October 2009 Navy Magazine
by CAPT Ike Puzon, USN (Ret)
DoD leaders continue to assert that rising health care costs and personnel benefits are contending with weapons programs. In past years, the military Joint Chiefs endorsed TRICARE fee increases because the choice was forced on them by their political leaders, who wanted the increases to bring military beneficiary costs more in line with civilian practices and most likely to save needed Defense dollars for weapons programs.
Comparison with corporate civilian practices has been occurring in DoD for some time and is unacceptable. The U.S. military is not a corporation. Earned military benefits and exceptional military medical and retirement benefits are the primary offsets for enduring decades of extraordinarily demanding service conditions. Military retirees and veterans pay huge “up front” health premiums through 20-30 years of service and sacrifice. Their families often pay even higher costs. Recruiting problems show few Americans are willing to pay these heavy and stressful premiums for that benefit.
Past proposed increases are grossly out of line with benefit levels enacted by Congress. Proposed increases would far surpass annual retired pay increases. With pending zero cost of living allowances (COLA) for retirees, by imposing any increase in TRICARE fees, DoD would be grossly decreasing retiree and veteran benefits. We have a military that has to be ready to fight now. We have a Guard and Reserve force that has to be ready to deploy within 72 hours. In times of natural emergency – the National Guard must respond immediately. Maintaining proper military health is not inexpensive. Having a military not ready to fight now or not ready to deploy rapidly would be extremely expensive for our national goals and our national security strategy. Our country must have a healthy military react to any emergency. We cannot penalize retirees or veterans by imposing any increases in TRICARE fees on any military health program.
The last proposed DoD increase which would quadruple fees for those who served 20-30 years in uniform would be wrong. The nation’s obligation to military members and retirees exceeds any corporate obligations.The country and our government have a reciprocal obligation to provide benefits commensurate with the extraordinary commitments it requires from career service members. Military personnel losses can’t be replaced like civilians employees can.
DoD and Congress have recently studied several military benefits: military health care, military pay, military retirement pay, to name just a few. Eroding benefits for career service can only undermine longterm retention, recruiting, and readiness. Today’s military are very conscious of Congress’ actions concerning their future benefits. Reducing military retirement benefits would be especially ill-advised. How could we convince our youth to serve in an all-volunteer Total Force if it was treated the same way a corporation treats its employees?
By improving TRICARE efficiencies and military health care inefficiencies, we can reduce cost. The priority should be making sure solid benefits are available to members of the military that are willing to pay the ultimate price with their lives.
The debate over national health care has reached a boiling point. Americans are showing that they may not want governmental control of national health care. Military members are attuned to these debates. No one knows at this hour how pending health care changes could or would impact the military and veteran health care plans. If Congress or the Administration attempts to change military health care with pending national health care improvements – it must NOT impact veterans or military members. It is up to us – former military and serving military members – to ensure Congress does not impact military health care plans. You must take action to inform your Congressional delegation of no fee increases and no changes to military or veteran health care.
Weapons Programs
Our military weapons systems are programmed and purchased in a complex and detailed budgeting system. It is a necessary vetting system. Force commanders are key in any weapons system acquisition most of the time. Our military has been fighting a war for eight long years. Prior to our current wars, the Total Force (military) was engaged in contingency operations world wide in an unprecedented number. At the same time, our National Guard and Reserve Components have been responding in unprecedented numbers for natural emergencies and wartime efforts. Weapons systems have to evolve and the training on them is crucial to a Total Force. History shows our country’s economic, political, and military goals and military strategy depend on a strong, well-trained, and well-equipped military.
The weapons and personnel programs argument actually is complex and revolves around a robust national security policy, and a national commitment. As a nation, we have chosen to have a welltrained, properly equipped, and fully manned military. The question has been and is – funding for both!
Current requirements and needs of the Navy revolve around the current maritime strategy. Equipment is essential in a successful strategy. The current needs of the Navy (as with all services) are enormous because we need to reconstitute a military that has been at war since 2001, and involved in over one hundred contingency operations in the previous fifteen years. The Navy needs ships, submarines, and aircraft. The Navy needs quality people for this equipment.
Our nation is having funding identity problems in the worst way. The current debate of national health care, bailout of financial institutions, car makers, and home owners has gotten in the way of our common sense. It appears that when we need a billion (or trillion) here or a billion (or trillion) there for special projects, our nation’s leaders find the money. In fact, if we need trillions to bail out corporations that have not necessarily paid the ultimate price, we find it, or we go in debt and worry about it later. Aren’t these the same corporations that have those wonderful health programs our DoD leaders are trying to duplicate?
When we need funding for a personnel benefit, or if we need funding for a critical weapons program such as J-35, or the F-18 Growler, or a new class of ship that will replace 30+ year old, overused equipment, we have a difficult time funding equipment and personnel programs. It has to fit within the total obligation authority which naturally makes it compete with personnel programs. How can we “find” money for a discretionary program like banks or cars, yet not find funds for “discretionary” or entitlement military programs like military aircraft or the people that operate warships? This does not pass anyone’s common sense program.
At this time, we have to be able to pay the price through an increase in the defense budget. To make a common sense defense budget work, we also have to back away from programs that are not passing anyone’s common sense test that both in the defense budget and “the bailout budgets.” Without a strong defense, other American budgets do not matter. Our national power and strategy greatly depend on us having strong weapons programs as well as having strong military personnel programs. The only way to pay the price in the current environment is through a commitment to increase the defense budget.
The country can afford to pay for both weapons and military health care. Recent defense budgets (in wartime) represent only about 3.5% of GDP — far lower than the 5.7% peacetime year average since World War II. The world’s richest country doesn’t need to make military retirees or serving members pay for weapons through any reduction in benefits. However, a choice has to be made. It is a serious choice. Do Americans want a strong military that does all the multitude of complex and challenging tasks that our country expects the military to complete? Or, do we want a second rate military that responds slowly to revolutionary challenges?
The solution is you! You must let your Congressional representatives know that you expect certain operating parameters when they vote on bills. No pork barrel spending would be a good place to start. If you speak up and make a choice on the issues, results will happen. Recent town hall meetings show the power of you. Few can understand 1,000-plus-paged legislative bills. This is what makes poor legislation that affects us all.
We have to refuse pork barrel spending that runs undisciplined through Congress on late night votes. The U.S. Navy needs J-35 aircraft. We need F-18 Growlers. We must have C-40A combat support aircraft. And, we need new ships and submarines for a Navy that is spread across the entire globe engaged in war and engaged in carrying out our nation’s military requirements.
Without your engagement in the process, Congress will make up their own minds on what is needed in weapons systems and personnel systems. By any measure, this is unacceptable.
So take action now!