their congressman and senators to meet the needs of service members, veterans and their families.

To submit your Field Reports for consideration on the VFW’s Capitol Hill blog, simply fill out our online form here, or send photos and stories directly to vfwac@vfw.org. Information for this story was provided by VFW National Legislative Committee member John Hanson.

VFW Denounces Survey on Military Benefits; What do You Think?

This week Stars & Stripes reported that a defense think tank, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, was looking to conduct a survey of current and former military service members to gather data on which benefits remain top priorities for those who volunteer to serve. The survey comes in the wake of announcements from Department of Defense officials that personnel benefits and programs – particularly retirement pensions and health care – could face potential cuts in the coming years. The VFW has vowed to fight these potential cuts at all costs.

After reading through the CSBA survey, VFW leaders balked at the tone of the questions, which asked participants to rate certain military benefits over others, and then determine the kinds of benefit packages that would be preferable to service members in the future. The survey also asked for pointed demographic information such as service branch, years active, overseas deployments, and age. The VFW is discouraging its members from participating in the survey, since the data will likely be used as an endorsement of certain benefit cuts by service members, themselves.

“Our military men and women have earned these benefits through their honorable wartime service over the last decade, and the VFW is insulted that these same men and women would now be asked to put their heads in a noose by tacitly admitting cuts to their earned benefits are somehow acceptable,” said VFW Legislative Director Ray Kelley. “The VFW does not accept the notion that cuts to personnel programs and benefits are the only viable solution. We have an obligation to provide for our war-fighters and their loved ones, and the VFW will not let Congress or the Pentagon shirk that obligation.”

Kelley went on to say that the survey’s pointed questions on specific cuts and proposed changes actually pit different demographic groups of service members and veterans against each other – enlisted versus officer, retiree versus separated service member, or even young versus old – by asking questions like whether a one-time pay raise would be worth deferring all retiree benefits until 65.

“These kinds of questions are loaded from the beginning,” said Kelley. “Since 92 percent of military men and women choose to leave before retirement, the likely answer will favor a pay raise, which would essentially endorse cutting benefits for those who choose career military service. We shouldn't be asked to choose one over the other.”

At first glance, the survey looks like it offers service members and veterans a voice in the debate on potential cuts to the DoD budget. However, the VFW believes that the CSBA has already made up its mind that quality-of-life cuts are on the way, and data compiled from the survey will offer a military endorsement to move forward with specific recommendations.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee in 2010, CSBA equated military personnel benefit costs to pension costs for companies like General Motors. Though the testimony did not recommend specifics, the tone implied that providing for the needs of war-fighters was a wasteful venture for the Pentagon.

The VFW was the first major veterans organization to see these kinds of cuts on the horizon as part of last summer’s “10 for 10” campaign. Since the program’s roll-out, VFW leaders have consistently sought input from VFW members and veterans around the country, calling to preserve earned military and veterans’ benefits.

"Service members and veterans already have a voice in this debate, and they've consistently used that voice to say 'no' to proposed benefit cuts through advocates like the VFW and through direct outreach to Congressional offices," said Kelley. "We’ll do everything in our power to make sure their voices continue to be heard over the voices of those looking for a quick fix."

VFW is in the process of assessing the military retirement system and plans to make recommendations that can start a conversation on cost savings while maintaining the integrity of the system. The VFW wants to demonstrate that the Pentagon may actually be able to offer improved benefits for military personnel and at the same time save money simply by implementing smarter business practices. Be on the look-out for these specific recommendations in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, we want to know what you think about proposed changes to military benefits and which courses of action would be the most responsible. Take our short poll and please leave your comments below.

What should Congress do about military retirement benefits?

Keep earned benefits the same. Find savings elsewhere.Keep benefits the same, but defer all pensions to 65Keep the 20-year system, but offer some benefits for non-career serviceChange over to a 401(k)-style system for allIncrease pay, but cut all benefitsOther (details in comments)

pollcode.com free polls

VFW Reacts to Pentagon Budget Priorities

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta unveiled the Pentagon’s budget priorities this week for fiscal year 2013, reflecting the Administration’s calls for a leaner, more agile force as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. In light of pledges from the Pentagon to ensure that the U.S. military remains a lethal and effective force, VFW leaders voiced their concerns over proposed cuts that could dilute the quality of America’s military and possibly threaten the continued viability of the all-volunteer force.

The Defense Department is expected to request $525 billion as a baseline budget for FY2013, with an additional $88.4 billion for overseas contingencies; $6 billion and $27 billion less, respectively, than FY 2012. Five key strategies for DoD include driving the future military force, which will be smaller and leaner; repositioning with more emphasis on Asia-Pacific and the Middle East; strengthening through better alliances and partnerships; and developing an extremely agile and deadly force, which will be second-to-none in technology and capability.

