THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, August 8, 1995 TAG: 9508080001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 51 lines
Congress is always eager to spend for military hardware but reluctant to adequately compensate military personnel.
One reason, of course, is that lobbyists for the manufacturers of military hardware have far more money to wave under congressmen's noses than do lobbyists for military personnel. Another reason is that civilian defense jobs in home districts mean votes, whereas military personnel often are too mobile to be constituents.
Also, congressmen are attracted to high-tech military gadgetry like boys to GI Joe dolls.
Friday's paper contained a front-page story on the Senate vote to build an expensive national network of anti-ballistic missiles over the next eight years.
Next to that story was one by staff writer Dale Eisman on a congressional plan that could reduce the future retirement benefits of more than 600,000 active-duty and reserve service members.
Once again Congress proposes more for weapons, less for military personnel.
The congressional plan calls for basing each service member's monthly pension check on average pay for the 12 months preceding retirement. Currently, the check is based on the member's pay at the retirement date. The move would typically cut pensions by 3 percent to 5 percent, but the reduction could be as high as 8 percent.
One example: A Navy senior chief petty officer retiring this year after his 26th anniversary in uniform would receive $1,753 a month, or 8.4 percent less than the $1,914 the retiree would get with the current formula.
Pensions for personnel who have enlisted since 1980 are figured differently, based on average pay for the three years in which the most money was earned.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the proposed pension formula would save $650 million over the next seven years. Service chiefs warned, however, that the new formula might lead members to put off retirement one year in order to have their pensions based on the new higher pay. In that case, the new formula would cost the country money, not save it.
Either way, the new formula would break promises this nation made to the people who defend it. by CNB