Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit - Modernizing Military Compensation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 1 Modernizing Military Compensation: Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
2 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
WHO WE ARE
Business Executives for National Security (BENS) is a unique nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization of senior executives who volunteer time, expertise, and resources to assist
defense and homeland security leaders on a variety of national security challenges.
OUR MISSION
Apply best business practices to develop, for government officials, solutions to our nation’s
most challenging problems in national security, particularly in defense and homeland
security.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
BENS gratefully acknowledges the members of the BENS Military Compensation & Benefits
Modernization Task Force for their leadership and support of the Modernizing Military
Compensation Series. Additionally, we would like to extend our appreciation to our
subject-matter experts for their thoughtful input as well as acknowledge the BENS Board of
Directors and general membership for their continued sponsorship of all BENS efforts to
improve our national security.
DISCLAIMER
Certain views and information set out in this paper may not necessarily reflect the opinions of individual
contributors or their employers. Responsibility for the content displayed within lies entirely with Business
Executives for National Security (BENS).
Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 3
ABOUT THE REPORT
“Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit” is part of Business Executives for
National Security’s (BENS) Modernizing Military Compensation Series. Capitalizing on
the knowledge and experience of current and former private sector executives, this series
examines military compensation programs and offers insights and recommendations for
creating a more sustainable and effective compensation system. This report focuses on the
military retirement benefit. BENS discusses the benefit’s cost and need for reform, as well as
recommends a retirement system that would better suit a 21st century military. BENS shared
the substance of this report with the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission on April 9, 2014.
4 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
CONTENTS
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... Pg. 5
Introduction................................................................................................................................... Pg. 7
The Military Retirement System............................................................................................Pg. 10
Military Retirement Cost..........................................................................................................Pg. 11
Recruitment and Retention....................................................................................................Pg. 12
Further Analysis Necessary.....................................................................................................Pg. 13
Comparison of Various Private and Public Sector Retirement Plans.........................Pg. 14
Conclusion & Recommendation............................................................................................Pg. 16
Enclosure: Table of Various Retirement Plans....................................................................Pg. 17
Works Cited..................................................................................................................................Pg. 18
Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 5
6 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The military retirement benefit has come under makers determine the need and impact of
scrutiny recently due to its rising costs and po- reform. BENS made three key findings:
tentially outdated structure. Payments to mili-
First, BENS found that while costs are rising,
tary retirees rose by 49 percent between 2002
DoD’s costs are not likely to grow at the rate
and 2012, and continue to climb. In 2013,
experienced in the last decade. Because the
the Military Retirement Fund (MRF) dispersed
military retirement system operates under ac-
approximately $54 billion to 2.3 million ben-
crual funding, DoD’s annual retirement costs
eficiaries. By 2023, the Congressional Budget
are not tied to monthly payouts to retirees,
Office (CBO) projects spending will rise to
but rather the Department’s annual contri-
$70 billion despite the number of beneficiaries
bution to the MRF. DoD’s accrual costs rose
essentially remaining unchanged.i
dramatically from approximately $14 billion
Additionally, the Military Retirement System to $22 billion in just six years from 2006 to
(MRS), which generally provides service mem- 2012, but now stand at $20 billion. DoD
bers with 20 or more years of service with a anticipates their accrual costs will level at
monthly pension, does not reflect changes to $20 billion through 2017 and gradually rise
our military and society. Despite a move from to $23 billion by 2022.ii
conscription to an all-volunteer force, greater
Moreover, while pension payments con-
parity between military and private sector
tinue to steadily grow, rising to $70 bil-
wages, and increased incidence of post-
lion by 2023, these payments are likely to
military careers that supplement retirement
begin to level in the following years. This
income, the military retirement benefit has
is because pension payments are tied to a
largely gone unchanged since its implemen-
service member’s basic pay, and as basic
tation in the late-1940s. Many organizations
pay rises or levels, so too does retirement
including the Department of Defense (DoD)
costs. Congress has signaled that the raises
have called on Congress to reform the system
in basic pay that were seen in the previous
and modernize the benefit to reflect today’s
decade are not likely in the near future, and
norms.
therefore the cost of future payments will
Reflecting on these issues, BENS convened also level. The same effect can be attributed
a group of senior executives to examine the to the rise in DoD accrual cost several years
military retirement system. This group used ago and the leveling that is seen today. As
their understanding of compensation and future payments will cost less, the amount of
its role in recruiting and retaining top talent accrual funds needed to cover those future
to provide insights that would help policy- costs is also less.
Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 7
Second, the MRS appears to assist in retain- of basic pay after two years of service, full
ing individuals beyond ten years of service. individual ownership of these accounts after
For example, forty-three percent of officers six years, and a cash retention bonus at 12
who reach the ten year mark remain until years.iii Similarly, a study by the RAND Cor-
retirement eligible at twenty years of service. poration in November 2014 concluded that
However, its assumed effect in the recruit- a new model that offers smaller monthly
ment and retention of younger cohorts is pensions, but provides lump sum “transition
not well validated. pay” immediately upon retirement could
be popular.iv The results suggest that many
Third, the MRS has not evolved as retirement
service members would choose to take an
benefits in the larger public and private sec-
end-of-career payout likely amounting to
tor have. DoD has neither taken advantage
about two and half years of their annual
of the opportunity to save money through
basic pay in exchange for smaller monthly
substantial reform, nor establish a benefit for
checks between the time they retire from
those serving less than 20 years.
the military until age 65.
Based on these findings, BENS recom-
mends DoD adopt a hybrid defined benefit-
contribution plan that offers portability
and, particularly, flexibility. BENS believes a
hybrid approach that provides some level of
savings, as well as incorporates the appeal of
a defined-benefit in addition to the porta-
bility of a defined-contribution component
would be a more preferable military retire-
ment system. The recommendation of BENS
is consistent with other analytical efforts. In
March 2014, the DoD proposed a plan that
preserves a fixed-income pension for future
20-year retirees that offers a smaller monthly
payout and a lump sum transition payment
upon retirement. This modified pension
plan would be offered alongside a 401(k)-
style defined contribution benefit for all ser-
vice members whereby DoD would provide
an annual direct deposit equal to 5 percent8 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
INTRODUCTION
The MRS currently consists of a defined- suited for the previous generation, not the
benefit plan whereby service members with current one.x The current system has largely
generally 20 or more years of service receive gone unaltered since its implementation in
a monthly pension immediately upon retire- 1948 – ignoring such changes as a transition
ment, along with non-monetary benefits from conscription to an all-volunteer force,
such as access to installation commissaries greater parity between military and private
and medical care. Service members do not sector wages, longer life expectancy, and
contribute to this system and Cost-of-Living increased incidence of post-military careers
Adjustments (COLA) applied annually protect capable of substantially supplementing retire-
retiree pensions from inflation.v ment income.xi
This system is continually under review as part These organizations call for a modified
of a law requiring the President to compre- system that, in addition to being less costly to
hensively examine the military compensation the government and recognizing the change
system every four years,vi but most recently it to an all-volunteer force, provides greater
has been under scrutiny due to its growing flexibility for military leaders to shape the
cost in today’s austere budget environment force and is more readily available to more
and perceived outdated structure. vii Payments service members. Under the current system,
to military retirees and benefit recipients rose 83 percent of men and women who serve do
by 49 percent between 2002 and 2012 not receive retirement benefits due to its 20-
and continue to climb.viii In 2013, the MRF year vesting requirement (although “vested”
dispersed approximately $54 billion to 2.3 short of 20 years members do receive a
million beneficiaries. By 2023, the CBO esti- separation benefit).xii Several organizations,
mates that, despite the number of beneficia- DBB and Heritage for example, recommend
ries remaining essentially unchanged, spend- moving the military system away from the
ing will rise to $70 billion (See FIGURE 1).ix existing defined-benefit to a defined-contri-
bution plan through expansion of the military
Organizations such as the Defense Business
Thrift Savings Plan.xiii xiv
Board (DBB), Heritage Foundation, and the
Center for American Progress argue that the In consideration of the many concerns that
military retirement system is outdated and the current retirement system is out-of-stepProviding an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 9
with the times, BENS convened a group of mend an alternative retirement system better
senior executives to examine the need for suited for today’s military. The group met with
change. This group was selected based on officials familiar with the military retirement
their understanding of retirement compensa- system, consultants who have helped private
tion and its role in recruiting and retaining companies and municipalities transition from
top talent. The group focused its evaluation a pension-style benefit, as well as public and
on the active component retirement plan due private-sector actuaries. They also modeled
to its substantially larger share of the wider the potential savings of a defined contribution
military retirement compensation system. plan and compared the military’s retirement
Their goal was to provide insights that would benefit to the benefit offered at high perform-
help policymakers determine the need for ing companies and public agencies that
and impact of reform. And, if reform was de- maintain a workforce similar to the military.
