Career Servicemen--a Liability or an Asset?

Recent anti-retiree remarks from Dr. Dov Zakheim, a senior Reagan-era Pentagon policy guru turned Comptroller, have thousands of career families questioning their lifelong support for the Defense Department they served. Zakheim left the clear impression in his Stars and Stripes interview that he, and presumably the Administration, view retirees as both greedy and a liability on scarce Defense dollars.

Many thought the Clinton years represented the worst betrayals of those who spent their best years sacrificing and serving the nation. Now, they are reconsidering who they label privately as Judas. Many are wondering if indeed, any political party truly cares about military careerists once they have served...more

From Soldiers for the Truth website:

Interviewed by reporter Lisa Burgess of The European Stars and Stripes on July 15, 2002, Zakheim himself raised the concurrent receipt issue in some detail. For the purpose of this article, I have included detailed excerpts of the Q&A transcript (which was published on July 19 in the Pentagon Early Bird news summary), with my own comments added in italics:

Q: And meanwhile, you have health and personnel costs that are sky-high.

Zakheim: "That's right. And let me tell you, if concurrent receipt comes through, that one is huge. The worst estimates I've seen, under the worst-case assumptions, could cost us $5 to $6 billion a year. It's humongous.

"And again, you're talking about a situation that is not new; we've had disabled veterans ever since we've had veterans. All of a sudden, elements in Congress have decided to change the rules, and seem to be more concerned about disabled veterans than all their predecessors have been. And it's puzzling, particularly at a time when we are involved in a conflict, when there are budgetary constraints, and when our budget is as large as it is.

"People are misled. People think we've got this massive budget, when if you take out health care, and you take out personnel costs generally, it isn't that massive at all. And since our top priority is our people, there's no question that we're going to make sure that our people are taken care of, and in fact, some of the opportunity cost of the concurrent receipts money could well be other personnel programs.

"That's another thing people don't realize. We're trying to improve facilities; we're trying to improve family housing; we're trying to improve. There are all kinds of programs for family support of various kinds. How do we do all that, if all of a sudden we have to take a chunk of $5 or so billion, on top of the Tricare for Life? That's a major challenge for us."

Dodd response: Okay, let me see if I understand what you just said. First, if Congress changes the rules, more money will go to those disabled military retirees who presently have to proportionately offset their military retirement pay with their VA disability compensation. So, from your perspective, that's a bad thing.

Secondly, since the current laws have been around for a while, members of Congress should not question the wisdom and fairness of those laws. You wonder how and why they are now so concerned about our disabled veterans when all their predecessors were not.

Lastly, your focus is on short-term family support. You want to put money where everyone will notice it right away. Your long-term focus is limited to TriCare for life, which is already diverting money from the short-term programs you want to support.

Q: It's a tough issue for our readers, because they are the ones who will feel the cuts in the types of programs you are talking about, but they are also the ones who would stand to benefit from concurrent receipt down the line.

Zakheim: "The average young person, 18-to-30 age group, which is the preponderance of our military, I just wonder how much they value the importance of TriCare for Life when they enlist and reenlist. My guess is they probably don't.

"Look at all the people in civilian society who are constantly being told, "put money away for IRAs, because you're going to need it when you retire," and they don't.

"And why don't they? Because the average person who is under 30, by and large, doesn't think about what they're going to do when they're 60 to 65 - I mean, not to the extent you're going to take money away that you need today and putting it away for tomorrow.

"Well, in a sense, that's what TriCare for Life does, that's what concurrent receipt does. It takes money away from today in order to deal with tomorrow, and quite frankly in the case of concurrent receipts, it's doing it for a small number of people.

"A large number people are going to be affected in terms of who's doing the paying, but a small number of people are going to be affected in terms of recipients, and they already are getting benefits. It's not like they're not getting benefits. This is a second benefit - it's a piggyback benefit.

"So you have to ask yourself, if you're a 27-year-old junior officer, or middle-level enlisted person, and you've got two or three kids, and you've got a working spouse, which way do you really want to go?"

Dodd response: Let me see if I understand your logic. You know that it is wise for young people between the ages of 18 and 30 to start thinking about and planning for their retirement. Since most 18-30 year-olds do not want to think about their retirement, you feel no obligation to support retirement programs. You are perfectly content to support only those programs that cater to the unwise and short-sighted perspectives of the average 18-30 year old.

As far as the concurrent receipt issue goes, you see it as a selfish and greedy attempt by "a small number of people" to get an additional benefit. You are not concerned that no other category of federal employees, to include employees of the Congress and the executive branch, is required to relinquish a portion of their earned retirement pay simply because they are also receiving VA disability compensation.

To you it is fair that only disabled military retirees must offset their retirement pay, and your reasons must include that your budget will be easier to balance; veterans have lived with these laws for so long that now it is unfair to change the laws; the current laws only affect a small number of people so we should not change those laws for so few; and since most of the military is young and foolish about retirement issues anyway, it makes no cents (pun intended) to have fair and common-sense laws for disabled military retirees.

