2010/06/03 00:00:00
Thomas L. Bush is director of the yearlong 11th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), tasked by President Obama to review four areas of service pay and benefits and make recommendations by next May.
Those areas of compensation are for:
- National Guard and Reserve personnel;
- service in a combat zone, during combat operations, in hostile fire area, or while exposed to a hostile fire event;
- wounded warriors and their caregivers and survivors of fallen servicemembers; and
- critical career fields of Special Forces, linguists and translators, unmanned aerial vehicle operators, and mental health professionals.
Bush, who flew more than 150 combat missions in Vietnam as a flight officer or radar intercept officer, retired as a Navy captain in 1998.
His last active duty assignment was in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for Reserve Affairs where he continued to work as a civilian and senior policymaker until earlier this year.
In this edited interview with Observation Post columnist Tom Philpott, Bush discusses the new QRMC and its potential impact..
What’s the overall purpose of the 11th QRMC?
[The purpose is] to review and make recommendations on some specific areas of compensation that will help sustain the all-volunteer force.
Sustaining the all-volunteer force is expensive. Defense officials expressed concerns in late May again about rising personnel costs and the expenses tied to across-the-board pay raises. Is part of your charter to make compensation more efficient than it is today?
One thing we talked about internally, before we even started the review, is use of taxpayer dollars. In terms of compensation, when we have discretionary authorities to be able to ratchet amounts up or down, depending on our need. It’s clearly more efficient and a better use of the tax dollars than mandatory spending. So what we would look for when we see compensation as the appropriate tool is whether there is discretionary authority out there — or do we need a new discretionary authority — so we don’t lock ourselves into long-term commitments.
There may be cases when a long-term obligation might be appropriate. But we really have to weigh that against what we’re going to achieve and [if we] can achieve outcomes using more economical means.
During the Carter administration in the late 1970s, the executive branch had authority to reallocate a portion of the basic pay raise every year into military housing allowances. Would you be interested in restoring that kind of flexibility?
We’re looking at any flexibility we can get that’s out there. But I’m not sure looking at basic pay fits into our charter. We are limited in how much time [we have]. We have an interim report due to the president at six months, or by Nov. 11, Veterans Day, with final recommendations due May 10, 2011. We’ve given ourselves longer, until Aug. 31, 2011, to actually publish the report.
Defense officials and even Congress have embraced some recommendations of the two most recent QRMCs before they produced a final report. Do you expect that to happen with the 11th QRMC?
That’s always an option. We’re going in with no preconceived outcome, so I couldn’t predict what the [defense] department would do. If there are draft recommendations they find very attractive, they may try to implement them pretty quickly.
How are you staffed, and will you rely heavily on outside analyses as did the last QRMC?
We have a staff of two — me and my deputy director [Army Reserve Lt. Col. Ronald Hunter]. We are going to rely within the department on a working group to assist us in identifying issues within our charter and to help gather data. But the working group will not be part of the staff.
We also are going to rely quite heavily on federally funded research and development centers such as the CNA, RAND [Corp.], and the IDA [Institute for Defense Analyses] to gather data and conduct analyses. We like that approach because it takes it outside the DoD [and] provides an independent view of findings and recommendations, [and that] helps us then with providing good business case for any recommendation.
Who is in your internal working group?
Stakeholders — the services and reserve components. Our senior advisory panel will be comprised of the deputy chiefs of staff for personnel. Also, because our issues are diverse, I’m including reserve-component chiefs, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, and some deputy undersecretaries who deal with issues we’re chartered to look at, like wounded warriors.
Previous QRMCs also had senior enlisted advisors. We have the same, but we’ve expanded to include senior enlisted leaders of the Guard Bureau and the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs. We need that enlisted perspective. They make up most of the force and can provide advice on how we can help the troops.
Many specific issues you’ve been tasked to review appear to be raised from current wars: hostile fire pay, aggressive use of Guard and Reserve units, special pays related to changes in weapon systems. Is that correct?
Oh, absolutely. It’s time for us to step back and see if it all makes sense. Should it be that way in the future?
There have been significant changes in compensation and benefits for Guard and Reserve members. Our charter is to ask if pay and benefits fit the way the department is using the Guard and Reserve or plans to use them. With the changing nature of the Guard and Reserve, it is critical to see we have that right.
That’s true, too, of wounded warriors. We’re read a lot about the number who now survive the battlefield who didn’t in previous conflicts. How are we taking care of them? Caregivers are taking on responsibilities they hadn't planned for. We need to look at what we’re doing for them. And how do we treat survivors?
You’re right. Those all stem from the last eight years, and it’s time to step back and say what have we done and what should we be doing in the future. How are we using special operations personnel? What’s our need for mental health professionals? We have new missions like UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] operators and a greater need for linguists and translators.
On special and incentive pays, the 10th QRMC recommended consolidation into eight broad categories to provide more flexibility to the department. Those are being implemented. It’s time for us to take one last look to see if there’s any area we missed or any authority we might need to look at to give us greater flexibility.
Many pilots have moved from the cockpit to flying remotely piloted vehicles from ground-based computer consoles. They still get flight pay like other pilots. Is that a particularly sensitive area where change is needed?