termined to be necessary, they would recom-
Figure 1
DoD Obligations for Military Retired
Data: Department of Defense & Congressional Budget Office10 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
THE MILITARY
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
The military retirement system is a cliff vesting until age 62, and then return to fifty percent
20-year defined-benefit plan that provides a at 62. Redux, however, is the least popular
monthly pension payment immediately upon retirement plan with less than one percent of
retirement from the active component. The current retirees selecting this option.xvii
monthly pension is determined by one of
The Congressional Research Service (CRS)
three methods based on the date a service
reported that the overall majority of retirees,
member first enters service. For members who
86 percent as of 2009xviii, qualify for pensions
entered service before September 8, 1980,
based on final pay. CRS also reported that
the compensation is equivalent to the final
with the younger cohort of those members
base pay (that is, without allowances and
still on active duty having reached thirty years
subsistence payments) received at the time of
in 2010, the number qualifying under final
retirement multiplied by 2.5 percent for each
pay will steadily decline.
full year of service and prorated by one-
twelfth for each complete month less than The retirement system for Reservists is similar
a year.xv In effect, retirees with 20 years of to active duty, but uses a point system to cal-
service receive a monthly allotment equal to culate ‘qualifying years’xix and generally does
50 percent of the service member’s base pay not disperse pension payments until age 60.xx
while in uniform; 30-year retirees receive the Points are awarded based on various Reserve
maximum allotment which equals 75 percent activities.
of base pay.
Disability retirement is also available for those
For those who entered service after Septem- who qualify. A service member retired for
ber 8, 1980, rather than final base pay, the disability may choose a retirement plan based
pension is determined based on the average on years of service or one based on the se-
of the highest three years of service pay— verity of the disability.xxi
known as ‘High Three’. Lastly, for service
members entering after August 1, 1986, the Service members can also participate in the
member can chose either the aforementioned federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a defined-
High Three or they can opt for a $30,000 contribution plan similar to a private-sector
bonus at fifteen years of service and a tiered 401 (k) plan. Unlike many private sector
retirement pension that pays out one per- plans, however, the government does not
cent less for each year of service under thirty offer matching contributions.xxii Participation
years when under age 62 and High Three in the program varies depending on Service
rates thereafter.xvi Under the latter option and pay grade – ranging from 11 percent for
known as ‘Redux’, those with twenty years enlisted US Army Reserve to 52 percent for
of service would receive a pension equal to enlisted active-duty Navy.xxiii
forty percent of their High Three service payProviding an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 11
MILITARY
RETIREMENT COST
One of the key arguments to reform the they retire. Payments to the MTF for the total
military retirement system is its cost.xxiv Some future cost of payouts that result from mili-
critics have called the costs unaffordable or tary service prior to the accrual accounting
unsustainable. However, these projections of- change come from transfers from the General
ten depart from a baseline starting in FY2000 Fund of the Treasury and are categorized as
through FY2010 when military base pay an unfunded liability.
averaged a 4.2 percent yearly increase. These
rates translated into a larger contribution the Some concerns have been voiced about the
Department had to make to the Military Retire- amount of unfunded liability resident within
ment Fund for future retirees. Since 2011, pay the MRS. However, as the Congressional Re-
increases have averaged 1.4 percent annually. search Service points out: “(1) the hundreds
Should constrained budget realities persist as of billions of dollars of unfunded liability is a
expected and pay increases remain near the cumulative amount to be paid to retirees over
current rates, the MTF contributions are likely the next 50 years, not all at once; (2) by the
to level off at about 30 percent of the annual time some persons first become eligible for
cost of basic pay. This amount is about 2.5 retired pay under the pre-accrual account-
percent of the DoD budget. ing system, many others will have died; and
(3) unlike the private sector, there is no way
Further, when considering the cost of the for employees to claim immediate payment
military retirement system, it is important to of their future benefits. An analogy would be
reconcile both the input (the annual cost to that most homeowners cannot afford to pay
support the Military Retirement Fund) and cash for a house, so they get a mortgage. If
the output (the annual amount paid out to the mortgage had to be paid in full, almost
military retirees and beneficiaries). At times, no homeowners could afford to do so. How-
these accounts are conflated or combined to ever, spread out over 30 years, the payments
show the total cost of the system. Since 1985, are affordable. Similarly, the unfunded liability
the DoD budget has included accrual pay- of federal retirement programs is deemed af-
ments to the MTF sufficient to finance future fordable when federal retirement outlays are
payouts to current active duty personnel when spread over many decades.”xxv12 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
RECRUITMENT
AND RETENTION
Retirement benefits are designed to recog- year vesting provides little flexibility in recruit-
nize and reward those who have served as ing and retention. The current system incentiv-
well as provide an inducement to sustain the ized a force profile for today but it may not
all-volunteer force. BENS found little evidence be appropriate for tomorrow’s. As stated, the
outside of anecdote to support the conten- Services may not necessarily want more tradi-
tion that the current military retirement benefit tional 20 plus consecutive year career troops.
