Lies, damned lies, and statistics version. Building on the topic I introduced yesterday, let's take a look at a very recent example of what appears to be either a badly done, or agenda-driven, use of statistics to push a desired policy goal - in this case, revising the military retirement system.
Bottom line up front - every military retiree I've talked to - including the gentleman who analyzed the Defense Business Board presentation - are amenable to changing the military retirement system to give the soldier an equity stake he or she can take with them, vice the current all or nothing game where only 13% of us take home a retirement check unless there's been an incentive introduced to get people to leave active duty during a draw-down - such as occured in the 90's. And anything is better than what happened to the force during the post-Vietnam Reductions In Force.
So - we're a receptive audience, though we might quibble with the details. But we also firmly believe that the discussion should be based on open and honest data, vice data that appears to have been shaded to exaggerate the problem - which we believe tends to lead to solutions that will be an over-reach.
At issue is the only data chart in the DBB Presentation: Modernizing the Military Retirement System Task Group, Dated July 21, 2011.
Simply put, they don't adjust the numbers to constant dollars - which would compare oranges to oranges. They instead use year by year actuals, which ends up comparing an aircraft carrier to a kayak. Both are boats, but after that they don't have a lot in common. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be they compare a Sherman Tank to an M1.
How does that work out? Well, let Peter Broll's graphic lay it out, by laying adjusted dollars over the Defense Business Board's chart:
As Peter notes in his presentation:
Indeed. I agree. If you would like to contact Peter directly, drop me a line and I will provide his contact data. I can also provide the spreadsheet he used to analyze the data - and the data sources are noted in the presentation linked above.
Again - I'm not against changing the retirement system. I'd just like it to be done on the basis of honestly presented data.
Bottom line up front - every military retiree I've talked to - including the gentleman who analyzed the Defense Business Board presentation - are amenable to changing the military retirement system to give the soldier an equity stake he or she can take with them, vice the current all or nothing game where only 13% of us take home a retirement check unless there's been an incentive introduced to get people to leave active duty during a draw-down - such as occured in the 90's. And anything is better than what happened to the force during the post-Vietnam Reductions In Force.
So - we're a receptive audience, though we might quibble with the details. But we also firmly believe that the discussion should be based on open and honest data, vice data that appears to have been shaded to exaggerate the problem - which we believe tends to lead to solutions that will be an over-reach.
At issue is the only data chart in the DBB Presentation: Modernizing the Military Retirement System Task Group, Dated July 21, 2011.
Simply put, they don't adjust the numbers to constant dollars - which would compare oranges to oranges. They instead use year by year actuals, which ends up comparing an aircraft carrier to a kayak. Both are boats, but after that they don't have a lot in common. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be they compare a Sherman Tank to an M1.
How does that work out? Well, let Peter Broll's graphic lay it out, by laying adjusted dollars over the Defense Business Board's chart:
As Peter notes in his presentation:
The use of the data chart in the DBB Task Group presentation yields questions:
Was the retirement plan affordable in 1960 when we only had a quarter-million retirees?
Is it unaffordable now because the size of our military yields a retirement population of nearly 2 million for the foreseeable future?
Was the data selection and chart creation for slide 10 an oversight or intentional?
How much care was used by the Task Group in developing their other insights?
Regardless of the answer to these and other questions, the DBB Task Group’s August final report should draw scrutiny from a larger audience.
Indeed. I agree. If you would like to contact Peter directly, drop me a line and I will provide his contact data. I can also provide the spreadsheet he used to analyze the data - and the data sources are noted in the presentation linked above.
Again - I'm not against changing the retirement system. I'd just like it to be done on the basis of honestly presented data.
I don't trust the DBB, or their masters.
Including all the costs for "retired" Congresscritters? Now there is a benefit that should be eliminated entirely. None of them should ever be paid a dime after the last day they are in office!
And, throw in Washington DC school teacher salary and benefits data into the comparison pile as well.
For 2009 we spent $6,784,545,198 (1960) on 1.904,230 retirees resulting in $3,562.88 per capita expenditure. That's roughly a 31% increase.
Of course, that's a very simple slice, and does not address things like whether a greater proportion of dependents have been included. Another question: does the increase in expenditure result in greater value recieved? We have medical technologies today which were literally far-out science fiction in 1960. Is the extra cost worth it to those who need it? I suspect the unanimous answer would be yes.
Another point: improved battlefield treatment, resulting in survivors which would have previously died, but now require therapy and treatment. In this case improvement shows negatively as an increase in expenditure.
Or how about a chart contrasting the annual differences in "net worths" between career military personnel and career politicians?
1. Reduce the number of flag officers to WWII levels, when there were 16,000,000 in uniform.
2. Do away with the up or out mentality. If a guy is happy being a Major flying a jet for 30+ years, let him.
3. Aside from special ops, most military jobs could now be performed by men/women well into thier 50s, take advantage of the technology. You don't have to be able to do 100 push-ups to stare at a computer screen.