There is emotion on several fronts on that issue. It’s too early to speculate whether changes are warranted. We’ll look at that and make a recommendation. But we’re trying to stay above the emotion and look at it from a logical perspective. That’s what we’re going to do.
Is there any requirement for defense leaders or Congress to act on any of your recommendations?
No. We make the recommendations, and it’s up to somebody else to decide what to do about them because they control the budget.
Given the small size of your staff, would it be fair to characterize the 11th QRMC as recommendations from Thomas Bush?
I wouldn’t characterize it as that. That implies my personal feelings are drawn into making them. We’re taking an analytical approach, to see what makes sense, and will have the business case to support each recommendation. It’s not about that Tom Bush thinks a recommendation is a good idea.
What do you mean by “business case”?
I mean we will weigh the pros and cons, look at supporting data, and put forth our reasons why a recommendation has merit. That’s why we want to go to the federally funded research and development centers for support because they have the independent capability to mine and analyze data.
Has your charter changed since the president set his four areas of study for the QRMC? For example, has Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked you to look at any additional issue?
No. No change.
About the author: Tom Philpott is a freelance writer and syndicated news columnist. His column, "Military Update," appears in 48 daily newspapers throughout the United States and overseas.
Copyright Tom Philpott and Military Officers Association of America. All rights reserved.
Rate This Item:
Please Sign in to rate and comment this page
 |
Commander Anderson |
6/17/2010 4:27:55 PM |
I agree with Col Arnold. Total compensation must be considered including tax favored allowances. Also an enviable retirement system makes total compensation much more than base pay which most often the only number mentioned. Don't forget to consider essentially free medical care after age 65 for TFL eligible. I've left out GI bill and a myriad of other benefits. Those of us who survived 20 or so and had to go to work ( 9 to 5 everyday ) see todays compensation somewhat differently.
 |
Colonel Waugh |
6/16/2010 8:19:28 PM |
As a former Director of Compensation -- 1987 - 1989, the scope seems a little limited. But given the size of the staff as I understand it, perhaps this is a review in name only. I really have not kept up with uniformed services compensation except to note that it seems to have improved significantly in terms of base pay and what was VHA/BAQ. My regards to Steve Strobridge. Tom Waugh, Col, USAF (Ret)
 |
Chief Warrant Officer Osborn |
6/16/2010 6:14:09 PM |
Many 'comments' can be produced concerning several very important concerns but overall the article is informative. My USMC 'Mustang' career was (1956-1995), except that my initial enlisted Base Pay (BP) was $68.00 a month, but gas was 17 cents a gallon, mortgage rates for a 1,800 sqft home was 3%, & a hamburger was 10-15 cents, et al!! My concern is that we are now in much more complicated & technological age, & 'OUR' economy has for decades now been spinning faster-&-faster into an abyss. 'OUR' dollar no longer has the 'value' that it once did, etc. This has had a DRAMATIC impact in all walks-of-life (private sector & military); & in all manners both personal & professional. We must recall that for decades 'WE' were 'PROMISED' free family medical & dental for life. Just to mention 1 of many promises broken by 'OUR' government. Yet, for decades many of us never paid for medical or dental. On the 'other-side-of-the-coin' our more recent military brothers & sisters have had TRICARE forced on them, just to mention one item of concern. & they have to pay a substantial $$ for these 'benefits'! Other very viable observations are made. My personal view is that the QRMC NOT only be a cross-section top-to-bottom & coast-to-coast, but that it be W/O ANY either elected or appointed gov't interference, mainly the Executive branch & congress. Oversight 'could possibly be' either the CBO or a private independent source W/O any ties to gov't or lobbyists, etc. RE: TMC this is not a 'total-truth' because it does NOT compare high-cost areas vs bases, etc, in low-cost areas, & the never-ending cost of living increases. This is the 'spiral-effect-of-economics' that influences ALL Americans, but more so 'OUR' military at primarily all the enlisted & jr officer ranks. These costs & the TMC are NOT commensurate w/each other. & the non-contributory pension system mentioned has & is still changing significantly, especially W/this current Administration. But, I am pleased to see that the % of BP is now increased from 75% for those who honorably serve over 30 yrs, but isn't this designed & provided for primarily the 06 & above pay grades? Other's comments mostly go W/O add'l remarks. Some comparison is similar to Eric Holder recently being sent to assess the oil spill disaster, & then devise a solution ('Mission Impossible')! The reflection that 'most' MOAA commentary comes from RETIRED officers, & 'WE' haven't been in the trenches lately & therefore we cannot properly measure their 21st century 'wants & needs' is an absolute truth. Deployments are now more frequent & in a totally different environment (Korea & Vietnam is fully acknowledged tho), 2 bread-winners in the family is COMPULSORY, etc. 'OUR' elected & many appointed officials are NOT being held as accountable as they should; nor, are they fulfilling 'politically-correct' promises made during campaign-times, thus too much politics, etc!