Q: People who champion concurrent receipt say that they are paying a penalty, in effect, for being disabled.

Zakheim: "They're already getting [Veteran's Administration] benefits."

Dodd response: To you, those benefits are enough, and they are appropriate. I recently received a letter (Feedback, 7-22-2002, third item) from a 20-year disabled Navy retiree. He has a friend who spent four years in the Marine Corps and now qualifies for 100-percent disability compensation. The disabled Navy retiree is happy that his friend is getting the disability compensation he deserves, but his frustration is obvious when he told me, "Please, understand that I wish him and others like him absolutely no hard feelings, but I spent twenty years in the Navy and get the same benefits as he." I bet you'd be hard-pressed to convince that Navy retiree that he is not paying a penalty for his disability.

Q: I guess the basic question is, what is the bargain you make with the Defense Department when you first sign up?

Zakheim: "I don't know, because it's all sort of post hoc [after the fact]. The people who are making the case for concurrent receipt are making it after what has happened to them.

"It's not a question of right to ask [for concurrent receipt]; they have every right to ask. The question is, what's the tradeoff? And what serves the country better, and more important, what is better for the people in uniform?

"Ultimately, concurrent receipt does not add to the national security. The only way it could, is if one could demonstrate that a person would not enlist because they don't have concurrent receipt, and would enlist because they do have concurrent receipt. And I don't believe that.

"I want to see those numbers. I want to see somebody demonstrate to me that a significant portion of the young people who enlist in our military are doing so only because they expect concurrent receipts. I just cannot accept that, unless I am confronted with the numbers, and then I'd want to see the polling questions. Then I'd want to see who's polled, and them I'd want to see if it's really scientific. I just find it far-fetched.

"On the other hand, if you start cutting back on the benefits that people anticipate, not 30 years down the road, but now, in the next few years, young families, people who are struggling and making a sacrifice. They don't just make a sacrifice on the field of battle, they make a sacrifice every single day.

"These are talented people. Who goes into the military? These are people who are talented, these are people who are by and large intelligent, these are people who are by and large educated, and people who are willing to take orders and work at a job - ideal employees. Instead of going out and making 50 percent more or 70 percent more, they come into the military. So they're already making a sacrifice.

"So the question becomes, do these kinds of folks want to sacrifice even more benefits now, next year, five years, 10 years down the road for something that may or may not happen to them, and something that they'll only receive 25 or 30 years from now - if they stay in the military. I'm not ready to make that leap."

Dodd response: Let me make sure I am hearing you correctly. You believe that those disabled military retirees arguing for concurrent receipt are only out for themselves after they find out the rules and discover that their earned military retirement pay must be offset by their disability compensation. The implication is that while those retirees were in uniform, they were ignorant of the rules. Am I correct in assuming that you would be perfectly happy keeping the uniformed military ignorant of the rules regarding concurrent receipt so that you could stick with your beliefs about those arguing for concurrent receipt?

You graciously acknowledge that disabled military retirees have the right to ask for concurrent receipt. However, you think that helping ensure a comfortable lifestyle for our disabled military retirees, who, according to you, have willingly made a sacrifice every day while serving in the military, is not important to national security. You then describe in detail the type of scientific data that would be necessary to convince you that concurrent receipt is important to national security.

Earlier, you said that you are trying to fund "all kinds of programs for family support of various kinds," such as improving facilities and housing. Therefore, in your mind, improving facilities and housing are important to national security. Where is the detailed scientific data upon which you based your decision that improving facilities and housing are important to national security? Frankly, I find excluding concurrent receipt from funding consideration by declaring it does not contribute to national security, while at the same time funding housing and facilities improvements, a bit far-fetched.

Read more Here

Without a doubt, during Bush's endeavor to open up more foreign markets and thereby try and help our economy rebound, he has heard the popular complaint abroad about how the US is widely viewed as being subjugated to the military industrial complex. If Bush ends up agreeing, he certainly wouldn't be the first modern day Republican president to do so. Remember General Eisenhower? Here's his famous farewell address which is WELL worth a read in hopes of better understanding this negative perception...

Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Farewell Address"
January 17, 1961

Below are excerpts from that popular Republican president's famous "[b]eware of the military industrial complex" speech...

(Original website: Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Farewell Address")

My fellow Americans: ...

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my country men.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new president, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all...

We now stand ten years past the mid point of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this prominence, we yet realize that America's leadership depends, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment...

Progress towards these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology, global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-- with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation on our charted course towards permanent peace and human betterment...

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plow shares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal Government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend it grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved: so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of displaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of a huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by or at the direction of the Federal Government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mould, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into societies' future, we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of history, yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war--as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years--I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So--in this my last good night to you as your president--I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy: As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I--my fellow citizens--need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the nation's great goals.

To all the people of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.