Military Officer - July 2007 - (Page 12)

fromthepresident Misplaced Concern Some civilian and military leaders seem preoccupied with short-term personnel costs — and unaware of the steep price to be paid for neglecting military people and families. D espite encouraging moves by the new secretary of defense, I continue to be concerned about administration bean counters’ short-range approach to treating military people and families, especially in wartime. Public statements from some civilian and military leaders suggesting that, despite the heavy operational tempo, America does not need a bigger Army and Marine Corps, nor to improve beneﬁts for reserve component forces, can make it seem as though these leaders have their heads in the sand when it comes to people issues. MOAA always has held that the allvolunteer force (AVF) is America’s most precious national resource. But instead of championing the AVF, Pentagon leaders continue to tell legislators the U.S. military is adequately compensated and the nation is spending too much on military personnel — especially retirees and their survivors. When the House of Representatives passed its version of the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act in May, the administration’s Ofﬁce of Management and Budget immediately issued a “Statement of Administration Policy” opposing virtually everything the House said was necessary. (Sadly, this is not a new trend.) For example: ■ The House wants a 3.5 percent active duty pay raise. The administration is opposed even though last year’s military pay raise was the lowest in more than 10 years. ■ The House approved modest beneﬁt increases for some combat-wounded retirees 12 MILITARY OFFICER J U LY 2 0 0 7 and those widowed by service-connected causes. The administration opposes these. ■ The House would bar any TRICARE fee hikes for FY 2008. The administration said it was “disappointed” in the House plan. ■ The administration “strongly opposes” piecemeal changes in portions of disability compensation contained in the House bill. ■ The administration opposes action to administer the Montgomery GI Bill and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program under the VA. The administration is too concerned about money spent on personnel and not concerned enough about the burden on our troops, who are paying premiums up front with multiple combat tours, frequent family separations, aging equipment, and grievous physical and mental wounds. I’m worried that America’s AVF is being taken for granted, and you ought to be worried as well. We must continue to make the case — vocally — for our troops and their families, to ensure they know they are valued and recognized for their dedicated service and many sacriﬁces. We owe them nothing less. — Vice Adm. Norb Ryan Jr., USN-Ret. PHOTO: STEVE BARRETT

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Military Officer - July 2007

Military Officer - July 2007 Contents From the Editor From the President Your Views MOAA Directory Rapid Fire Washington Scene Financial Forum Ask the Doctor Chapter Activities Cover Story: In Focus After the Kim Dynasty Animal House Paying Tribute MOAA Member Services Pages of History Faces of MOAA Information Exchange Advertising Index MOAA Scholarship Donors MOAA Calendar Sounding Taps Encore

Military Officer - July 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.