MY FEW/LIMITED PERSONAL ANALYSIS are as follows: TRICARE & dental should be presented in a 1 package deal - at a reasonable, same premium for all & the policy should NOT be written like a legal charter, or the 2,700+ pages of the HealthCare Bill --- 2-3 pages will suffice. The QRMC should be more as described in the article. Stabilize the TMC W/other gauging factors that determine 'OUR' way of life & costs, etc. PROHIBIT ALL branches of gov't & especially the congress from raping the Military Retirement Trust Fund (MRTF). The gov't has, ever since the FDR era, continued to slowly kill Social Security (SS) & this is now happening to the MRTF. The U.S. is going broke & we CANNOT keep printing $$'s to bail ourselves out! Bring LEADERSHIP back to the White House, 'OUR' congress, & 'OUR' military! i.e., 'IF' we are going to engage in a war, conflict, skirmish, etc, be it terrorism, cartels, drugs, 'ILLEGAL' Immigration, border enforcement, or other criminal acts where 'OUR' military is required; then PERMIT them to WIN!! DO NOT continue to hamper their training, experience, abilities, DUTY, etc, by handcuffing them W/imprudent Rules of Engagement (ROE) -- ALLOW them to fight & more so to WIN!!
SEMPER FIDELIS,
Larry E. Osborn
CWO5 USMC (Retired)
 |
Colonel Loftus |
6/16/2010 5:28:56 PM |
Good interview / article. The one point that struck me was "flight pay" for controlling RPVs. I was strictly a ground soldier but I think the Army had it correct by slotting Warrant Officers in the majority of helicopter pilot positions. With RPVs the logical next step is to select and train operators from the enlisted ranks. You can bet the Army and Marines are and will continue to use enlisted persons to control unmanned ground weapon systems and other robotic systems -- why continue to place the Officer Flight Pay burden on the tax dollars -- we thank them all our flyers for their service but it is time to mmove on.
 |
Captain Nailor |
6/16/2010 3:57:02 PM |
It's very difficult for we older vets to review this objectively. Having served in Viet Nam as a Captain on Combat Pay for $480/Month I find it hard to sympathize with todays young Captains. It is a perception of my age group that the Volunteer Army is paid very well. Very very well. As a consequence the Congress often takes a dim view of helping us which hurts we older vets who once served for $75.30/month. Personally, I dislike the Volunteer Army as too many young Americans are now completely out of touch with our military. It has become a we and "they" thing. Military personnel are seen as "oh them"..... I live in a senior park in Florida. Once, everyone here was a vet, now most of them haven't a clue about military service. I respectfully submit that cannot be good for our country. The sense that the military is a bunch of Hessians we hire to protect us. How can that be good for us as a nation? I could go on about the "free medical and dental care" I was promised if I re-enlisted. And of course about the value of the PX and Commissary...both of which have been rendered useless by Wal-Mart. I am a retired Mustang who paid into SBP for 34 years and frankly I feel that my Government has cheated me badly. I am not a happy camper and no one seems to care. I was in Korea, I was at the Suez in 56 and I was in Lebanon in 58. I was in Gitmo in 62 and and served with the 9th MEB in l965 and then another tour in 69/70. I held up my end of the bargain but........Obviously, I am a Mustang with mixed emotions about today's military. Rating 1
Richard in Florida
|
Captain Eckstein |
6/16/2010 3:25:30 PM |
When you join the military, there is no expectation of becoming wealthy. You joined to serve your country. When you are told repeatedly to "do more with less." you do your best to accomplish the task. Anyone who says that current compensation is adequate is living on some other planet. Talk to the E-5 with a family stationed in the DC area and ask him or her on the status of their quality of life based on their compensation. There is no figure that one can place on the sacrifices, the courageous acts, etc that today's man or woman in the service provides. A QRMC needs to be made up of a cross section of the military from top to bottom; from the Beltway to the remotest bases or posts.
CAPTAIN Mike Eckstein USN (Ret)
|
Colonel Arnold |
6/16/2010 3:07:53 PM |
I believe that Total Military Compensation should be the criteria..Most everyone only speaks of Base Pay which is very misleading..When Total Military Compensation is considered the troops today are very well paid and we still have a non-contributory pension system.
|
Chief Warrant Officer King |
6/16/2010 2:58:06 PM |
It has always seemed to me the QRMC was made up of "Bean Counters" or senior military members who have NO idea what the common grunt is going through on the battle field or in the trenchs. If you have not been in the trenchs lately, you really can not identify what our young men and women go through on a daily basis. To have at least mid rank NCOs to help with the input will give our front line personnel the feeling they have had some say in the input and results. You need buy in from our troops. They just might surprise you on how to use the funding more effectively and obtain better results for the dollars spent. Don't forget, it's not only the troops in harms way that need to be heard. The family members at home need to have their voices heard also.
As far as flight pay for those individuals in the States and flying remotely are not putting themselves at risk as the pilots in the aircraft. I do not think they deserve flight pay, however, I do believe they should receive a type of Propay for their abilities.
There has always been way to much politics involved when it comes to the compensations for our troops. They put the military in harms way and are not held accountable for their support or lack of support to the military on the front lines. My two cents on the matter.
|
Colonel Rentner |
6/16/2010 2:57:08 PM |
