THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, August 16, 1995 TAG: 9508160436
SECTION: MILITARY NEWS PAGE: A06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Tom Philpott
LENGTH: Medium: 71 lines
It's a measure of how deeply some military people distrust President Clinton that they want to blame him for a Republican plan to cut future retirement of 334,000 current careerists and many more reservists.
Perhaps they can't believe conservative politicians - many of whom argued against women in combat and gays in the military on readiness grounds - now embrace a ``High-1'' retirement change certain to send morale plummeting.
``It's obvious (William) Perry,'' Clinton's defense secretary, ``is more interested in his political position than in the welfare of the people he supposedly leads,'' said an unidentified Air Force member in a message posted with an on-line computer bulletin board.
The fact is, if careerists want to stop High-1, which threatens to cut the lifetime value of retired pay as much as 9 percent, they better put pressure where it belongs - on Republican lawmakers. A Republican budget committee, led by Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.), inserted High-1 into the budget bill. A Republican-led House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. John Kasich (Ohio), endorsed it with enthusiasm. All 30 Republicans on the House National Security Committee, including chairman Roy Spence (S.C.) and personnel subcommittee chairman Robert Dornan (Calif.), voted to send High-1 to the House floor.
Democrats aren't blameless, of course. It was a Democratic-led Congress two years ago that concocted unequal delays in cost-of-living adjustments between military and federal civilian retirees. Unfortunately, in trying to solve that $1.8 billion mess, Republicans decided to cut $649 million in benefits to future retirees.
What should anger service people is how docile Republicans on the House National Security Committee were when High-1 came to a vote. Few seemed to appreciate that military people would feel betrayed.
Rep. Tillie Fowler, a second-term Republican from Jacksonville, Fla., suggested Democrats exaggerate the hardship High-1 would impose on those nearing retirement. ``The budget resolution passed last spring,'' she said. ``I guarantee, anybody thinking about retiring has been well aware this was coming and hopefully planned accordingly.''
Fowler came to the committee markup a few facts short. High-1 for many weeks was the best-kept secret in Washington. The Clinton administration indeed was slow to react. Leon Panetta, White House chief of staff, personally cleared Perry's complaint letter to Congress Aug. 4, three days after the House committee vote. But the budget committee kept High-1 under wraps so long it even fooled the Senate Armed Services Committee. One staffer there had assured Pentagon officials in July they had nothing to worry about. Service news weeklies stopped covering the issue for the same reason.
Yet even at this late date, no Republican has joined Democrats in urging that High-1 be shelved. The latest Pentagon appeal came from Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall. In an Aug. 9 letter to Domenici, Widnall warned that High-1 would reverse a ``very positive trend'' in military readiness and quality of life, cutting benefits for more than a quarter of the Air Force, including many who served in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia. ``This is unprecedented - for the first time the Congress is neglecting to grandfather those career people who are relying on a promise made at the time of enlistment.''
But Widnall also offered to help Domenici in building budget alternatives to High-1 when the Senate reconvenes in September. That's a lifeline Republicans should grab. MEMO: Reader comments and suggestions are welcomed. Write to Military
Update, P.O. Box 1230, Centreville, Va. 22020, or send e-mail to:
milupdate aol.com
by CNB