Some key priorities and choices that could be made over the next five years include:

• To reduce the active Army from 570,000 to 490,000 soldiers, and the active Marine Corps from 202,000 to 182,000.
• To reduce the number of Air Force tactical air squadrons from 60 to 54, but maintain the current bomber fleet, as well as the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers, 10 air wings and big-deck amphibious fleet.
• To fund a new bomber, increase cruise missile capacity in future Virginia-class submarines, and increase investments in cyber capabilities, special operations, homeland missile defense, countering weapons of mass destruction, and projecting power into denied areas.
• To provide service members full pay raises in 2013 and 2014, but begin limiting increases starting in 2015.
• To ask Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the military retirement system, while grandfathering all current retirees and service members into the existing system.
• To recommend increases in healthcare fees, co-pays and deductibles for military retirees using a tiered approach, based on their retired pay, as well as create a TRICARE for Life enrollment fee for retirees age 65 and older. Exempt would be medical retirees and survivors of those who died on active duty.

In response to the announcement, VFW leaders said they continue to be wary of plans to change the current military retirement system and potentially saddle military retirees with higher health care costs.

“We are pleased to continually hear pledges from the White House and Pentagon that retirees and those serving in uniform today will be grandfathered under the old system, but our concern is for tomorrow's recruit,” said VFW Executive Director Bob Wallace. “Asking someone to first donate 20 or more years of their youth in return for the immediate receipt of a modest retirement pay is a contract, which cannot be compared with any civilian occupation or retirement plan. We are concerned, however, that by introducing civilian retirement plans into a military world it has zero in common with, could signal the end of the all-volunteer force. A lot of trial balloons have been floated, so we have to wait for details.”

Traditionally, only eight percent of America’s military men and women serve until retirement age. With already low retention of career service members, the VFW is concerned that too many new proposed incentives for highly-trained and highly-qualified leaders to leave the military early could thin the force to such an extent that the last person standing, not the best qualified, could serve as the next service chief or senior enlisted leader. Plus, too many incentives to leave could also mean a watered down G.I. Bill for veterans.

VFW leaders went on to say that increasing enrollment fees and copayments while reducing services for retirees is a breach of faith with all who choose to serve; a sentiment the VFW has consistently voiced since launching the “10 for 10” campaign against military and veterans’ benefits cuts last summer.

When discussions of an overhaul to the military retirement first surfaced, the VFW polled readers on this blog about their inclinations to serve a full career with watered-down retirement benefits. The results, which can be viewed here, indicated to VFW leaders that such changes would threaten the continued viability of the all-volunteer force by incentivizing the best and brightest to leave early in their military careers.

Your VFW will continue to fight against these proposals, ensuring that America’s military remains strong and sustainable for future generations. Keep posted to this blog for updates.

(Image: Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brief the press on major budget decisions stemming from the defense strategic guidance at the Pentagon, Jan. 26, 2012. DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley.)

We’re Back, and Looking for Your Stories in the New Year

With Congress still on recess, the work hasn’t stopped for the VFW’s office on Capitol Hill. This week, we returned from the New Years break and hit the ground running to promote the VFW’s legislative priority goals in anticipation of the second session of the 112th Congress.

With almost 470 representatives and senators up for reelection this November, now is the perfect time to reach out to them in their home districts and educate them on issues critical to the veterans’ community. With this in mind, the VFW’s Capitol Hill blog would like to hear from you as you interact with your elected officials to promote the VFW’s legislative priority goals, and to discuss military and veterans’ issues.

Whether you’re meeting face-to-face, attending events, hosting town hall meetings, or attending forums in your area, please send us your photos and information on these events, such as “who, what, when, where and why” for consideration to be published on the blog. We are not looking for photos from political rallies or campaign work; we are looking to highlight the work of the VFW to inform those serving in public office about veterans’ issues.

Our blog has the ability to reach more than 2 million members of the VFW, and thousands more veterans’ advocates, all of whom are interested in making a difference for veterans. However, our voice on Capitol Hill is only as strong as the voice of VFW advocates in Congressional districts across the country. We designed this blog to help share your stories, as well, making sure that we reach our members of Congress and ensure they make the right decisions when it comes to our service members, veterans and their families.

Thanks to the work of our advocates in 2011, we successfully passed comprehensive veterans’ employment legislation with the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, and protected key benefits like TRICARE for Life and presumptive service connected conditions. We also sent a stern message to Congress that we will protect military and veterans’ benefits at all costs with the roll-out of the “10 for 10” campaign. In 2012, we hope to build on these successes, and we hope you will join us in that mission.

To share your photos and stories, submit them electronically to vfwac@vfw.org, and continue to follow this blog, highlighting our day-to-day work protecting our service members, veterans and their loved ones.