From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.11.04.07.10.232697{at}shultzinfosystems.com...
> 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.

Agree that it should be looked at. I would think that that while they are
24 x 7 they should have the same benefits.

>
> 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 guess they figure the only way out will be to live long enough to retire

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


Rumsfield is a very bright and very glib speaker.

Bob Lewis

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