And then they came for the ultimate public employee.

First they got rid of the "antiquated" notion of defined-benefit pensions in the private sector. Public employees at all levels are well on their way to the glories of defined-contribution (401(k)-type) retirement plans. The last target standing seems to be the military.

In the military, half-pay retirement is available to those who survive 20 years. Your retirement pay begins as soon as you retire, not years later at age 65.

When volunteering for military service can mean multiple deployments in locations where the temperature can reach 125-degrees, all while carrying 80 pounds of gear and body armor--not to mention being shot at--retirement pay is a good incentive to sign up for service.

That may be about to change. According to a Washington Post column by Andrew Bacevich, prof. of history and international studies at Boston Univ. and a former army officer:

"The Defense Business Board (motto: “Business Excellence in Defense of the Nation”), a panel of corporate types who advise the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, has trained its sights on a problem that urgently needs fixing: the military retirement system."


"Didn’t know it was broken? Well, a recent DBB study concludes that military benefits are “more generous and expensive” than those available in the private sector, and have therefore become “unaffordable” and “unfair.” Created back when military skills did not easily translate into civilian second careers, the system is also unnecessary, the study argues. And with retirees no longer dying as quickly as they once did, it’s inconvenient to boot."


One hardly knows where to begin. Military retirement benefits are "unfair" because they're better than those in the private sector? Let's just mention a couple of possibilities as to why this might not be true. First, while assembly line work at GM is often tedious, there have been precious few reports of GM workers being killed on the job by either sniper fire or exploding IEDs.


Second, military personnel often find private sector contractors doing jobs that used to be done by the military (e.g. guarding U.S. embassies), often at pay rates that are at least triple that of the soldier or marine that the contractor replaced.


As far as "translating into civilian second careers," has anyone noticed that returning veterans are at the top of the list of groups having difficulty finding work in today's economy?


According to Bacevich: "...the DBB wants the Pentagon to jettison the concept of a lifelong retirement pension. In its place, the board would institute a tax-sheltered savings account to accompany service members into the post-military workplace. Counting on civilian employers to contribute to that account, while stipulating that benefits would be “payable at age 60 to 65” rather than at 40 or 45, would reduce the money that the Pentagon is obliged to set aside. In effect, providing for Capt. Smith’s retirement would become an individual responsibility, shared by however many employers Smith could induce to pitch in — not a responsibility that the Pentagon alone would have to bear. Less money added to retirement accounts would mean more money for the stuff that matters: wars and weapons."


Or, maybe we could just fight a few less useless wars, and use the savings to treat those who had to fight the necessary wars in a decent fashion. Just a thought.