From: Jeff Shultz 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:59:42 -0600, Robert G Lewis wrote:

> Mark the original quote dealt with benefits to those on active duty in
> Iraq, Not the armor issue ( which is an issue)
>
> here is the article quoted in the link John provided
>
> http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2440
>
> and here is the original transcript
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html
>
> This is one of the items quoted in the TNR article ( although the cut the
> response)
>
> :  Specialist Skarwin (Sp?) HHD 42nd Engineer Brigade.  Mr. Secretary
> [Cheers] my question is with
> the current mission of the National Guard and Reserves being the same as
> our active duty counterparts, when are more of our benefits going to line
> up to the same as theirs, for example, retirement?  [Cheers] [Applause]
>
>
> SEC. RUMSFELD:  [Laughter] I can’t imagine anyone your age worrying about
> retirement.  [Laughter]  Good grief.  It’s the last thing I want to do is
> retire.  The pay and benefits for the Guard and the Reserve relative to
> the active force have been going up unevenly at a rate faster than the
> active force.  If you go back over four years – matter of fact, I just
> went over this with the senior person in the department who looks at pay
> and benefits. And apparently, what’s happened is that for a variety of
> reasons, the incremental changes that are made each year, in terms of pay
> and benefits and health care and retirement and what have you, have
> brought the Guard and Reserve up at a faster level than the active force.
> And what one has to do in managing the total force and the total force is
> critically important.  We need the Guard and Reserve as well as the active
> force.  And we have to see that we have the incentives arranged in a way
> that we can attract and retain the people that are needed to defend the
> country.  At the moment, we are doing well in terms of attracting and
> retaining the people we need.  And if anything, I think the data suggests
> that the Guard and Reserve forces had been advantaged relatively compared
> to the active force over the past four years.  Question.
>
>
> I would be interested to know what the actual situation is. the perception
> is the Guard and Reserves are not as well off as the Regular Active duty
> forces.
>
> Bob Lewis
>
I've never heard of any disparity like that - other than the Reserves (and
perhaps the Guard) has to wait until age 60 to start receiving retirement
benefits. Since they aren't 24x7 military normally, this made sense
previously. Perhaps it needs reevaluating since the useage of both forces
has gone up significantly since 1991.

Quite honestly, a question on retirement benefits would have been the last
thing I would expect from soldiers about to enter the sandbox - survival
should be on their minds, not their retirement pay.

I think the transcript shows that Rumsfield acquits himself well for such a
left-field question.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5