provides significant influence in the recruit- Rather, it may prefer highly specialized mem-
ment and retention process for the demo- bers, e.g., cyber, to move between civilian
graphic writ large. and military careers in order to stay relevant in
the latest technologies and information. The
Fewer than twenty percent of enlisted mem-
current 20-year vesting provides little flexibility
bers stay beyond the ten year point; for
for rewarding those sought after individuals.
officers, the rate is about forty percent. For
Moreover, it does not reward other in-demand
officers who reach the ten year mark, forty-
fields like special operations.
three percent then go on to receive retired
pay. Historically, only thirteen percent of BENS noted that much of the debate tends to
enlisted personnel stay in service long enough focus on those already serving or those who
to receive a pension. It is hard then to make have already served and believes the focus
the connection that the promise of retirement of retirement reform should solely be on the
benefits correlates strongly with recruitment future force. It is largely agreed by most in the
and retention. debate, to include the BENS executives par-
ticipating in this study, that any reform should
Veterans Services Organizations claim retire-
and will grandfather all those currently in uni-
ment reform will hurt recruitment and reten-
form and those who have already retired. A
tion. The Military Officers Association of
commitment was made and precedent should
America believes that retirement plan changes
be followed to not change the benefit ex post
“would do grave damage to long-term reten-
facto. The contention of this report, on the
tion and readiness. By dramatically reducing
other hand, is that the current defined-benefit
its financial commitments to service members
program seems to have been an appropriate
without any reduction in the enormous sacri-
benefit for the past and current force, but it
fices demanded of career troops and families,
may not be appropriate for the future force.
it would destroy the sense of reciprocal com-
We live in a time where priorities and re-
mitment between member and service.”xxvi
sources have shifted, and we should be open
Nevertheless, if retirement benefits remain to discussing changes that would adapt and
a valued tool (and for those who choose a serve our military force and service members
career it has influence), the standard twenty- better going forward.Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 13
FURTHER
ANALYSIS NECESSARY
Having discussed the need to keep faith with That report, which evaluated the attrition
those currently in uniform, BENS believes it rates of the Australian Defense Force follow-
is fair to question the value of the retirement ing their transition from a defined-benefit
system vis-à-vis retention in the future. The pension with 20-year vesting to a new sys-
impact on retention must be a key consider- tem with both defined-benefit and defined-
ation for any reform. Upon discussions with contribution components, found attrition
several subject-matter experts who worked rates were lower under the 20-year, cliff-
with private and public entities transitioning vested defined-benefit plan than compared
from traditional pension-style retirement ben- to the new plan.xxviii The study concluded that
efits to alternative plans, BENS was surprised the removal of the traditional cliff-vested
to learn that there has been little study of the benefit had important consequences on re-
effects retirement plans had on retention. In tention and that further research is needed,
fact, a paper released in November 2014 particularly to determine retention based on
may be the first report that provides empirical employee quality.xxix This study and its results
evidence on the retention effects of removing make clear that further analysis is appropri-
the cliff-vesting component of a public sector ate before substantive reform decisions are
retirement system.xxvii made.14 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS PRIVATE
AND PUBLIC SECTOR RETIREMENT PLANS
One method to assess the validity and worth percent of the employee’s salary based on
of the MRS today is to compare it to retire- what the individual contributes. Almost
ment packages of private companies, as well all of the private companies maintained a
as comparable public sector professions. vesting period of 3 years with all personal
The private companies used for this assess- contributions refundable any time one
ment represent the top companies within their leaves the company. Those funds, along
respective industries as determined by their with the company match contributions
rank in the Fortune 500 portfolio of compa- would then be able to be rolled over
nies. These companies attract the “best and into a future 401(k) plan or used at the
brightest,” and do well at retaining them. The employee’s discretion if he/she attained
public service organizations selected for this the required number of years to be fully
assessment represent a variety of comparable vested. Only two of the nine private com-
professions in populous cities throughout the panies examined also provide a defined
United States. The main observations from benefit retirement plan for employees.
