USA Today - Budget Deal Needs Real Pentagon Refrom

Op-Ed

By Rep. Duncan Hunter

Imagine a combat infantryman with 25 years of military service, through times of war and peace. Now retired, this veteran struggles with back pain and arthritis, warranting a disability rating and modest compensation for decades of grueling service. Despite the pain, he is deeply proud of his service to this country.

Now imagine a military compensation system that, because of growing budget pressures, is incapable of providing him with the full benefits he earned through decades of service.

No different than federal entitlement programs, the military compensation system is facing challenges and constraints of its own. The Ryan-Murray budget deal, whether intentional or not, thrust military compensation into the spotlight and called attention to disconcerting projections of a system that, unless reformed, will be unable to meet its future obligations and crowd out other defense priorities.

The comprehensive nature of the agreement forced a tough choice on defense-related budget items specifically. A less than favorable provision to alter the calculation for the cost-of-living adjustments to military retirees was paired with sequestration relief for the armed services, which provided the funding and flexibility to support the most immediate needs of our military men and women.

There is still a shooting war in Afghanistan and America's military remains in harm's way. With men and women in a war zone, Congress and the Commander-in-Chief have an obligation to provide the ammunition, armor and complexity of resources needed for troop safety and mission success. With the benefit of more than $30 billion in defense sequestration relief, the budget agreement serves to limit the disruptions in funding that our military and most Americans have come to expect. This relief is undoubtedly an upside.

In contrast, the provision to alter cost-of-living adjustments after December 2015 for military retirees under the age of 62 is prompting calls for repeal among service and veteran organizations, and a growing group of representatives and senators. The estimated savings of the cost-of-living adjustment: roughly $6 billion over the next 10 years.

The question is, if the provision is repealed entirely, can we find comparable savings elsewhere? The answer is "yes" -- and then some.

As military veterans, we believe there are far better ways to reform spending. Here are three positive spending reforms that would result in far more than the $600 million per year that the current budget saves through the cost-of-living adjustment alone:

Audit the Pentagon: Although all federal agencies are required by law to undergo regular audits, the Department of Defense (DOD) has never been audited. Now is the time. According to one estimate from the office of Sen. Tom Coburn, a Pentagon audit would result in about $25 billion in projected savings each year for the next 10 years, thanks to improved efficiency and accountability -- and possibly much more.

Reform retirement benefits for future DOD employees: While all service is valued, the mental and physical demands on personnel are different. It's possible for a member of the military to retire with a full pension after 20 years, without experiencing repeated deployments or the dangers of direct combat. Still honorable service, just not the same as a solider or Marine with multiple combat tours, including those under the 20-year mark. Converting retirement benefits to portable 401K-style vehicles, with allowances for differentiation based on occupational specialty, combat tours and time-in-service, would be more efficient, more equitable and fiscally sound.

Reform the acquisition process: Like the Pentagon audit, this is an overdue idea whose time has come. Virtually any member of the military can share tales of how the sluggish, wasteful and unresponsive acquisitions process affected combat performance. Proposals for reforming the Pentagon procurement process are numerous and vary widely, there's no question that tens of billions of dollars in savings are at stake.

We could recount the frustrating route as to how we got here -- a broken budget process, repetitive and continuous emergency funding measures and a sprawling national debt that is forcing cost-cuts of all types, good and bad.

Congress has already removed military medical pensions and survivor benefits from any possibility of future cost-of-living adjustments. Call it a start, but even retroactive action to repeal the full provision in its entirety is not enough.

A more constructive approach would be to promote sound reforms that would result in far more savings than a tweak to military retiree cost-of-living adjustments. Together, they would constitute a potent approach to long-term defense spending reform.

Source