4. Force the USAF to re-introduce Warrant Officers for nursing, maintenance and all non-nuclear/sub-sconic rated positions. Let an enlisted maintainer learn to fly a UAV, make him/her a W-1 and he/she will never bitch like the commisioned guys do.
These 4 suggestions would reduce active duty personnel costs and out-year retirement costs.
That said, I don't see why Warrants can't handle nukes, frankly, but I may misunderstand your intent there.
Casey - Dependents don't calculate into retirement, except in terms of the retiree buying into the Survivor Benefit Program, which enables a surviving spouse to keep 55% of the service member's pension - but that's something we pay into... by allotment from our retired pay. I don't receive one dime for Beth, or, in the early days of my retirement, Andy.
Your survivors-who-would-have-died are also either going to be a part of the !3% who make it to twenty, or they're going out on a disability retirement, which, IIRC, the DBB chose not to recommend changes to. Their medical costs are going to be covered by either VA or TRICARE, and if you bump retirees off TRICARE, people are going to shift over to VA anyway.
The per retiree data shows a ramp-up in the early 1970's in average payout. On the slide I note that the trend has remained essentially flat since 1976. There might be many factors at work, but I think the most likely explanation for the ~30% growth is simply the pay increases that accompanied the move to an all volunteer force.
Thanx, I hadn't taken the time to D/L the whole thing.
My conclusion remains the same.
I (SFC, 24 yrs active duty) don't make the average) by about $5K, but I don't guess I should expect to.....
Supposedly.
I can't find the article now, but about a year ago I read an article as to why the AF actually did away with WO ranks. It was for social reasons. They didn't want WOs giving orders to Commissioned Officers, nor did they want WO as AC commanders with commissioned officers as subordinate crew.
My father joined teh AF in 1950 and worked to oevrcome his dirt farmer rearing and had nearly completed high school just as the AF quit appointing WOs. For him it was another way up, and he did not want to transfer to teh Army, which was a bit more rustic than the Af was at the time (this isn't the case anymore. Rucker and Campbell, two posts I spent a fair amount of time on were as nice as any AFB I'd been on). My father held some resentment towards the AF and, combined with the late Vietnam war atmosphere in the AF, caused him to decide to retire earlier than he would have otherwise. The AF has lost a lot over teh years, and still loses personnel to the Army because of their attitudes towards Warrant Officers.
Some had thought the AF would wake up on the Physician's Assistant issue when they lost many to the Army because the Army made them Warrants, and the AF made them MSgt (E-7 in the AF) instead. The Af has been quite stupid on this issue.
The nuke thing was based on how the Navy used to do it when I was last TDY to a Naval Station, but hey, the USAF has no Warrants now and that adds to out year costs, so any change would be an improvement.
On the sticking around longer; if you encourage or requre every one who stays to retirement to leave somewhere near the 20 year point, but the law allows service until age 62 that means we are now paying for 2 retirements at 20, when we could pay for one (at least sometime). I've heard the pipeline thing for years and frankly, I don't think the DoD gets all that much out of the free flowing pipeline model.
I see you didn't critique my idea about "downsizing" generals and their staffs...
I realize that not all of the savings required would come from my thoughts, but it would be a good start and then look at drastically modifying the retirement system. I'm not against some modification, just would like to see the personnel wastes tackled first.
I didn't critique it because I agree with you. Too many Generals.
QM - I was once told by a graduate of that school in Colorado Springs that the real reason the AF did away with WOs is it wouldn't have anywhere to put all of the academy grads that wash out of flight school... Could be a joke, could be true, since I've spent nearly 40 years marveling at the way AF generals think...
In 1986 I was an Army Warrant stationed in the HAWK battalion at Spangdalem AFB. I was waiting to show my ID to the SP on the gate, but the lady in line ahead of me was a German who spoke no English, and the SP spoke no German. Finally, with a lot of arm waving, the SP convinced her to drive on. When I handed him my ID, the SP saluted sharply and said "Some people are just ignorant, aren't they Lieutenant?"
I just shook my head, returned the salute, and said "yes, they are" as I drove on.
I'd never heard the story about not having room for Academy grads that washed flight school. For myself, I'd close teh service academies anyway. I don't think they are cost effective. We are getting a good product from ROTC, and that is really the case in the AF. Most of the senior AF officers I've known were ROTC products. Last time I saw the proportion among Army General Officers, far more were ROTC grads than West Point grads. I think it's reversed in the Navy, but I'd close Annapolis simply because of the cost per grad just doesn't result in much of a difference in quality of officer vs ROTC. Still, even in the Navy, the largest proportion of commissioned officers is ROTC.
The service academies made sense in teh 19th and early 20th centuries as college grads were pretty rare, and the academies weren't viewed colleges per se. I don't think Annapolis started awarding degrees until the 20s. West Point was started as an Engineering School, but placed grads in all branches, with Corps of Engineers being the prestige branch (taking people like Lee, for example).