2008/01/22 00:00:00
By Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret.
A while back, I critiqued a GAO report of military compensation that totaled up every nickel the government spends on a career servicemember and his or her family and survivors in a lifetime. The report concluded the government spends about $130,000 a year on each person on active duty.
One line in that total cited relocation expenses, which provided a theme for my critique: What exactly should be counted as compensation and why?
In this case, my question was, "If the government orders a military family to move across the country, and then reimburses them 70 percent of the expenses they incur, can we really say the government provided that family any compensation value at all?" After all, the net compensation was negative - it cost the family a significant amount out of their own pocket to comply with government orders.
That's the problem with most economists' analyses of military benefits - they tote up only the costs to the government and ignore the costs servicemembers incur in the process.
Let's take a closer look at the specific issue of permanent change-of-station (PCS) reimbursements for military people.
It's no secret PCS allowances never have kept pace with the significant out-of-pocket expenses military families incur in complying with government-directed moves. DoD used to survey military people's costs but hasn't done so for years, perhaps because the results never have been very flattering. Here are a few specific examples:
PCS mileage rates haven't been adjusted since 1985. The current rates range from 15 cents to 20 cents a mile, depending on the number of vehicles and family members. The government authorizes 50.5 cents a mile for temporary duty travel and charitable contribution purposes. But on PCS moves, it extracts the donation from the troops.
House-hunting trips are authorized, and servicemembers are allowed permissive TDY, but travel must be strictly by personal expense - in contrast to the treatment of federal civilians, who are authorized funded travel and per diem.
Personal vehicle shipment is authorized - but only for one vehicle, even though the overwhelming majority of service families have two working spouses, making two cars a necessity. For each of the past two years, the House Armed Services Committee has proposed allowing shipment of two cars, but only for moves to Hawaii, Alaska, and U.S. overseas possessions and territories. But even that modest proposal was dropped both years, as Congress concluded the troops can afford that expense more than the government can.
Full-replacement-cost reimbursement for household goods damaged during PCS moves has enjoyed more legislative success. Congress approved it in 2003, recognizing depreciated reimbursement is a major problem for people whom the government orders to relocate frequently. But four years later, it somehow has yet to be implemented, thanks to concerted lobbying by various shipping groups.
Temporary Lodging Expenses have been reimbursed since 1985 - but adjusted only twice in the subsequent 22 years. The most recent change was in 2001, when Congress raised the maximum daily allowance from $110 to $180. That's supposed to cover a family's hotel and food expenses while in temporary lodging at the gaining or losing U.S. installation. Today, after seven years of inflation, it hardly covers a day's expenses for a family of four or five anywhere in America, let alone those moving to San Diego or Washington, D.C.
I'll be merciful and stop there. Until we can address these basic needs, don't even dream about pie-in-the-sky ideas like the homeowner closing cost reimbursements the government authorizes for relocating federal civilians.
So who's comfortable assigning what compensation value to military PCS reimbursements?
The services can't avoid requiring military people to relocate, without all the attendant disruptions in their households, their children's education, and their spouses' careers.
But you'd think the government that "persuades" them to foot so much of the bill for that special privilege might at least upgrade its repeat-customer discount a little more often.
Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret.,
director of MOAA government relations
