For months, the Defense Department has carried out affairs under the direction of the Budget Control Act of 2011, aka “the sequester.” This state of affairs has imposed limits on military procurement, deployment, training schedules and overall force readiness.
At this juncture, the pressure of the sequester and finding cost savings threaten another area of critical military spending: compensation and benefits. Having already placed heavy burdens on commanders and forces, this pressure to find savings threatens to pass America’s budgetary woes to individual DOD employees in and out of uniform.
Particular scrutiny of military compensation and benefits has come under the purview of the newly created Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, created by the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Names of the chairman, the Honorable Alphonso Maldon Jr., and commission members were released in June. The commission is tasked with ensuring, “long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force . . . [and] to enable the quality of life . . . [while] achieving fiscal sustainability.”
Although the particular mission of this commission seems productive on its own, the fact that it has been directed to look into the “fiscal sustainability” indicates DOD benefits might be on the chopping block should the sequester continue and pressure mount to find more cost savings.
While the costs of military benefits have increased throughout the past 12 years, much of this growth is the result of the introduction of Tricare for Life in 2002-2003. It is only reasonable to assume costs after years of war correspond to the increase of veterans and retirees.
However, the spike in compensation costs in the early 2000s does not indicate an out-of-control benefits system. To the contrary, a report by retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, writing for the Military Officers Association of America, looks over the past three decades and shows that compensation has consistently held 30 percent to 33 percent of DOD spending, neither hemorrhaging DOD funds nor stowing them away.
If the military compensation system is not broken, then what can Congress achieve by reforming it? First and foremost, some members of Congress perceive benefits and compensation as an area of the defense budget that can be cut to reduce the financial strain of the sequester.
One particular effort put forth by the president’s fiscal 2014 budget request and echoed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is a proposed cut to DOD pay. This particular measure would implement a 1 percent increase for military personnel to save about $540 million.
While this proposal would cut costs, it comes as a tremendous slight to military personnel whose pay is supposed to be tied to private sector growth, the Bureau of Labor’s Employment Cost Index, which is supposed to be a 1.8 percent increase. In addition, Hagel also recommended in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 10 for the inclusion of enrollment fees to Tricare, which he projects could raise $1 billion. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., earlier this year stated, “There are a lot of ways the federal government can cut costs . . . but targeting salaries and benefits for our troops and civilian personnel should not be one of them.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., speaks with reporters following a vote in the Senate. Gillibrand’s proposal to remove military commanders from the process of reviewing sexual-assault cases was left out of the bicameral deal on the defense authorization bill, but the senator is pushing for a vote on her plan soon.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.