this comparative examination are below. The (See ENCLOSURE)
key difference between both the private sector
• Differences between Public Service
company plans and the public service orga-
Organizations’ Retirement Plans and
nization plans versus the MRS is the ability for
the MRS. Two primary distinctions exist
almost all employees to receive some level of
between the MRS and the retirement
retirement benefit regardless of their years of
packages of other public service organi-
employment in the organization. The great-
zations. First, 100 percent of the plans are
est benefit of the MRS is that unlike the other
defined-contribution and are mandatory
two types of organizations examined, it does
for employees. All of them deduct the
not require any contribution on the part of the
contribution directly from employee’s sal-
service member, and the payout is significant
ary before taxes but match their employ-
and lifelong after retiring.
ees’ contributions. Second, 100 percent
• Differences between Private Companies’ of the public service organizations
Retirement Plans and the MRS. The prima- considered offer an optional deferred
ry distinction between private companies compensation plan, either a 401(k) or 457
and the MRS is the provision of a 401(k) (a type of non-qualified tax advantaged
benefit within the former but not the deferred-compensation retirement plan
latter. Currently, of the nine companies that is available for governmental and
considered, 100 percent of them offer a certain non-governmental employers.)
401(k) defined-contribution plan with a Few match these plans but offer them as
company match, ranging from 4.5 to 6 an additional way for employees to investProviding an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 15 money. Mandatory employee contribu- erally match their employees’ deferred tions to their retirement fund are refund- compensation plan contributions, they able any time the employee leaves the do mandate contributions to their per- service, and the contributions of the or- sonal pension plans, which the organiza- ganization can also be withdrawn by the tions either match or increase through a individual if the specified vesting period competitive interest rate. Those contribu- is attained prior to departure. Employees tions also give employees the benefit of that leave early usually have the option to “options” should they leave prior to their defer the payment of the fund until their minimum service requirement because normal retirement time or receive the the funds are refunded or can be rolled refund immediately. The MRS offers only over into a pension plan if they achieve a defined-benefit plan that, while it does vesting mandates. The MRS lacks major not require service member contribution, similarities to the other two sector plans. cannot be redeemed by anyone who de- However, while the contribution method parts military service prior to 20 years in is different, it does offer a pension plan uniform. Additionally, the MRS does not similar to the public service organiza- contain provisions for a deferred compen- tions and a small number of the private sation plan, which must be done through sector companies, but at no cost to the individual’s personal initiative. (see employees other than through years of ENCLOSURE) service. • Similarities between Private, Public, While the MRS was a typical retirement plan and the MRS. The majority of both the in the past, it is largely atypical today. Private private sector and public service organi- companies and public service organizations zations require employee contributions moved toward their present models as a cost to their own retirement accounts. While saving measure and have benefitted accord- most of the private sector companies do ingly. Defined contribution plans not only not require employee contributions into save the employer money, but also allow the their 401(k) plans, they incentivize them individual who departs before vesting to do to contribute by offering a match. Their so with money in their pocket. plans also offer the benefit of “options” with not only their personal contributions but also their companies’ contributions available to them should they leave prior to reaching retirement age. While the public service organizations do not gen-
16 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
CONCLUSION &
RECOMMENDATION
In summary, BENS concludes that:
• The costs of the MRS are not as prohibitive as they may be perceived.
• The current MRS appears to assist in retaining individuals
in years 10-20 of service, however its assumed effect in the recruitment
and retention of younger cohorts is not well demonstrated.
• The MRS has not evolved as have retirement benefits in the larger
public and private sector.
• DoD has not taken advantage of the opportunity to save money and
provide an enhanced benefit to those serving less than 20 years.
Based on our conclusions and findings, BENS recommends DoD adopt a hybrid
defined benefit-contribution plan that offers portability and, particularly, flexibility.Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 17
ENCLOSURE
Comparison of Private Sector Retirment Plans
* BrightScope is an independent provider of retirement plan ratings and investment analytics to participants, plan sponsors, asset
managers, and advisors in all 50 states. The company maintains a comprehensive database of information on the retirement
plan market and adds additional value and insight by quantitatively rating 401k and 403b plans across critical metrics.
