January 12, 2012
By Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret.
Budget critics perpetually attack the special interest
groups that lobby Congress and make big political donations to protect,
preserve, and enhance their own share of the budget pie at taxpayers’ expense.
The assumption is special interest
groups care more about their own interests than they do about the welfare of
the country as a whole.
Among those who propose significant
cutbacks in defense spending, some point to the advocacy of military
associations (often citing MOAA as lead example) as the cause of significant
recent personnel and compensation cost growth.
In their view, the military
community is a special interest group that has sought to feather its own nest
with higher pay for currently serving troops, plussed-up health care benefits,
expensive retirement reforms, and big benefit increases for military survivors,
among others, over the past decade.
Are we a special interest group?
Absolutely. In fact, the military
community should be considered an “extra special interest group.” But Congress
wouldn’t have passed all those increases if it were merely a matter of
self-interest for the affected individuals.
The military community is (or at
least should be) of extra special interest to every American, because unless we
can continue to attract top-quality people to serve for decades under
conditions most Americans won’t accept, the country won’t be able to meet its
most basic requirement — defending itself.
Unlike other special interest
groups, MOAA and most other military associations don’t have deep pockets to
make political contributions or take legislators on lavish “retreats.”
We make our case on historical
experience that Congress understands better than the budget critics do.
And that experience clearly shows when
the country depresses military compensation and benefits value so it no longer
offsets the sacrifices of career service, people in uniform eventually vote
with their feet.
That’s what happened in the 1990s,
after almost two decades of constant pay, retirement, and health care cutbacks.
Congress didn’t pass the increases
of the past decade out of the goodness of their hearts or to feather military
families’ nests at the country’s expense. Congress adopted those changes
because they were essential to preserve retention and readiness — by correcting
the wrongs imposed on the military community over previous decades.
They knew from hard experience that
currently serving troops pay attention to the treatment accorded their
predecessors in service and that military retirees are primary recruiters for
the next generations in uniform.
Too often over the 1980s and 1990s,
the treatment of military retirees loudly spoke, “Don’t let the door hit you on
the way out.”
And the military and the country
paid a price for that in retention and readiness.
Sadly, shortsighted budget critics don’t
seem to learn from the retention crises of the 1970s and 1990s. All they focus
on is the past decade of improvements to address the problems that caused the
crises.
Every segment of America, including
the military, will be called upon to make some sacrifices to put our country
back on a sound economic path.
Unfortunately, history shows the
tendency in tough budget times has been to whack the military community
disproportionally and give inadequate weight to the sacrifices they already have
rendered for our country.
Extra special interest group,
indeed. At least they should be.
Copyright Military Officers Association of America. All rights reserved.