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.)
WHO WE ARE:
Showing posts with label CSBA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSBA. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
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.
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.
Labels:
10 for 10,
benefits,
CSBA,
DoD,
military retirees,
pension,
Pentagon,
Ray Kelley,
veterans,
VFW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)