Comparison of Public Sector Retirement Plans18 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit
WORKS CITED
i
Congressional Budget Office, “CBO’s April 2014 Baseline for the Military Retirement Trust Fund,” April 14, 2014,
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43886-2014-04-Military_Retirement.pdf
ii
Department of Defense Office of the Actuary, “Valuation of the Military Retirement System,” September 30, 2012,
http://actuary.defense.gov/Portals/15/Documents/MRF_ValRpt2_2012.pdf
iii
Andrew Tilghman, “Overhauling Retirement Pay: A Military Times Special Report,” Military Times, March 2014.
iv Andrew Tilghman, “New military retirement system might be popular, study says,” Military Times, November, 12, 2014,
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/retirement/2014/11/12/new-rand-retirement-report/18923279/
v
Congressional Research Service, “Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments,” David Burrelli, March
27, 2010.
vi
Presidential memorandum, “Subject: Eleventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation,” December 11, 2009.
vii
Committee on the Budget: US House of Representatives, “The Need to Reform Military Compensation,” HBC Publica-
tions, December 10, 2013, http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364048
viii
Ibid.
ix
Congressional Budget Office, “CBO’s April 2014 Baseline for the Military Retirement Trust Fund,” April 14, 2014,
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43886-2014-04-Military_Retirement.pdf
x
Lawrence Korb, et al., “Reforming Military Compensation,” Center for American Progress, May 2012, http://cdn.ameri-
canprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/05/pdf/military_compensation.pdf
xi
Ibid.
xii
Ibid.
xiii
Baker Spring, “Time to Meet the Challenge of Updating the Military Retirement System,” The Heritage Foundation,
September 29, 2011.
xiv
Richard Spencer, et al., “Report to the Secretary of Defense: Modernizing the Military Retirement System,” Defense Busi-
ness Board, July 21, 2011.
xv
Congressional Research Service, “Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments,” David Burrelli, March
27, 2010.
xvi
Ibid.
xvii
Ibid.
xviii
Ibid.
xix
Ibid.
xx
Congressional Budget Office, “Costs of Military Pay and Benefits in the Defense Budget,” November 2012, https://
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf
xxi
David Burrelli, “Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments,” Congressional Research Service, March
27, 2010.
xxii
Congressional Budget Office, “Costs of Military Pay and Benefits in the Defense Budget,” November 2012, https://
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf
xxiii
Office of the Secretary of Defense, “Cost and Impact on Recruiting and Retention of Providing Thrift Savings Plan
Matching Contributions,” Department of Defense, February 2010, http://www.tspstrategies.com/wp-content/up-
loads/2012/04/Cost-and-Impact-on-Recruiting-and-Retention-of-Providing-Thrift-Savings-Plan-Matching-Contributions.
pdf
xxiv
Congressional Budget Office, “Cost of Military Pay and Benefits in the Defense Budget”, Government Printing Office,
November 2012.
xxv
Congressional Research Service, “Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments, May 28,2014,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306566/
xxvi
http://www.moaablogs.org/battleofthebilge/2011/08/the-defense-budget-board-retirement-proposal/comment-page-
1/#sthash.GIBozHp8.dpuf
xxvii
Jesse Cunha, et al., “The retention effects of high years of service cliff-vesting pension plans,” Economics Letters 126
(2015), www.elsevier.com, November 13, 2014, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176514004248
xxviii
Ibid.
xxix
Ibid.Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 19
Prepared by the
BENS MILITARY COMPENSATION & BENEFITS
MODERNIZATION TASK FORCE
Reginald Brack
Richard Rosenberg
Theodore Carter
Major General Mario Montero, USA (ret.)
Brigadier General Robert Osterthaler, USAF (ret.)
Dr. Paula Shaw
Dr. Roger Shedlin
Nigel Sutton
Blaine Sweatt
John R. Thomas
BENS Staff Contributions
Brian Collins Virginia Gibson
Henry Hinton Keiko McKibben
Clinton Long Mark Ritter
Susan Maybaum Josie Sullivan
James Whitaker
With additional assistance from:
Mitchell Freddura, James Jarosz and Rob Matsick20 Providing an Enduring Military Retirement Benefit 1030 15th Street, NW Suite 200 East Washington, DC 20005 (202) 296-2125 www.bens.org
You can also read
